DESCRIPTION OF HYPOTHESIS/TOPIC My hypothesis was created as we looked at labelling theory in school and closely linked it to crime. This made me think that labelling is unfair as it can affect a person’s future and social lifestyle due to them being labelled as deviant or a criminal. This topic is also a major concern for many Sociologists as they have investigated and carried out a varied amount of studies to prove the theory of labelling linked with crime.
Crime is specifically associated with behaviour that breaks the formal written laws made by the Government within a particular society. An example is that seatbelts must be worn whilst driving a car however if a person breaks this law, it will be considered a crime. Deviant behaviour is an act that strays away from the norms, rules, roles and values within a culture. Today, we have a wide variety of laws set in place by the Government to prevent civilians from harm however some laws mould in with deviant behaviour for example it is a norm for underage drinking in the West of Scotland.
Also, law has changed over the years. For example, it used to be legal for men to rape their wife but it ventually became illegal to commit this act and consequences have now been put in place e. g. prison. Therefore, crime is relative to society and is a social construct. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMMEN SENSE VIEW AND SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION There are numerous differences between common-sense view and sociological explanations of society and social behaviour.
Firstly, common sense explanations of social behaviour are simply opinions, beliefs and assumptions made within society, thus they are naturalistic and individualistic views. They often have no research to justify their xplanation, hence they lack objectivity. Therefore, a common- sense view on crime and deviance is that the criminal is simply “bad”, “greedy” and/or “selfish”. Some may also believe they commit these acts due to the lack of the money they have.
They blame the criminal’s financial crisis on the criminal themselves and don’t take in any bigger scale factors that could be affecting their social life and preventing them from having a good job. On the other hand, a sociological explanation of social behaviour is objective as they use research, theories and conduct surveys/ ests to produce their explanation. Therefore, they do not make any assumptions on opinion/beliefs. They also look at wider social forces such as the structure of society, role of institutions and systems, social interactions and the historical development of society.
A sociological explanation behind criminal/deviant behaviour could be that the individual has been socialised poorly and has ended up having to steal and be deviant to gain the attention they crave as a child which could then develop into a more serious crime in the future. EXPLANATION OF TOPIC/HYPOTHESIS I have decided to use the theories Labelling and Marxism to prove my hypothesis. Labelling theory believe that the label given to a criminal (“thief”, “criminal”, “selfish”, “greedy”) can alter and change other people’s opinions of the individual and their new label overrules the label of the person being a “father”, “mother” etc.
Thus, preventing the individual from fitting into the mass society and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Often those labelled as these roles create their own sub-culture and begin to carry out the expected deviant and criminal behaviour. Labelling theorists also emphasise that once labelled it is extremely difficult to mask the mark which is why most criminals end up continuing their illegal behaviour further. Research evidence to prove this was written by a BBC article in 2010 which concluded that almost 50% of all criminals reoffend.
As a whole, labelling theory supports my hypothesis that Labelling contributes greatly to explanations of the causes of crime and deviance. Marxism theory links with labelling and crime to show evidence that many individuals are labelled in a way that benefits the middle/upper class and capitalism. The police’s reaction between deviant behaviour from lower classes is tougher in comparison to their reaction with higher classes. Marxists see the ruling class using crime to their advantage as a mean of social control.
Marxists refer to crimes that tend to be committed by the more powerful in society as White Colour Crimes. These are ignored and very rarely brought to society’s attention whereas crimes committed by the less powerful in society such as theft are focused on/seen as more serious. This shows that different social classes are policed differently as olice label lower classes as “deviant” and “always causing trouble” but upper class as “avoiding trouble”.
As a whole, Marxist theory supports my hypothesis that labelling contributes greatly to explanations of the causes of crime and deviance. RESEARCH EVIDENCE A study written by Jock Young called “A study of Marijuana Smokers” is further research evidence to prove that labelling has a major impact on society. He used many research methods to collect the information needed. In this study, Jock Young investigated the police’s reaction to a group of Marijuana smokers in Nottinghill, London.
Young examined that the police soon labelled them as ‘dirty, scruffy, idle, drug addicts’ which he suggested could ‘fundamentally alter and transform the social world of the marijuana smoker’. Thus, the group created a self- fulfilling prophecy as the hippies began to behave in a manner that was expected of their behaviour. Therefore, the police began treating them differently and began to distance them from mainstream society and culture. The hippies began to limit themselves into smaller groups and excluded ‘straights’ to protect the overall privacy of the group. Thus, created a deviant elf-concept.
A deviant self-concept is a general term used to refer to how someone or a group thinks about, evaluates and perceives themselves due to construction of their beliefs which other people hold – which in this case would be the beliefs the people have over hippies. This study shows that by the police labelling these marijuana smokers as, “dirty, scruffy, idle, drug addicts” this therefore resulted in this group carrying out the expected behaviour. Therefore, Jock Young shows throughout his study that labelling contributes greatly to the causes of crime and deviance within society.
A second study by William Chambliss (1973) – “The Saints and the Roughnecks” shows two American delinquent gangs from the same city which provides evidence that the police are bias towards the working class and favour the upper class. The ‘Roughnecks’ were a gang of working class boys that often took part in fights, stealing etc. , which neither the police nor the community appreciated. Both began to label them as a ‘bad bunch of boys’ and the police arrested them with ease and little doubt. However, the ‘Saints’ were a group middle class boys who came from a wealthy background ith good money, education, housing.
None of this whole group ever received so much as a ticket for any offence even though they carried out more delinquent acts than the ‘Roughnecks’ – drink driving, stealing, placing obstacles across roads after sharp turns to catch out drivers-. This study as a whole, shows how the police labelled the two groups unfairly due to their social class position despite the fact that the higher class were a more delinquent group of boys than the lower CONCLUSION Overall, my report proves my hypothesis that labelling contributes greatly to explanations of the causes of crime and eviance.
Throughout, I represent relevant information that are backed up by my theories (Labelling and Marxism) to support the explanation that labelling an individual in a negative way such as being a “criminal” can vastly decrease their success in a society and potentially create more crime in later years as this new label domineers any original labels of the individual being a “father” etc. As a whole, this report shows that labelling does contribute to the explanations of crime and deviance however there is still a great deal more to explaining this topic through a sociological