Deviance and Social Control: Sociology Lecture Part 1

Howard Becker's Labeling Theory argues that deviance is not inherent in actions but is socially constructed through the labels applied by society; the same physical act (like killing someone) can be labeled as heroic or criminal depending on the social context, and once labeled, individuals may internalize this identity and continue to act according to that label, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Howard Becker's labeling theory argues that deviance is not an inherent quality of an act but a consequence of the application of rules and sanctions by others. Deviance is a social construction created through social processes. Edwin Lemert distinguished between primary deviance (initial, often minor deviant acts) and secondary deviance (further deviance resulting from the labeling process). When individuals are labeled as deviant, they may internalize this identity, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where they continue to engage in deviant behavior because society treats them as such.

Labeling theory argues that deviance is socially constructed rather than inherent in behavior. The video explains that what constitutes deviance depends on societal reactions and interpretations, not on objective characteristics of the behavior itself. When individuals receive negative labels from society, they may internalize these labels and begin to see themselves as deviants. This self-fulfilling prophecy leads to secondary deviance, where individuals continue to engage in deviant behavior because they have accepted the deviant identity imposed upon them.

Labeling theory explains how deviance is socially constructed: (1) Labeling occurs in response to deviant acts and influences how actors are seen; (2) The process involves steps - first a deviant act, then identification with the act, then others expecting further deviance; (3) When someone responds to these expectations with deviant acts, it becomes secondary deviance; (4) Labeling is a social process involving both the deviant and those doing the labeling. Once labeled, individuals may be permanently labeled even if they stop the behavior, creating expectations that lead to continued deviance.

Howard Becker's labeling theory emphasizes how society attaches labels to individuals or groups, creating self-fulfilling prophecies. People develop self-images based on others' reactions toward them, and subsequently behave according to these labels. When powerful agencies classify people as deviant (such as labeling entire tribes as criminal), society responds with discrimination and prejudice. This forces labeled individuals into deviant roles as their only viable option for survival and acceptance. The label of criminality becomes a master label that overshadows other aspects of identity, ultimately causing people to internalize and enact the deviant behavior society expects of them.

The UK criminal justice system is a collective term for governmental agencies including the police, Ministry of Justice, Home Office, courts, Crown Prosecution Service, and prison service, which work together to protect the public, reduce offending, punish offenders, and uphold the law; however, sociological theories critique this system, with functionalists viewing it as maintaining social order through punishment, while Marxists argue it serves ruling class interests, and critical perspectives highlight ethnic disparities (evidenced by the McPherson and Lammy reports showing overrepresentation of ethnic minorities in custody) and feminist concerns about patriarchal biases in sentencing.

The criminal justice system maintains social order through three interconnected components: Law Enforcement (police), Adjudication (courts), and Corrections (prisons). Police perform essential functions including crime prevention, public order maintenance, emergency response, traffic control, investigation, and community service. Their procedures involve evidence gathering, witness interviewing, arrests based on probable cause, and case documentation. The system's objectives include crime prevention through punishment threats, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restoration through victim compensation. Court trials follow structured procedures including formal charges, pleas, prosecution and defense presentations, evidence examination, jury selection, deliberation, verdict, and sentencing. The judicial system faces severe challenges including massive court backlogs (3 million pending cases in Pakistan), implicit biases among jurors and judges, public defense resource shortages, jury dynamics influenced by external factors, media pressure on trials, insufficient evidence, technology impacts, judge shortages, corruption at various levels, and an outdated legal framework. Formal crime control agencies include police, judiciary, federal investigation agencies, anti-narcotics forces, intelligence agencies, prosecution services, customs and border security, and prison services. Informal agencies complement formal systems through community watch programs, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms like Panchayats and Jirgas, religious institutions, NGOs, media, neighborhood associations, and educational institutions.

The criminal justice system consists of three interconnected prongs: policing, courts, and corrections, which work together to address criminal behavior through various mechanisms including law enforcement, legal proceedings, and rehabilitation or punishment.

This section examines the criminal justice system's organizational structure and operational dynamics. Two opposing ideological camps shape policy: civil libertarians prioritize personal freedom and distrust law enforcement, while public order advocates emphasize community safety and punitive measures. The system comprises five interconnected agencies: police enforce laws, courts determine guilt and impose sentences, corrections operates jails and prisons, probation supervises non-incarcerated offenders, and parole oversees early prison releases. Post-arrest, judges decide detention through release on own recognizance, bail, or no bail for serious cases. Probation offers alternatives to incarceration with supervised conditions and rehabilitation requirements. Pre-sentence reports guide judicial sentencing decisions. The system serves multiple purposes: punishing the guilty, reforming offenders, and incapacitating dangerous individuals. However, components often fail to coordinate effectively—mass police sweeps overwhelm courts, and inadequate supervision returns offenders to the system. The ideal approach balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety while maintaining proper coordination between all components.

