Key points about crime trends
People most fear “random crime”
• Patternless: It can happen to anyone
• Increasing: Crime is getting worse
• Pointless: Criminal motives make no sense
Labeling Theory
But none of these claims are true
• Crime is not random: it is stratified by gender, race, class
and age
• Official crime is currently declining
• Criminals have reasons for committing crimes
Oct. 13, 2006
http://www.iastate.edu/~soc.134
© 2006 David Schweingruber
Victimization per 1,000 population
60
50 47.7
52.3
40
51.2
42.0
30
20
22.8
10
600.0
500.0
553.6
519.9
496.1
400.0
348.9
300.0
200.0
154.0
100.0
0.0
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
0
Property crime rates, 1973-2005 (NCVS)
Victimization per 1,000 households
Violent crime rates, 1973-2002 (NCVS)
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
Homicide rates for 20th Century
6
5.5
4.0
2
0
1.2
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
Victimization per 100,000
25.0
8
4
Homicide victimization by gender & race, 2002 (UCR)
10.2
9.7
10
1900
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Victimization per 100,000
12
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
20.8
20.0
15.0
8.8
10.0
5.6
3.3
2.6
5.0
0.0
Total
Male
Female
White
Black
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
1
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Homicides by gender & race of victim & offender, 2002
Male on
male
65.1%
15.3
Black on
black
41.6%
White
on white
45.7%
11
5.7
4.5
2.5
1.5
Under 14
14-17
18-24
25-34
35–49
Female
on
female
2.4%
50+
Age
Female
on male
9.9%
Male on
female
22.6%
Other
1.4%
White
on black
3.2%
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
Labeling theory
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
Deviance by sociology 134 students
48.2%
4.7%
41.6%
38.9%
56.0%
56.4%
0.8%
2.3%
23.3%
19.9%
75.9%
77.7%
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
Deviance by sociology 134 students
2.7%
2.3%
0.8%
0.8%
40.6%
42.4%
59.0%
56.8%
11.7%
16.3%
36.7%
85.9%
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
The Saints and the Roughnecks
 Participant observation study by William Chambliss
 Shows role of class in labeling
 Saints
• Eight white, upper-middle class boys
• Constantly occupied with truancy, drinking, theft & vandalism
• Never arrested
 Roughnecks
• Six white, lower class boys
• Engaged in fighting, drinking and theft; less delinquent overall
• Constantly in trouble with police & community
Stole from
hotel room
Shoplifting
over $20
Shoplifting
under $20
60.5%
Vadalized
property
82.1%
Fake ID
Arrested
Not arrested
Never
1.6%
Drag racing
48.2%
2.3%
DUI
Arrested
Not arrested
Never
3.5%
Smoked
marijuana
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Underage
alcohol
purchase
 Labeling theory: theory which states that deviance is the consequence
of the application of rules and sanctions to an offender; a deviant is an
individual to whom the identity “deviant” has been successfully applied
 Two types of deviance
• Primary deviance: routine instances of norm violation that may or
may not result in labeling
• Secondary deviance: deviance following and resulting from the label
 Reasons why label may lead to deviance
1. Cut off from participation in conventional groups
2. Treatment may produce increasing deviance
3. Labeled person may believe the label
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Black on
white
8.1%
Driving
without
license
Victimization per 100,000
Homicide victimization by age, 2002 (UCR)
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
2
The Saints and the Roughnecks
 Why were the Saints and Roughnecks treated differently?
• Visibility: Saints owned their own cars and were able to leave town
• Demeanor: Saints were apologetic and penitent; Roughnecks
hostile and disdainful
• Bias: Community is biased against type of delinquency committed
by Roughnecks
 The delinquent label reinforced the Roughneck’s
delinquency
 Predictions about boys’ futures were correct
©©2006
2000David
DavidSchweingruber
Schweingruber
3