RUNNING HEAD: STREET CRIME: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Street Crime: A Criminological Perspective
Joshua A. Ramirez
CRIJ 1301
April 11, 2016
Professor Scott Mann
1
STREET CRIME: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
2
Street Crime: A Criminological Perspective
When attempting to explain the causation of crime, much focus has been given to
individuality. It was once natural to assume that all the answers lied within the biological and
physical boundaries of criminality. However, today it is a known fact that humans are creatures
whom are extraordinarily sensitive to their immediate surroundings and in effect respond by
adjusting their overall persona according to said immediate surroundings. Whether it be culture,
kinship, immediate peers, or the media, it is human nature to respond. This truth lies within the
heart of both the labeling and social learning theory.
Labeling Theory
Since its initial development back in the 1960s, the labeling theory has exerted high
influence on the theoretical discussions surrounding criminal and non-criminal deviant behavior.
The theoretical impact is rooted in a revolutionary way of shifting the focus of its analysis (the
supposed criminal) and examining the true perpetrator (the community and the justice system)
and its overarching influence in not only inciting (and arguably creating) crime but also
criminalizing the disobedience even further (imprisonment) (Becker, 1963). In other words, the
labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent to an act, but instead the result of the
externally-imposed label of “deviant” (Becker, 1963). Criminal behavior then becomes a selffulfilling prophecy. An individual who is negatively labeled as a deviant has little choice but to
conform to the essential meaning of that judgment.
Formal vs. Informal Labeling
Studies have demonstrated mixed results. Some have found that being officially labeled a
criminal (e.g., arrested or convicted) increased subsequent crime, while other studies did not.
Recent theoretical work, however, has revised the theory to take account of past problems
STREET CRIME: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
3
(Anderson, 2009). More attention is now being devoted to informal labeling, such as labeling by
parents, peers, and teachers. Informal labeling is said to have a greater effect on subsequent
crime than official labeling. Ross Matsueda [2009] argued the reasons why individuals may be
informally labeled as delinquents, noting that such labeling is not simply a function of official
labeling, such as being arrested and charged for a crime. Informal labeling is also influenced by
the individual's delinquent behavior and by their position in society—with powerless individuals
being more likely to be labeled (e.g., urban, minority, lower-class, adolescents) (Anderson,
2009). Matsueda [2009] also argued that informal labels affect individuals' subsequent level of
crime by affecting their perceptions of how others see them (Anderson, 2009). If individuals
believe that others see them as delinquents and trouble-makers, they are more likely to act in
accordance with this perception and engage in further delinquency. Data provides some support
for these arguments. Additionally, the next paragraph serves to describe in greater detail these
external perceptions.
Symbolic Interactionism
George Herbert Mead [1960], a forerunning pioneer of the labeling theory believed that
“the self” is socially constructed and reconstructed through the external interactions each
individual has with the community (Gave, 1975). Mead believed that self-awareness is created
within the individual through interplay between the person and his or her environment. This
individual is treated in a certain way, as a person with certain characteristics, and by accepting
the image of himself thus conveyed, he acquires a self-concept (Lemert, 1972). Experience has
taught us that this concept is applicable not only to a grown individual from a minority group
who is pinned with labels such as “cholo” or “gangster” by the authorities (formal labeling), but
even further back in time, such as in grade-school, when a developing child is labeled as
STREET CRIME: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
4
“incompetent” or “not smart”, or even “disobedient” by the teacher (an informal labeler) in front
of the whole class. Ostracism and a negative traits seen by this child’s immediate peers may
arguably follow and the impact left on this child as a lifetime crutch in which to live with. As
Mead [1960] would claim, the basis on which a person gains experience of himself (incompetent,
bad, disobedient) as someone with a certain identity (bad student), is his ability to see himself
through the eyes of others (Gave, 1975).
Social Learning Theory
According to the social learning theory, juveniles learn to engage in crime in the same
way they learn to engage in conforming behavior: through association with, or exposure to others
(Anderson, 2009). The general culture and structure of society and the distinctive communities,
groups, and other contexts of social interaction “provide learning environments, which the
normality of things define what is accepted and rejected, behavioral models are present, and the
reactions of other people and the existence of other stimuli attach different reinforcing or
punishing consequences to individuals’ behavior” (Akers, 2000, p. 111). Some groups that may
function with said stimuli are, for example, “primary” or “intimate” groups like the family and
peer group have an especially large impact on what we learn. In all actuality, association with
lawbreaking friends is the best predictor of delinquency other than prior delinquency (Anderson,
2009).
Differential Reinforcement
The theory of differential association, put forth by Edwin H. Sutherland [1965], is a
learning theory which formulates the individual’s process, whereby criminal behavior is learned
in association with those who have criminal attitudes and values, as compared to associations
with those who have noncriminal attitudes and values (Jeffery, 1965). Data indicates that
STREET CRIME: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
5
individuals who are reinforced towards crime are more likely to engage in subsequent crime,
especially when the individual reengages in situations similar to prior activities (Gottfredson,
1990). This theory assumes that:

The reinforcing quality of different stimuli vary from actor to actor, depending on the
past conditioning history of each one.

Some individuals have been reinforced for criminal behavior whereas other individuals
have not been.

Some individuals have been punished for criminal behavior, whereas other individuals
have not been.

An individual will be intermittently reinforced and/or punished for criminal behavior, that
is, he will not be reinforced or punished every time he commits a criminal act. (Jeffery,
1965)
Other individuals may not only reinforce our crime; they may also teach us beliefs favorable to
crime. Most individuals, of course, are taught that crime is bad or wrong. They eventually accept
or "internalize" this belief, and they are less likely to engage in crime as a result. Some
individuals, however, learn beliefs that are favorable to crime and they are more likely to engage
in crime as a result (Sutherland & Cressey, 1992).
Conclusion
In summation, the exterior environment that surrounds a person has a great influence
upon probability of criminality. From verbal cues and conditioning (labeling) to role modeling
and examples (social learning), human nature, the criminal part, at least, is a by-product of
nothing more than other people's behavior. Some humans are just more prone to reflect the
negative.
STREET CRIME: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
6
References
Akers, R. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.
Anderson, M.L. & Taylor, H.F. (2009). Sociology: The Essentials. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociological of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gave, W. (1975). The Labelling of Deviance. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Jeffery, C.R. (1965). Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory. The Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology & Police Sci., 56, 294.
Lemert, E. (1972). Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control (2nd ed.). Englewood,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sutherland, E. & Cressey, D.R. (1992). Principles of Criminology. (11th ed.). Cumnor Hill, OX:
General Hall.