Name: Title: Institution: Labeling Theory This research puts into consideration the labelling theory as an illustrative model for the hypothesis of criminal law-disregarding conduct. The study presumes that for that infringement of the criminal law that have customarily involved the community and the crime victims. There are various research journal articles backing the labelling theory based on the analytical details that have been labeled and comparative of the fundamentals of the theory. Labelling hypothesis concentrates on the authority response to crime and makes a nonsensical contention in regards to the reasons for committing a crime. The theory connects deviance to the response of the individuals.
Fourth, When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which is sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. Fifth, the specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. Sixth, a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law. Seventh, Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Eighth, the process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty.
It has been observed that there are numerous researches conducted on youth crime particularly in the United Kingdom which gave the emphasis on young individuals as offenders instead of victims of crime. Moreover, radical criminology significantly contributed to understand the youth crime through different theories. According to Yar (2012), radical criminology is known as the conflict philosophy. It centres its perceptions on crime and on regulation in the faith that capitalist civilisations precipitate as well as describe crime as the possessors by sense of production utilise their influence to endorse commandments that would regulate the working class and suppress intimidations to the supremacy of the governing class. Radical criminology draws together the studies of interactionism, labelling, Marxism, critical criminology and gender which provide the understanding of youth crime from different perspective as discussed in the paper.
The impact of crime on an individual victim, their loved ones, and their community depend on a variety of factors but often crime victimization has significant emotional, psychological, physical, financial and social consequences. This paper aims to relate the advices provided by University of Botswana Security Services regarding victimization and crime prevention with Routine Activity Theory. As stated above crime is any act
Sutherland’s first three principles discuss how criminal behaviour is learned within intimate personal groups and through a process of communication (Lilly, Ball & Cullen, 2015, p. 45). This fits with the family. One can use Leonardo as an example. Due to the fact that he grew up in a family that was very involved with crime, Leonardo would have been exposed with criminal culture growing up more than conventional culture, which according to Sutherland, would allow him to accept the criminal lifestyle easier. This point also fits in with principle six states that a person will get involved in criminal activity due to: “an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law” (Lilly, Ball & Cullen, 2015, p. 45).
Symbolic interactionist theorize that individuals can construct symbolic meanings differently and it is these differences that create distinct social interactions. Therefore, differences in identity can be explained through how people interpret symbols and are maintained through social interactions. As a result, in this theory, criminal behaviors, such as theft, are acquired through interaction with others who also engage in frequent, deviant behavior. Someone who steals is therefore viewed as simply a product of their environment. Since behavior and identity are dictated through social interaction, the person who steals is expected to also engage in the same deviant behavior as those with whom he interacts.
The rational choice theory states that the criminals have time to make their decision, and choose to engage in criminal activities. The individual focuses on himself or herself, and views the personal gain, and does not worry about others around him or her. In contrast, the social disorganization theory describes an individual within a vile social environment that influences an individual’s response to engage in criminal behavior. This theory mainly applies to those impoverished, and individuals with broken homes, or
For criminal behavior to be biologically determined the person would have to have a mental illness that causes them to commit violent crimes. “To get a full understanding of genes and how the environment influences criminal behavior, you must know the definition of criminal behavior. Law is defined by societal and legal institutions in our society, not in sciences. Therefore, determining criminal behavior can range in a wide variety of criminal activities and for this very reason, researchers focus on antisocial behavior” (Holmes). Criminal activity can lead to arresting, convictions, and prison for adults.
Historically Social Learning Theory was developed by “Ronald L. Akers and Robert R. Burgess” from “Differential Theory by Edwin Sutherland”, in his study Sutherland stated that “Criminal behavior is learned through observation of acts by peers and environment.” In social learning theory (Albert Bandura 1977) agrees with the behavior learning theories of classical conditioning and operant conditioning. However, he adds two important ideas: 1.Mediating processes occur between stimuli & responses 2.Behavior is learned from the environment through the process of observational learning. Considering the generality of the theory as an explanation for an individual’s participation in(or lack thereof) prosocial and pro-criminal behaviors,more attention is devoted in the following paragraphs to fleshing out the foir central concepts of Aker’s social learning theory that have received considerable(yet varying) amounts of attention and emperical support in the criminological literature: Differential Association, Definitions, Differential Reinforcement,and imitation(Akers, 1985,1998;Akers et