NCJ Number
134941
Date Published
1992
Length
44 pages
Annotation
Labeling theory and deterrence theory are examined as two divergent points of view about the impact of the law on social problems the law is intended to solve.
Abstract
From a deterrence perspective, the criminalization of an activity is supposed to reduce the involvement of those punished and inhibit involvement in the rest of the population. Labeling theorists have challenged such notions, arguing that criminalization can transform minor problems into major ones by creating new dimensions of the problem and by increasing the criminal involvement of those labeled or punished. Research on issues of general deterrence has progressed from the study of capital punishment to the study of the relationship between perceived risk of punishment and self-reported delinquent behavior to field observation and experiments. There is still no evidence that capital punishment has a general deterrent impact on criminal homicide or on other capital crimes. Research, however, tends to support the conclusion that the greater the threat of punishment for crime and juvenile delinquency, the lower the involvement in crime and juvenile delinquency. Labeling theorists are often unclear about whether law enforcement increases the magnitude of the specific activity toward which it is directed or adds new dimensions to the total crime problem. Arguments of labeling theorists seem to apply best to the latter possibility, although arguments about secondary effects of drug legislation have been challenged by critics of the labeling perspective. Issues of specific deterrence versus specific labeling effects are considered, particularly in the context of the social meaning of sanctions and juvenile delinquency. 100 references and 3 figures