Use of Marxism and Labelling Theories in Youth Crime

Essay, Pages 4 (918 words)

Views

A wealth of theoretical and empirical research has been devoted to causal explanations of youth offending, and to identifying risk factors that lead to delinquent criminal behaviour. Through the lens of risk factors, researchers have viewed youth offenders as those who are living in poverty while lacking in confidence (Lerner & Galambos, 1998), and having poor self-concept and low self-esteem resultant of negative labels (Brook, Whitman, Balka & Cohen, 1997). The effects of poverty and class-based inequalities on youth offending can be explained by Marxist Theory, Labelling Theory outlines why delinquents are often assigned negative roles that ultimately further encourage offending behaviour.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Use of Marxism and Labelling Theories in Youth Crime ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Marxist Theory, in the context of criminology, claims that through the struggle for resources in capitalism, crime arises as those on the bottom push for social, political, and economic equality (O’Malley, 1987). Class inequality is important for understanding crime causation, particularly that of youth offenders. Most early criminological theorising can be viewed as endeavours to gain an understanding of the life circumstances of the lower class that lead to the high rates of youth offending as demonstrated in official statistics (Cohen, 1995; Miller 1958; Shaw & McKay, 1942).

It is undeniable that theories of crime have been enriched by insights regarding the structural and behavioural implications of class-based inequalities. Most theories that consider class as an important predictor of delinquency agree that the lower classes are more likely to be involved in serious crimes with frequent patterns of offending (Thornberry & Smeja, 1983; Colvin & Pauly, 1983). Gordon’s (1973) insightful works on class and delinquency further suggest that lifestyles and attitudes among the poor increase the likelihood of their involvement in street crimes.

Hipp’s later research (2004) also demonstrated that overall income inequality is associated with higher crime rates. This wealth of literature strongly supports the premise that youth offenders are often the victims of poverty and class-based inequalities.

Labelling theory assumes that although deviant behaviour can initially arise from various factors, once individuals have been labelled or defined as deviants, they often face new problems that emerge from the reactions of others to negative stereotypes that are associated to the deviant label (Lemert, 1967). Deviant labelling can have a deep, detrimental impact on the view of an individual’s social standing and thus is a critical step towards constructing a stable pattern of youth offending and delinquency (Becker, 1963). According to labelling theory, being cast deviant roles increases the probability of involvement in youth offending because it triggers feelings of exclusion that have negative consequences for conventional opportunities (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). Sampson and Laub (1997) suggest that labelling is one factor that leads to “cumulative disadvantage” in future life circumstances and therefore increases the probability of involvement in deviance and delinquency. Due to the extensive cultural imagery attached to deviant statuses, people tend to assume that deviants possess undesirable traits purportedly associated with their status. Youth that are labelled as criminals or delinquents tend to be cast aside as fundamentally different from others, and they tend to be associated with stereotypes of unwanted traits or characteristics (Link & Phelan, 2001). Becker (1963) argued that the deviant status may supersede and become the main status for the individual, that is, the negative connotations attached to the deviant label can override other attributes a person may have.

Where class-based inequalities and deviant labelling intersect is in discrimination. An important aspect of labelling theory argues that disadvantaged groups, such as victims of poverty, are more likely than other groups to experience labelling. Aggressive policing of lower-class societies increases the likelihood of lower-class people experiencing police intervention (Smith, Visher & Davidson, 1984). Moreover, stereotypes of these disadvantaged groups often encompass illustrations of criminality and dangerousness (Quillian & Pager, 2001), and hence members of lower-class groups may be more readily policed, sanctioned, and stigmatised, whether any actual criminal offending has taken place or not (Warren, Tomaskovic-Devey, Smith, Zingraff & Mason, 2006). Research has found that encounters between police and citizens are more likely to result in an arrest if the citizen is of low-socioeconomic status, regardless of the nature and severity of the offence (Worden & Shepard, 1996). These same individuals are therefore more vulnerable to deviant labelling. Due to stereotypes that associate criminality with poverty and lower-class, members of such groups are more likely to be associated with criminal stigma. Berburg and Krohn (2003) suggested that deviant labelling may be more likely to trigger stigma for youth who are victims of poverty because they are already associated with the stigma to begin with. The attitudes of others towards youth defined as deviants tend to be shaped by negative stereotypes, and thus these same youth experience stereotypical expectations of themselves. This kind of perception of oneself from the point of view of others may lead to a shift in self-concept, causing the individual to begin seeing themselves as a deviant person, taking on the role of the deviant, and therefore, a youth offender (Matseuda, 1992).

Social class has long been a central explanatory variable in theories of youth crime and delinquency, with poverty and class-based inequalities being closely associated with deviant labels. Both Marxist Theory and Labelling Theory provide an understanding of the relationship between these two factors and youth offending. With the lower social class already being victim to more aggressive policing and higher stigmatisation, it is difficult for youth to avoid some level of trouble with the law. The stigma attached to this criminal labelling promotes widespread distrust and disdain for these individuals which negatively affects their self-concept. These attitudes ultimately motivate and control a youth’s behaviour towards these labels and encourage them to offend, creating a vicious cycle of offending that is difficult to escape.