Critically examine how the labelling theory explains deviance and deliquency in the primary school.please include quotations
Share
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
H.P.Dubey
Labeling theory represents for criminological thought a major school of social thought-symbolic interactionism. Labeling has as its foundation symbolic interactionist theory and, therefore, represents for criminologists one way in which a prominent school of social thought could be included into a comprehensive explanation of crime and deviance. In earlier analyses of labeling theory authors have, in tile tradition noted above, attempted to assess its value as an explanation of crime or deviance (e.g., see Wellford 1975, 1987; Mahoney 1974; Thomas and Bishop 1984). Our goal in this paper is not to establish that labeling theory on its own cannot explain ill any meaningful way significant amounts of criminal behavior (given Out- interest in integrated theory we take that to be axiomatic) but to assess tile essential elements of labeling theory, to review its likely contributions, and to describe the developments that we think are necessary to capture the advantages that labeling theory would bring to a comprehensive explanation of crime or deviance.
H.P.Dubey
Labeling theory represents for criminological thought a major school of social thought-symbolic interactionism. Labeling has as its foundation symbolic interactionist theory and, therefore, represents for criminologists one way in which a prominent school of social thought could be included into a comprehensive explanation of crime and deviance. In earlier analyses of labeling theory authors have, in tile tradition noted above, attempted to assess its value as an explanation of crime or deviance (e.g., see Wellford 1975, 1987; Mahoney 1974; Thomas and Bishop 1984). Our goal in this paper is not to establish that labeling theory on its own cannot explain ill any meaningful way significant amounts of criminal behavior (given Out- interest in integrated theory we take that to be axiomatic) but to assess tile essential elements of labeling theory, to review its likely contributions, and to describe the developments that we think are necessary to capture the advantages that labeling theory would bring to a comprehensive explanation of crime or deviance.
H.P.Dubey
Labeling theory represents for criminological thought a major school of social thought-symbolic interactionism. Labeling has as its foundation symbolic interactionist theory and, therefore, represents for criminologists one way in which a prominent school of social thought could be included into a comprehensive explanation of crime and deviance. In earlier analyses of labeling theory authors have, in tile tradition noted above, attempted to assess its value as an explanation of crime or deviance (e.g., see Wellford 1975, 1987; Mahoney 1974; Thomas and Bishop 1984). Our goal in this paper is not to establish that labeling theory on its own cannot explain ill any meaningful way significant amounts of criminal behavior (given Out- interest in integrated theory we take that to be axiomatic) but to assess tile essential elements of labeling theory, to review its likely contributions, and to describe the developments that we think are necessary to capture the advantages that labeling theory would bring to a comprehensive explanation of crime or deviance.