Introduction
The assertion that labelling children and young people as ‘risky’ or ‘troubled’ influences their likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour has gained significant attention in criminological discourse. Drawing from Deakin, Fox, and Matos (2022), this essay critically examines how such labels, often reinforced by neoliberal punitive policies and sensationalist media portrayals, shape the experiences of young individuals deemed ‘at risk’. The focus lies on the interplay between societal stigmas, criminal justice responses, and the behavioural outcomes of labelled youth within the UK context. This essay will explore the theoretical foundations of labelling theory, assess empirical evidence on its impact, and consider alternative perspectives on youth criminality. Ultimately, it argues that while labelling can exacerbate criminal tendencies through social exclusion and identity formation, it is not a sole determinant of offending behaviour, as structural and individual factors also play critical roles.
Theoretical Framework: Labelling Theory and Its Relevance
Labelling theory, originating from the work of Howard Becker in the 1960s, posits that deviance is not inherent in an act but rather a consequence of societal reactions and the imposition of labels (Becker, 1963). When young people are branded as ‘risky’ or ‘troubled’—whether through media narratives, educational settings, or criminal justice interventions—they may internalise these identities, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. This perspective is particularly relevant in an era of neoliberal punitive policies, which prioritise control and surveillance over rehabilitation (Garland, 2001). Such policies often target ‘at-risk’ youth through measures like antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the UK, which, though largely replaced by injunctions since 2014, historically contributed to the stigmatisation of young individuals (Crawford, 2009).
Moreover, the populist press amplifies negative stereotypes by portraying youth as ‘out-of-control’ or inherently dangerous, as highlighted by Deakin et al. (2022). This media-driven narrative not only shapes public perception but also influences policy responses, often resulting in harsher interventions that further entrench labels. For instance, frequent reporting on youth knife crime in urban areas like London has been linked to increased stop-and-search practices, disproportionately affecting minority ethnic groups and reinforcing their marginalisation (Muncie, 2021). Therefore, labelling theory provides a useful lens to understand how societal reactions can exacerbate, rather than mitigate, deviant behaviour among young people.
Empirical Evidence: The Impact of Labelling on Youth Criminality
Empirical studies lend credence to the notion that labelling influences criminal behaviour, albeit with limitations. Research by Bernburg and Krohn (2003) found that formal labelling through juvenile justice interventions, such as arrests or court appearances, often leads to increased recidivism among adolescents. This effect is attributed to the disruption of social bonds—such as exclusion from mainstream education or employment opportunities—that follows such labelling. In the UK context, a report by the Ministry of Justice (2018) revealed that young people with prior contact with the criminal justice system were more likely to reoffend compared to those diverted through informal measures, suggesting that formal labels can perpetuate a cycle of criminality.
Furthermore, Deakin et al. (2022) argue that the stigma associated with being labelled ‘risky’ creates barriers to social integration, particularly for marginalised groups. Their study highlights how young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, experience heightened surveillance and exclusion, which can foster resentment and defiance—key drivers of criminal behaviour. For example, a young person labelled as ‘troubled’ might be denied access to certain community programmes due to perceived risk, thus limiting their access to positive role models or support systems.
However, the evidence is not unequivocal. Some studies suggest that the impact of labelling varies depending on individual resilience and social context. Farrington and Murray (2013) note that while labelling can negatively affect some youth, others may resist or reject such identities through supportive family structures or personal agency. This indicates that while labelling is significant, it does not uniformly lead to criminal outcomes.
Critiques and Alternative Explanations
Despite its explanatory power, labelling theory is not without criticism. One limitation is its tendency to overemphasise societal reactions while downplaying the role of agency and pre-existing behavioural tendencies. Critics argue that some young people may engage in criminal acts due to structural factors like poverty or peer influence, irrespective of any label (Hirschi, 1969). Indeed, the socioeconomic deprivation prevalent in many UK communities—evidenced by Office for National Statistics data showing higher crime rates in disadvantaged areas—suggests that material conditions often precede and overshadow the effects of labelling (ONS, 2020).
Additionally, the focus on labelling risks portraying young people as passive recipients of societal stigma, ignoring their capacity to challenge or redefine imposed identities. Research by McAra and McVie (2010) on the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime reveals that many labelled youths actively negotiate their identities, sometimes using the label as a form of resistance rather than conforming to it. This suggests a more complex relationship between labelling and criminality than a straightforward causal link.
Finally, neoliberal punitive policies themselves, rather than the act of labelling, may be more directly responsible for criminal outcomes. Garland (2001) contends that the shift towards punitive measures in the UK, such as zero-tolerance policing, creates environments where young people are criminalised for minor infractions, thus increasing their likelihood of formal contact with the justice system. This perspective implies that systemic policy choices, rather than societal labels alone, are critical in shaping youth offending.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the assertion that labelling children and young people as ‘risky’ or ‘troubled’ influences their likelihood of committing crimes holds substantial merit, as supported by labelling theory and empirical evidence. The process of stigmatisation, often reinforced by media portrayals and punitive policies, can lead to social exclusion and internalisation of deviant identities, thereby increasing criminal tendencies among some youth. However, this effect is not universal; individual agency, socioeconomic conditions, and systemic policy frameworks also play significant roles in shaping outcomes, as evidenced by critical perspectives and alternative studies. For policymakers and practitioners in the UK, this suggests a need to move beyond punitive measures and focus on diversionary and supportive interventions that mitigate the risks of labelling. Future research should explore the nuanced ways in which young people negotiate stigmatised identities, offering deeper insights into mitigating the negative impacts of societal reactions on at-risk youth.
References
- Becker, H. S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
- Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003) Labeling, Life Chances, and Adult Crime: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence on Crime in Early Adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287-1318.
- Crawford, A. (2009) Governing through Anti-Social Behaviour: Regulatory Challenges to Criminal Justice. British Journal of Criminology, 49(6), 810-831.
- Deakin, J., Fox, C., & Matos, R. (2022) Labelled as ‘Risky’ in an Era of Control: How Young People Experience and Respond to the Stigma of Criminalised Identities. European Journal of Criminology, 19(4), 653-673.
- Farrington, D. P., & Murray, J. (2013) Labeling Theory: Empirical Tests. Transaction Publishers.
- Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press.
- Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press.
- McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010) Youth Crime and Justice: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179-209.
- Ministry of Justice (2018) Youth Justice Statistics 2017/18. UK Government.
- Muncie, J. (2021) Youth and Crime. SAGE Publications.
- Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2020) Crime in England and Wales: Year Ending March 2020. UK Government.
