Lilly's Labeling Theory

The social context throughout the 1960’s generated many unresolved issues that made citizens question the ability and competency of our government (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015). With this lack of confidence and trust, citizens began to present the ideas of labeling theorist by blaming the state for the crime problem (Lilly et al., 2015). Labeling theorist suggested that the criminal justice system, particularly state intervention, “through labeling and reacting to offenders as “criminal” or “ex-felons” are responsible for creating career criminals” (Lilly, 2015, p.149). This school of thought rejects the idea that crime is inherently criminal, rather it is a result of the label that the state ascribes to the offender and not the harmfulness
In sum, labeling theory addresses two significant propositions: the first including the involvement of extralegal factors when determining if a criminal label is conferred, and the latter being that state intervention is criminogenic (Lilly,
Thus, when discussing labeling theory, it can be assumed that society is the most responsible for the deviant behaviors of its citizens for various reasons. The first, and presumably most significant, is the fact that powerful citizens are in charge of determining which behaviors are considered criminal and which ones are not. For example, wife battering was only criminalized when individuals were motivated to create legal reform, it was not always a crime (Lilly, 2015). Society is also responsible for such behaviors because they construct the labels that lead citizens to make negative assumptions about offenders that are often times untrue (Lilley et al., 2015). As a result, these assumptions influence people’s reactions to offenders, making room for stereotyping and stigmas that produce unequal treatment for all offenders (Lilly, 2015). For example, a murder takes places in our community. While the murder itself is considered a socially deviant act, weather or not it will be viewed as a homicide depends upon the reaction of others, rather than the act itself (Lilly, 2015). If the victim was a police officer, people are going to react differently than if the victim was a