Labeling theorists are adamant about the labels that offenders are given throughout the criminal justice system. Labels, such as ex-felon, are deepening the very behavior that they are meant to halt because of stereotypes that incite an individual trying to recover after a prison term. The labeling theory argues that the criminal justice system is limited in its capacity to restrain unlawful conduct but is also a major factor in anchoring people into criminal careers.
The cultural deviance theory explains that the causes of criminal behavior in urban areas are not about the poverty suffered in those areas, but are the product of a distinct lower class culture whose focal concern is deviance against the norms of society.
The theory identified three influential versions:
Lower class culture as a whole is responsible for generating crime in urban areas Urban lower class areas produce subcultures that are responsible for the rise of crime Subcultures of crimes in urban areas where individuals come together to band in creating crimes for their own personal gain and satisfaction
Write a paper of 5-6 pages that answers the following questions:
What would be another theory and strategy to avoid stereotyping individuals in the criminal justice system? Is labeling theory a legitimate crime causation theory? Why? In your opinion, where do gangs fit in the 3 influential versions of cultural deviance theory? Why? Which one of the two theories would you use to explain the following problem: The number of youths joining gangs in the inner city has doubled, while the number of gang leaders serving time in prison and being released after good conduct has increased. The crime rate for gang violence has risen 20% from last year.
If all else fails ask your divine companion google. The creators Daniel M. Wegner and Adrian F. Ward who stated "How Google is Changing Your Brain" distributed in 2013 in the Scientific American. Wegner and Ward contend that as opposed to depending on the assorted variety of our companions' learning, individuals have a tendency to ask google first. The article starts building validity with persuading certainties and illustrations; nonetheless, around the finish of the article, the sudden flip to how google is great debilitates their believability and eventually, the article. In the article, the writers first set the phase by portraying a birthday party situation and how every individual knows naturally what to do. While one may recollect the time and place of the gathering, the other may observe the dress code.â The article at that point traces that when given new data, individuals convey recalling certain realities among their social gathering. When somebody doesn't recall the correct name or how to settle a broken machine they basically swing to somebody who knows. The creators give a couple of more cases to impart not exclusively do individuals know the data put away inside their brains; be that as it may, likewise the data of individuals from their social gathering. All through the sum of the article, the writers utilize numerous solid illustrations and analyses that fortifies their claim, validity and bid to ethos. Saying the examinations supports Wegner and Wards' believability demonstrating that they have gotten their work done while giving measurements and certainties. They additionally utilize their own analyses to help their claim which demonstrate they have direct involvement with the subject. Adding to Wegner and Wards' ethos requests, they additionally have solid interests to logos, with numerous certainties and intelligent movements of thoughts. They call attention to actualities, that show individuals are depending on PCs to recollect data, rather than the differing data their companions may have: "We found that the individuals who trusted the PC had spared the rundown of certainties were much more terrible at recalling. Individuals appeared to treat the PC like transactive memory accomplices off-stacking data to this cloud mind as opposed to putting away it inside." These certainties bolster individuals are starting to depend on the web and PCs, rather than themselves and companions. Wegner and Ward proceed with numerous all the more supporting thoughts: "it appears that the affinity for off-stacking data to advanced sources is strong to the point that individuals are regularly unfit to settle subtle elements in their own musings when within the sight of a cyberbuddy. â€¦ As we off-stack obligation regarding numerous kinds of data to the Internet, we might supplant other potential transactive memory accomplices - companions, relatives and other human specialists - with our ever introduce association with an apparently omniscient computerized cloud." These are a couple of the numerous thoughts, that help the creators assert this is a genuine and significant issue that people are depending less on each other, and more on the web. The persuading proclamations offer to logos and presses upon the peruser this is a point worth talking about. Nonetheless, the finish of the article does not have a similar adequacy of the passages previously it. For instance, Wegner and Ward takes note of that the web is a la mode, not subject to the mutilation that harasses human memory, and faster than calling a companion trusting they have the data you look for. This harms the quality of their believability and their contention. Moreover, the writers last articulation in the article, alludes to the web in a way that debilitates the articles reason. While coming back to the presentation in the conclusion is aâ Â every now and again utilized system, they surrendered if not to absolutely dismiss their starting articulation. Wegner and Ward expresses that people are being "liberated" from the need of recalling actualities. The sudden reliance and off-stacking of data to the web is a development that individuals should grasp. Despite the fact that the article starts by viably inducing to the perusers the significance of the assorted variety of data their companions have Wegner and Ward loses control at last, where they have to commute home their contention. Perusers can see an issue exists all through the article; in any case, the sudden move to make light of the issue, makes the peruser not consider it important at last. Wegner, Daniel M., and Adrian F. Ward. "How Google Is Changing Your Brain." Scientific American 309.6 (2013): 58-61. Scholarly Search Premier. Web. 8 Aug. 2016.>GET ANSWER