THE IRONY OF STATE INTERVENTION
LABELING THEORY
The government believes incapacitating, scaring straight, or rehabilitating reduces crime. However, labeling theorists believe it creates jobs for people in the criminal justice system. The reason behind the insinuation is the ironic consequence of the behavior meant to be stopped, which is instead deepened. Besides, so many people are in jail each day, about 2.4 Americans. The implication by labeling theorists is that state intervention is dangerously criminogenic. In the past, crime was defined as any behavior which violates criminal laws, which made labeling theorists seek to correct the oversight. They stated that what makes an act criminal is not the harm it incurs, but rather the state confers the label. Therefore, the nature of societal reaction and reality it constructs is not the binding nature of the act per se that determines whether a crime has occurred. For instance, killing is sometimes classified as homicide and sometimes not, whereas murder implies taking a life that doesn’t matter how it was performed. The result is that types of manslaughter are justified or excused regardless that a life was taken.
Through various studies labeling theorists have proved that the nature of state intervention was not a matter of objective response to illegal behavior but rather shaped intimately y a range of extralegal antigenic. The attention given to the criminal justice system decision was determined by individual characteristics such as gender, class, and race. The implication is that the criminal justice intervention can deepen the criminality went a long way back in 1938. Theorists stated that two types of deviance exist, which include primary and secondary deviance. Since societal reaction brings more crime, labeling theorists employed the self-fulfilling prophecy. The prophecy states that beginning a false definition of a situation evokes a new behavior which makes the initially false conception come true. Consistent with the reasoning, the labeling scholar said that most offenders are defined falsely as criminals. The observation made using the theory is that the meaning of label “criminal” in our society makes citizens assume about the offenders wrongly or partially accurate. The public scrutiny might shame some offenders into conforming, but for others, it’s the exact opposite in terms of impact.
Furthermore, when people are perceived as criminals, they mostly tend to cut off the previous pro-social relationships. The labeling theories have not escaped vast critical analysis. For instance, a line of conflict emanated from conflict or radical criminologists. However, they agreed that crime was socially constructed and that labels wee differently applied; they did not believe that labeling theorists went far enough in their analysis. The policy of decriminalization sparkled much debate, thus encouraging significant legal changes. The creation of diversions was opted as a solution to the problem of labeling theorists, thus giving them a reason to celebrate. Distractions include probation, thus reducing overcrowding in the prisons.
The labeling theorists took special pains in detailing the criminogenic effects of incarceration. They, therefore, vigorously advocated for policies to lessen the prison population via deinstitutionalization. A subsequent evaluation showed that recidivism rates went only slightly higher after the juvenile prisons were emptied. The idea was, therefore, entirely abandoned, and incarceration opted instead.