Topic 2 - Interactionism + labelling theory - The social construction of crime

Labelling theorists interested in how + why certain acts can be defined as criminal in 1st place. Argue no act inherently criminal in itself, in all situations + at all times. Only comes to be when other label it as criminal. 

Becker - deviant someone the label has been applied to successfully. Leads labelling theorists to look at how + why rules/laws get made. Particularly interested in moral entrepreneurs (people who lead moral 'crusade' to change law). B argues new law has 2 effects:
 - creation of new group of 'outsiders' - outlaws/deviants who break new rule
 - creation/expansion of social control agency (eg police) to enforce rule + impose labels on offenders.

Platt (1969) - idea of 'juvenile delinquency' originally created as result of campaign by u/c Victorian moral entrepreneurs, aimed at young people at risk. Established 'juveniles' as separate category of offender w/ own courts - enabled state to extend powers beyond criminal offences involving young, into 'status offences' eg truancy.

B - social control agencies may also campaign for change in law to increase own power, eg US Fed Bureau of Narcotics campaigned for passing of Marijuana Tax Act 1937 to outlaw marijuana use - successful

Whether person is arrested, charged + convicted depends on factors eg:
 - interactions w/ agencies of social control
 - appearance, b/g + personal bio
 - situation + circumstances of offence.

-> labelling theorists look at how laws applied + enforced. Studies show agencies of social control more likely to label certain groups as deviant/criminal.

Eg Piliavin + Briar (1964) - found police decisions to arrest youth mainly based on physical cues, made judgements about youth's character. Decisions also influenced by gender, class + ethnicity along w/ time + place. 

Officers' decisions to arrest influenced by stereotypes about offenders. Cicourel (1968) - officers' typifications (stereotypes of what typical delinquent is like) -> concentrating on certain 'types'. Resulted in law enforcement showing class bias - w/c areas, people fitting typifications most closely -> police patrolling w/c areas more intensively -> more arrests, confirming stereotypes.

C found agents of social control w/n CJS reinforced bias. Eg, probation officers assumed juvenile delinquents from broken homes, poverty + lax parenting. Tended to see youths from these b/gs likely to offend in future, less likely to support non-custodial sentences for them.

In C's view, justice not fixed but negotiable, eg m/c youth arrested, less likely to be charged, partly b/c b/g doesn't fit typifications. Parents more likely to be able to negotiate successfully on behalf of youth -> typically 'counselled, warned + released + rather than prosecuted.

C's study - implications for use we make of official crime stats. Argues stats don't give valid picture of patterns of crime, can't be used as resource - as facts about crime.

Instead, should treat them as topic for socio's to investigate. Must not take stats at face value, should investigate processes that created them. Will shed light on activities of control agencies + how they process + label certain types of people as criminal.

Interactionists - official crime stats socially constructed. Each stage CJS, agents of social control make decisions on whether to proceed to next stage. Outcome depends on label applied to individual. Stats produced by CJS only tell us about activities of police + prosecutors rather than amount of crime. Really just counts of decisions.

- dark figure of crime - diff b/ween official stats + 'real' rate of crime - don't know how much crime goes undetected

- alternative stats - eg victim surveys/self-report studies to gain more accurate view of amount of crime. 

Interactionists - official crime stats socially constructed. Each stage CJS, agents of social control make decisions on whether to proceed to next stage. Outcome depends on label applied to individual. Stats produced by CJS only tell us about activities of police + prosecutors rather than amount of crime. Really just counts of decisions.

- dark figure of crime - diff b/ween official stats + 'real' rate of crime - don't know how much crime goes undetected

- alternative stats - eg victim surveys/self-report studies to gain more accurate view of amount of crime.