Labeling theory is among the most important angles to understanding condemnable and aberrant behaviour. One of the basic and chief statement of labeling theory is that there is no making that is of course criminal. Personalities in power define criminalism by developing Torahs which are implemented by the jurisprudence tribunals. constabulary. and correctional organic structures ( Cullen. 1988 ) . It chiefly argues that the strong define footings for the weak. For case the rich for the hapless. adult male to adult female. aged people to younger 1s. and the bulk to the minority. Therefore. aberrance is non defined by individuals’ characters. but by the interface of the non-deviant and the pervert as interpreted by the jurisprudence.
The labeling theory gives an history of why offense occurs in the society. Harmonizing to the theory. once persons are labeled as pervert. they tend to accept the position and act in aberrant ways. The people labeled as pervert are non accepted in their society which leads to instances of stigmatisation and hence propagating offense ( Lawrence & A ; Felson. 1979 ) . The label affects the persons even if they decide to conform to the norms of the society. An illustration is people with condemnable records find it difficult to procure occupation chances. This increases unemployment which plays a cardinal function in increased condemnable activity.
Harmonizing to the labeling theoreticians. penalty is non a solution to cut downing offense rate in a given society. In fact. they argue that penalty can intensify little offense issues into bigger 1s. The theory displacements focus from the felon to the reactor on the offense. It suggests that. for penalty to be effectual. the incorrect act should be condemned without reprobating the personality of the felon ( Schmid & A ; Jones. 1991 ) . However. disincentive theory gives a beliing perceptual experience from that of the labeling theory on penalty. It believes that penalty helps the punished individuals cut down their battle in improper Acts of the Apostless and transfuse fright to the remainder of the population refering offense.
Social larning theory posits that persons tend to larn condemnable attitudes and pattern from their equals practising illegal workss. Peoples engage in offense if they believe they will harvest more benefit compared to the inauspicious effects involved. Therefore. penalty does non needfully cut down the rate of offense in instance the sensed benefits of offense outdo the effects. This makes the condemnable labeling theory related to the societal acquisition as they both argue against penalty as the best signifier of offense decrease ( Cullen. 1988 ) .
Social control theory can besides be related to the labeling theory. It is believed that all individuals have the impulse to perpetrate a offense. nevertheless. the society bond and values help in killing such motivations in many people ( Lawrence & A ; Felson. 1979 ) . The theory besides assumes that constructing strong self-image among persons helps to cut down their impulse to perpetrate a offense. Therefore. labeling the incorrect actors adversely affects the self-image of affected persons and hence increase their desire to perpetrate a offense.
From a labeling position. some of the few policy suggestions include. equal application of jurisprudence across the societal category and other societal differences. no stigmatisation after penalty. and negative societal labels should non be made before one is found guilty and the label should be removed one time the victim has served his/her penalty. Labeling theory assumes that influential people in society make Torahs for the less influential citizens. A policy to do these Torahs applicable every bit even to the jurisprudence shapers will heighten sound jurisprudence devising determinations. Social labels tend to stigmatise the victims even after they have turned away from condemnable activities. Policies to debar such stigma will do penalties bring forth positive consequences and enhance values in the society.
Cullen. F. T. ( 1988 ) . Were Cloward and Ohlin Strain Theorists? Delinquency and Opportunity Revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 214-241.
Lawrence. C. . & A ; Felson. M. ( 1979 ) . Social Change and Crime Rate Tendencies: A Everyday Activities Approach. American Sociological Review. 588-608.
Schmid. T. . & A ; Jones. R. ( 1991 ) . Suspended Identity: Identity Transformation in a Maximum Security Prison. Symbolic Interaction. 4. 415-432.