Deterrence and rational choice perspectives argue that formal sanctions and punishments will deter criminal behavior, yet research from the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that 62 percent of people released from prisons in the United States will be re-arrested within three years and 71 percent will be re-arrested within five years (Durose & Antenangeli, 2021). However, reviews of the research examining the effect of incarceration on crime show that, all else being equal, being incarcerated has very little criminogenic (crime-increasing) effect on future behavior (Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009). Plus, other studies have shown that youth who are diverted from the juvenile justice system (kept away from detention and formal punishment) are much less likely to engage in later criminal behavior when compared to youth who are formally processed by the juvenile justice system (Petrosino et al., 2010). Simply put, a bunch of research shows that the neoclassical perspective offers only a conflicting and incomplete explanation of criminal behavior.

There are lots of reasons why punishments in the United States may be ineffective at specific deterrence. However, a theoretical perspective discussed in Chapter 4 may offer another explanation. Think back to the labeling theories of Becker and Lemert. These theories suggested that once an individual is labeled, they may begin to identify with that label, and continue to engage in behaviors consistent with those labels. In other words, criminal sanctions may backfire because labeling someone as a “delinquent” or “criminal” may actually increase their future delinquency and criminal behavior.

Symbolic interactionism offers a framework for understanding this process. Because the way individuals see themselves is influenced by the perceptions of others, someone being either formally (by the state) or informally (by parents, teachers, or peers) labeled, can have deep meaning for a person’s understanding of themselves. The term looking glass self is used to describe the idea that a person’s identity is shaped by how they believe they are seen by significant others and society at-large (Cooley, 1922). Matsueda (1992) talks about these as reflected appraisals and has shown that self-perceptions as “delinquent” are influenced by parental appraisals. In addition to affecting one’s self-image, structural factors in society can also keep a person from seeing themselves differently from a delinquent identity, making them even more likely to engage in criminal behavior.

Braithwaite (1989) discusses how societies may engage in either reintegrative or disintegrative shaming. Societies with a strong emphasis on collectivism (they all take care of one another) tend to practice reintegrative shaming. This is the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach. In these societies, a person is separated from their behavior and, once they have served their sentence, welcomed back (reintegrated) into the community. Societies with a stronger emphasis on individualism (they only take care of themselves), on the other hand, tend to engage in disintegrative shaming. This leads to stigma and further exclusion from society. In the U.S., which has thousands of laws that exclude individuals with felony convictions from full participation in society (National Reentry Resource Center, 2022), labeling can cancel out any of the potential deterrent effects of a criminal sanction.

Labeling theories arose during the turbulent decades of the 1960s and 1970s. They are informed by conflict perspectives (discussed in Chapter 4) which challenge traditional criminological perspectives such as strain, learning, and control theories. Those who support conflict theories argue that conventional criminological theories assume that societies are built on consensus, or shared ideas about what is right and wrong. However, the conflict perspective includes claims that societies are better characterized by conflict and power differentials between groups organized along race, class, gender, religion, and other dimensions (e.g., disability, sexual orientation). They claim that rather than reflecting a broad consensus, the criminal law reflects the interests of the most powerful groups in society (men, the wealthy, Whites, Protestants, heterosexuals).

Neoclassical theories (particularly deterrence) and labeling theories make opposite predictions about the role of formal (and informal) sanctions on later criminal behavior. Because both perspectives emphasize the importance of how social institutions (like labels, sanctions) react to and influence criminal behavior, they are sometimes referred to as theories of societal reaction (see Cullen et al., 2008). Even though they are quite different, each has an important contribution to make to the understanding of crime.