A functional criminal justice system requires three interconnected buildings: police stations to investigate crimes, courthouses to try defendants, and prisons to incarcerate convicts. Each component depends on the others - police stations cannot process cases without courthouses, and courthouses cannot enforce sentences without prisons. Police stations require regular and higher-educated workers to function, with a single large station handling 5,000-12,000 citizens. Prisons require proper warden-to-prisoner ratios (ideally 1:1, acceptable up to 1:2). Sentence length significantly impacts rehabilitation - excessively long sentences cause cumulative negative effects that can increase criminality over time. Each day in prison applies daily statistics affecting criminality, loyalty, and happiness. Courts must issue verdicts, and prisons must process sentences effectively. When any component fails, the entire system becomes inefficient.

The medicalization of deviance transforms moral and legal deviance into a medical condition. Society has developed mechanisms through which psychologists and the pharmaceutical industry create categories of difference and push these as medical conditions. This raises questions about whether society dehumanizes people who don't fit into the expected mold.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association until the 1970s, illustrating how deviance labels shift over time. Similarly, masturbation was framed in 1920s Boy Scout manuals as a medical problem requiring intervention through diet changes, exercise, and authority consultation. This pattern of medicalization persists today, raising questions about whether social problems are genuinely pathological or simply normal variations pathologized by cultural anxieties.

Medicalization is the process where previously non-medical aspects of life come to be seen in medical terms, usually as disorders or illnesses. A wide range of phenomena has been medicalized including normal life events (birth, death), biological processes (aging, menstruation), common human problems (learning difficulties, sexual issues), and various forms of deviance. Behaviors considered non-normal receive medical diagnoses. What society defines as 'not normal' shifts significantly over time and across different places. This includes non-criminal deviance based on appearance (obesity, unattractiveness, shortness) and beliefs that come to be seen as mental disorders or non-normative conduct (drinking, gambling, certain sexual practices).

The medicalization of deviance refers to the process by which behaviors that were previously considered deviant or criminal are redefined as medical conditions requiring treatment. For example, hyperactivity in children was once viewed as a need for punishment, but is now often diagnosed as ADHD and treated with medication. This process reflects how medical professionals and institutions influence what is considered normal or deviant in society.

The medicalization of deviance is a view that treats deviant behaviors as symptoms of underlying illnesses that need to be treated by physicians. Scholar Thomas Oz argues that mental illness is simply problem behaviors. Some forms of mental illness have organic causes such as chemical imbalances in the brain, while others are responses to troubled coping mechanisms. His analysis suggests that social experiences, not some illness in the mind, underlie bizarre behaviors. Being mentally ill can lead to other problems like homelessness, but being homeless can also lead to unusual thinking patterns defined by society as mental illness.

Social class affects criminalization outcomes, with the same behavior being criminalized differently based on social class, race, and geographic location. The example of drug users illustrates this: a wealthy individual may be classified as a 'trafficker' while a poor individual with similar behavior may be classified as a 'user.' The principle of 'bagatela' is applied differently by different judges, and the same judge can issue contradictory decisions in similar cases. This demonstrates how the legal system perpetuates social inequalities rather than providing equal protection under the law.

Official statistics show working-class people are more highly represented among offenders than other social classes, and sociologists explain this pattern through multiple interconnected theories: social deprivation (economic hardship drives property crime), strain theory (individuals experience tension between societal goals and legitimate means to achieve them), marginality and social exclusion (working-class communities are overlooked by policymakers), status frustration (working-class individuals rebel against low status by joining delinquent subcultures), labeling and stereotyping (poorest sections face biased policing), informal social control (middle-class youth negotiate justice while working-class face formal prosecution), and detectability of offenses (working-class crimes are more visible). Additionally, white-collar and corporate crime—committed by high-status individuals in professional contexts—causes significantly greater financial harm to society (estimated at over ten times that of ordinary street crimes) but remains largely invisible due to media neglect, lack of political will, and inadequate law enforcement resources, with powerful actors able to negotiate non-criminal labels for their behavior.

Criminal justice social work contextualizes power dynamics in crime as crime of the powerless and the powerful, understanding power through class, gender, race, and ethnicity. The conception of crime of the powerless is based on conventional forms like murder and assault committed by those holding weaker positions. Working class crime receives more coverage than crimes by the powerful. Members of powerful sections get away with serious crimes—corruption and nepotism never get criminalized, and their impact is more spread out with more victims. If a robber gets three years imprisonment, a person who has stolen crores of rupees may still be absconding. Criminal justice social work challenges conventional thinking, exposing the relationship between political and economic injustice and the suffering of the powerless, critiquing structures that maintain oppression replicated within the criminal justice system.

This section covers two major themes: the dramatic 50% decline in crime rates over 25 years (contradicting public perception), and how criminalization reflects social class biases. The lecture explains that laws like those against sleeping under bridges or stealing bread apply equally to rich and poor but primarily affect those who cannot afford alternatives. Similarly, drug possession is criminalized for poor individuals but may result in rehabilitation for wealthy individuals. The section also discusses how workplace theft (not paying minimum wage, overtime, or rest breaks) occurs far more frequently than street crime but receives minimal criminal justice attention.

In Brazil, whether someone is treated as a criminal and punished depends primarily on their social class and race, not just the nature of the act. This pattern extends beyond Brazil to many other societies. The video argues that the criminalization process is not neutral but reflects existing social hierarchies and power structures.