MEASURING AND LABELING
DEVIANCE, CONTINUED
Oct. 15, 2008
Victimization per 1,000 population
VIOLENT CRIME RATES,
1973-2005 (NCVS)
60
52.3
51.2
47.7
45
42.0
30
21.0
15
0
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
© David Schweingruber 2008
© David Schweingruber 2008
553.6
600
450
300
HOMICIDE RATES, 1900-2002
519.9
496.1
348.9
150
154.0
0
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
© David Schweingruber 2008
Victimization per 100,000 population
Victimization per 1,000 households
PROPERTY CRIME RATES,
1973-2005 (NCVS)
12
10.2
9.7
9
6
5.6
5.5
3
4.0
1.2
0
1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
© David Schweingruber 2008
HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION
BY AGE, 2002
30.0
Victimization per 100,000 population
Victimization per 100,000 population
HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION
BY GENDER & RACE, 2002
22.5
15.0
7.5
0
total
male
female
white
black
20
15
10
5
0
Under 14
14-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50+
Age
© David Schweingruber 2008
HOMICIDES BY GENDER & RACE
OF VICTIM & OFFENDER, 2002
Female on female
2.4%
Other
Black on white 1.4%
8.1%
White on black
3.2%
Female on male
9.9%
White on white
45.7%
Male on female
22.6%
Male on male
65.1%
Black on black
41.6%
© David Schweingruber 2008
© David Schweingruber 2008
LABELING THEORY
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
© David Schweingruber 2008
DEVIANCE BY SOC 134
STUDENTS
1.3%
58.5%
40.3%
CAREER TESTING
Underage alcohol purchase
Never
1.7%
2.5%
41.1%
57.2%
42.4%
55.1%
Smoked marijuana
DUI
Not arrested
0.8%
0.8%
22.5%
76.7%
23.7%
75.4%
Drag racing
Driving without license
Arrested
© David Schweingruber 2008
DEVIANCE BY SOC 134
STUDENTS
0.4%
21.2
78.4
1.7%
31.4
66.9
Fake ID
0.8%
0.8%
THE SAINTS AND THE
ROUGHNECKS
0.4%
11.4
87.7
41.5
57.6
50.0
49.6
Shoplifting under $20 Shoplifting over $20 Vandalized property Stole from hotel room
Never
Not arrested
© David Schweingruber 2008
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
Arrested
© David Schweingruber 2008
© David Schweingruber 2008
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
© David Schweingruber 2008