Week

By Author: Dorothy Terror
Total Articles: 1
Comment this article

1. When thinking of the pivotal events, one would most probably recall a tragic, enlightening, or shocking event, be it personal or common to all humankind. However, at times seemingly trivial decisions and choices become turning points in one’s life course. Using personal experience to write my assignment as anecdotal illustration for the idea above, I may say that the main pivotal event that has led me to where I am today was choosing education over deviant behavior. Some may state that criminal behavior is a personal choice. However, I would parry such arguments as fallacious, since humans are not only autonomous individuals but also social beings sharing the collective values and subject to imposition. Arguably, the social learning theory can explain my choice to use education as a lever in elevating myself over the crime stratum as well as a desire to learn the social mechanism behind positive and negative life-changing choices.
The human society is living in the era when knowledge is power, information is a weapon, the human mind is both a value and a capital, ...
... and law and order are the pillars on which this whole system stands. Arguably, education is the thin blue line that separates the world of delinquency and crime from the world of a democratic society of law-abiding and self-sufficient individuals. In this complex system, it is hard if not impossible to separate personal choices from those influenced by the society and its institutional norms. A logical question arises whether crime is a random individual mistake or the byproduct of the faulty social interactions and norms. When I was younger, my personal world touched with that of the delinquent peers. Being a person with a free will, I had a choice to either join them or deviate from them. I chose the latter, yet the reasons for this choice are ambiguous. I still have doubt on whether my choice in favor of getting education and becoming a law-abiding citizen was a conscious inner decision to become a better person, or rather a choice in favor of following the canonical social image of what is a good citizen. In trying to find the theoretical grounds for my personal becoming, I directed my attention towards the social reinforcement viewpoints underlying the social learning theory.
Social learning theory is rooted in the works of Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers with their differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. The latter fusion, in turn, was derived from Sutherland’s differential association theory and operant conditioning theory as discussed by Skinner. Social learning theory has been evolving and shape-shifting since then and up until present day. The social learning theory suggests that both deviant and non-deviant behaviors are learned in the same way, through the process of differential reinforcement. In the childhood, I was exposed to observing criminal patterns and was likely to learn them as cognitive definitions of behavioral patterns. Despite the seeming appeal of delinquent acts, I yet chose not to imitate them. The key to understanding my choice should then lie in comprehending the consequences of such acts, since individual behavior arguably reflects anticipated rewards and punishments. I observed the delinquent gang members being arrested, put to jail, wounded or killed in street fights, etc. All these outcomes must have registered as the probable punishment scenarios in my adolescent mind. In contrast, the social reward for being a “good” member of society was multifaceted and appealing, manifesting in the prospect of a secured life with benefits, such as a high-qualified well-paid job, mental evolution, and a longer life-span. I chose the latter.
The reflection above makes me conclude that the social learning theory explains my life choice of education over delinquency. It was foremost a choice triggered by society and not only an intrinsic compass. Even though I observed deviant behaviors, I opted for not imitating them due to the punishment/reward expectations that served as reinforcement.
2. Sex registration of convicted sex offenders is aimed to serve the public interests. However, it may also have certain pitfalls. There is a thin line between labeling as a positive social phenomenon and stigmatization as a negative bias-reinforcing subjective attitude. Such or similar stigmatization may have social and psychological consequences for both the former offenders and the society, especially within the integration framework. Labeling theory implies that sex registration may stigmatize sex offenders and result in devaluation and discrimination of those who want to reintegrate into society as its full-fledged citizens.
Recently, the research interest in the side effects of labeling of sex offenders grew proportionally to concerns about them. The current sex offender regulations and legislation overall makes the identity of sex offenders a public domain. In essence, access to the Internet now equals access to personal information of the registered criminals. The alleged benefit for the citizens is the opportunity to be informed regarding other – delinquent – citizens and their criminal record. Yet, on the other side of the deal there are former criminals who already served their sentence within the existing law/penitentiary system and whose past now threatens to compromise their future. More specifically, sex registration makes it virtually impossible for convicted sex offenders to rejoin the society while at the same time preserving anonymity. All in all, unrestricted, free public access to information regarding sex offenders has collateral, let alone often undesired and unpredicted, consequences for both the former criminal and society as a whole. Yet, aside from the external pressure from the society, the offenders may as well develop intrinsic blocks that would limit their self-establishment as social members. The latter has become the new focus of the recent studies.
A study by Mingus and Burchfield uses the labeling theory as a lens through which they study the effects of stigmatization on the self-perception of sex offenders and their reintegration potential. The labeling theory in its modern form proposes that the word ‘deviant’ as a social label is a precondition of its transformation into a stigma. This stigma results from the social attitude rather than from within the mind of an individual who has committed the deviant act. Hence, deviance is not the quality of the act per se but rather the characteristic of the social attitude towards an act of crime. The society with its attitude becomes another stage of punishment even after the actual term of custody and/or imprisonment is over. Once labeled a criminal, an individual will fall victim to the lifetime social stigma without an expiration date. As a result, the label – or stigma – becomes another burden the former criminal has to bear. Often, the moral pressure of social non-acceptance becomes too hard to bear, stimulating new outbursts of delinquent behavior. Evidently “…the stigma of the criminal status may increase the probability that the individual becomes involved in deviant social groups”. In other words, the former criminal opts to accept the label and live in accord with the status of a lifelong criminal as an alternative of trying to prove the society wrong.
In sum, registration of sex offenders fosters the transformation of the sex offender label into a social stigma. The latter compromises any attempts of social reintegration of a delinquent. Moreover, it can sometimes stimulate new delinquent behavior as a reaction to social pressure of non-acceptance and prejudged attitude. Society literally marginalizes and isolates people with criminal record from becoming a part of the positive opportunities. Respectively, if criminal records become generally accessible (as common knowledge), society is likely to devalue and discriminate former offenders, discouraging them from efficient reintegration and full-fledged citizenship.