The Labelling of Young People as ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Deviant’ Criminals in Late Modern Societies

1.1  - The Labelling of Young People as ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Deviant’ Criminals in Late Modern Societies:

                 The concept of ‘deviancy’ is at the heart of youth criminality; however, the deviant behaviours and attitudes that young people often adopt are not inherently criminal. These attitudes and behaviours are absorbed by young people through mass labelling and stigmatisation by; society, the media and new trends in fashion, music, gaming and cinema. This section looks to examine how Becker’s (1973) labelling theory is applied to youth criminality and how it has exacerbated the concept of youth criminality. To begin with, it must be understood that the labelling theory involves the application of a particular label or stigma upon an individual or group as well as creating the act or behaviour that initially constitutes the application of a label. Becker (1963), cited in, Pietersen (1997: 346), best describes the application of a ‘deviant’ label:

                 “Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.”

                 The actions of young people are often viewed with expressed trepidation by society in our period of late modernity due to various moral panics on the subject, resulting in communities becoming saturated with anxiety and fear towards their own young. Through this fear, the theory of labelling takes form with society’s willingness to stigmatise and exclude ‘strange’ and ‘deviant’ behaviour, as a natural deflection of risk and victimisation. The acts and behaviours that are considered deviant are often created through the same labelling process as; it is the reaction of society that determines whether an act is to be labelled deviant, in other words “deviance is said to be in the eye of the beholder” (Simmons, J.L. no date: np).

                 There are many factors that can influence the application of ‘deviant’ labels by society; ‘how, when and where the behaviour was carried out, the ability or authority of those audiences to be able to apply a ‘deviant’ label and the likelihood of the behaviour to become ‘normalised’ through the adaptation of one or more of the pre mentioned factors’ (Tierney, J. 2006: 140). For example; being drunk and disorderly in England and Wales will often result in an arrest or fixed penalty notice under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 if the behaviour may cause ‘alarm, harassment or distress to those within the hearing or sight of the offender’, (Great Britain. Public Order Act 1986). However the act of being drunk and disorderly may be tolerated in different countries to an extent, usually due to the country’s popularity with tourists, thereby creating a more tolerant society and annulling the supposedly deviant act.

                 Labelling theorists such as Howard Becker, focus on the interactions between individuals and groups within society that have already been labelled, to examine the connections between deviant behaviour and societies expectations of those who have been labelled deviant.  During encounters and interactions between the police and a ‘delinquent’ young person, for example; “the participants will construct meanings: namely, images and understandings of both themselves and others involved”, (Tierney, J. 2006: 140). This is where the common conceptions of; ‘chav, goth, hoodie or emo’[1] and the ‘corrupt, power hungry’ police officer are created. Though these images are created through the individual, they eventually spread through social groups and often have extremely damaging effects on the targeted group or individual.

                 Aside from those derogatory labels that are commonly used in our societies to describe one or more delinquent groups, another label that is by far more damaging due to its broad connotations and the lack of public understanding of its potential connotations; is the label of ‘youth’. The actual term ‘youth’ is not officially a noun. It is however, a common misconception that the term ‘youth’ describes a difficult or deviant period of a young person’s life, of which, they may be repeatedly labelled as being dangerous and deviant. According to Muncie (2009: 4), ‘Unlike ‘adult’ and ‘child’, ‘youth’ does not only describe a period of life, though un-defined, it also describes a form of socially unaccepted attitudes or chosen lifestyles. Unfortunately in today’s society, the term ‘youth’ connotes; violence, a lack of responsibility, vulgarity, un-controlled freedom and excessive expressions of rebellious attitudes and behaviours’.

                 The Government and Local Authorities in England and Wales repeatedly target young people with early intervention measures to address early signs of deviancy and criminality. An example of an early intervention tactic can be ‘Project YOU; this project connected various organisations to help distract youths away from a life of crime. Those organisations include; The Air Training Corps, Army Cadet Force, The Boys Brigade and many others’ (Metropolitan Police. no date: np). The intervention and intrusion into the lives of young people and their families are preceded by a risk assessment; this risk assessment is preceded by the state being made aware of certain negativities in those people’s lives. Risk factors may be; ‘inadequate parental guidance and supervision, individual factors (aggression/hyper activity), educational factors (truancy and exclusion), peer pressure, inadequate or unstable living conditions and drug and alcohol abuse’ (Audit Commission. 1998: 48). These risks are assessed alongside positive factors, such as; close family, particular individual interests, areas of improvement in their education, etc. Such factors are seen to ‘push’ and ’pull’ against the young person and it is the aim of intervening authorities to reduce influential activities and impose beneficial programs upon the young person.  These negativities introduce the notion that ‘a youth is seen as something that is lacking, or what is not, rather than, what is’ (Cartmel and Furlong. 1997: 41).

                 History can show us the many variations of the public’s perception of young people in their societies in England and Wales. Hendrick (1997), cited in Poyser (2011a: 11); outlines various public perceptions of youth crime over the last three centuries[2];

                 From the 18^th to the early 19^th century, the ‘child’ was thought to be an ‘innocent’ and ‘natural’ member of society, with the need for ‘moral guidance’ and ‘control’.  The early and mid 19^th century then saw a radical change in the perceptions of young people as being ‘delinquent’ and as a public and economic ‘necessity’. Young people were considered to be more of a public and economic working necessity during the Industrial Revolution in the UK as; “Child Labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain’s Industrial Revolution to succeed” (Keys, D. 2010: np). Young offenders were then further separated from the adult offender in the courts and a new kind of judicial approach towards young offending began to take form.

                 After this period of negative labelling by society, the late 19^th and early 20^th century saw the perceptions of young people begin to focus on the causes of their delinquency by being labelled; “The Schooled Child, The Psycho-Medial Child and The Welfare Child” (Hendrick, 1997, cited in, Poyser, 2011a: 11). During this time, the child required; ‘universal conditioning for their delinquent and abnormal behaviour’, they needed to be understood as being in a ‘difficult and delinquent period of their lives that would soon pass’; ‘vulnerable’ to the pressures and influences of society’ and that ‘their delinquency was derived from a lack of ‘moral education’ and ‘neglect’.

                 Finally, in the mid 20^th century; the child was thought to be ‘imbued with its own psychological problems’ such as mental health issues like ADHD (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder). At this point, society and the state attempted to focus on the mitigating circumstances in young people’s lives that led them to a life of crime, as opposed to concentrating on how best to serve justice and what may serve best in deterring future offenders from offending.