1 of 2

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 3

not provide any support to the legitimacy of labeling theory; if anything, it gave evidence to labeling theory's opponents. However, in another study conducted among students, formal and informal labels were tested for validity. It concluded that a juvenile's teachers are possibly the most "important sources of negative labeling." The study also pointed to peer-labeling as a significant predictor of serious delinquency. It showed that family-labeling did not hold much significance. These results do not account for other factors, however. The individuals involved in the experiment may very well be affected by the logistics of other theories (for example, the forces of strain theory, social learning theory, and/or social control theory could be at work). Additionally, unlike the study on inmates, this basically focused on youths who had not yet committed serious crime, and their labels were, for the most part, informal (5).

Finally, the usefulness and policy implications of labeling theory need to be explored. "Labeling theory may help explain why some youths continue down the path of anti-social behaviors (they are labeled), whereas most are able to desist from a crime (they are stigma-free)" (1). While the results may be divided, because there is even a marginal implication, the question of whether or not applying negative stigmas to juveniles effects their behavior needs to be addressed in policy-making. If any, or at least a decent amount of evidence, points toward the negative implications of stigmas, it would be wise to force institutions to avoid them altogether, or to at least keep them at bay unless absolutely necessary.

Overall, labeling theory appears to be a shaky and marginally supported theory at best. There are some studies that hold that stigmatizing labels generally feed a self-fulfilling prophecy to juveniles, supporting social labeling theory. On the other hand, there are a number of studies and research evidence that says that stigmatizing labels have no effect on juveniles' behavior; some, although very few, even hold that stigmatizing labels actually reduce delinquent acts. It is a "right and wrong" theory. Social labeling theory really deals with how "society reacts to individuals" and how "individuals react to society." There lies the problemit is too broad of a concept. Some juveniles are stigmatized by their teachers, or stigmatized by law enforcement (formal labels), but are positively reinforced by their parents and family. Others are stigmatized by their parents and/or their family (informal labels), yet are positively reinforced by their teachers or other official institutions (1). If proponents of social labeling theory can devise a way to account for individual distinctiveness, they can give the theory more respectability and make it more acceptable. As of now, social labeling theory is an unstable and unsound theory, with little credibility.

Sources:
(1) Seigel, Larry J. Juvenile Delinquency. Belmont: Wadsworth Group, 2002.
(2) Clarke, Walter V. "The Problem of Labeling: The Semantics of Behavior." A Review of General Semantics. Academic Search Premier. Vol 55 Issue 4 p404. Fort Worth, 1998, 1999.
(3) Fernald, Charles D. and Gettys, Linda. "Diagnostic Labels and Perceptions of Children's Behavior." Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. Academic Search Premier. Vol 9 Issue 3 p229. New Jersey, 1980.
(4) Bench, Lawrence L. and Allen, Terry D. "Investigating the Stigma of Prison Classification: An Experimental Design." Prison Journal. Vol. 83 Issue 4 p367. Thousand Oaks, California, Dec 2003.
(5) Adams, Mike S. et. al. "Labeling and Delinquency." Adolescence. Academic Search Premier. Vol 38 Issue 149 p171. San Diego, 2003.

Learn more about this author, Art Vandelay.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3

Add your voice

Know something about Evaluating Labeling Theory of Juvenile Delinquency?
We want to hear your view. Write now!