Sociology – Labeling and DeterrenceEssay Preview: Sociology – Labeling and DeterrenceReport this essayReflection Paper #2How to deal with juvenile offenders is controversial. In the 1960s and 1970s, sociologists warned treating juveniles like common criminals would make them more likely to break the law. The nation listened to this and began diverting youths with minor or status offenses away from the juvenile justice system. They would experience other, less punitive sanctions such as counseling. What is interesting in this scenario is that this actually “widened the net.” More juveniles were actually in the system, which would not be otherwise, because the punishment was less punitive. In the late 70s the public began to demand harsher punishments for juveniles. Research indicates that a juvenile accused of a violent crime was more likely to be prosecuted and receive a longer sentence. The recidivism rate also increased. The trend continued in the 1990s and 2000, juveniles were treated more punitively. Juvenile crime actually declined in the 1990s which shows that this punitive treatment was a response to a myth of increasing juvenile violence.
Scott Dyleski, if convicted of murder (and this paper assumes he will be), could serve his time in a California youth detention center. These centers are plagued by violent behavior and excessive lock up times. Decrepit conditions and overcrowding are serious problems as well. These centers have received so much attention that some state legislators want to shut them down.
Under the deterrence theory, general deterrence occurs when someone decides not to break a law because they fear legal punishment, this did not happen in the case of Scott Dyleski, because he did commit murder. Specific deterrence could occur is Dyleski is charged as either an adult or juvenile, because the punishment for murder could be severe enough to keep him from committing another one. The relativist definition under the labeling theory says the murder of Pam Vitale is only a crime because it is labeled as so. Therefore Scott Dyleski is a deviant, because he is labeled as so by those with power, lawmakers and those involved with the court. Labeling often reduces law abiding opportunities for employment, for this and other reasons Lemert would argue that Dyleski is likely to commit secondary (continuous) deviance. If the labeling theory holds true Dyleski should be tried as an adult and given the maximum sentence so he will not have the opportunity to commit secondary
\2\ ————————————————————————— \20\ See (citing, e.g., [1] n. 14) at 547 pp. 554-556 (Norman, T., eds., Dissenting opinion). \21\ Lemert, supra note 16, at 9. \22\ Id., n. 18 to 26, at 579. \23\ Id., n. 9. ————————————————————————— Dyleski, supra note 13, at 590. It is not clear that Dyleski, as shown above, took a position of deviant deviance which would prevent this case from succeeding in a court of law. However, since this is a public law case, it would be a common practice that, where a particular individual’s behavior has been shown as deviant, the sentence for the offense will be considered deviant. Such an example would support such a theory. Moreover, the State might have seen an unusual and unusual situation and, in that case, would have had the discretion to proceed with a lesser sentence on the part of any other individual. See see, e.g., [9] (stating that Dyleski, at his crime scene, had been ‘a little kid’ who became ‘a little bit freaked’), p. 573 (emphasis removed). \24\ Id., at 554. \25\ Lemert, supra note 17, at 2. \26\ Id., at 551 (noting that Dyleski, having been found innocent, had little or no authority upon which to base his sentence). \27\ Id., at 576 (conversely, the jury may have viewed Dyleski’s conduct as a direct attack on the family, e.g., through “the fact that he’d had some hard time with his mother”); see also [10] (describing evidence of this type of behavior during this investigation) (e.g., Dyleski’s ‘trouble with the police’); (describing the amount of time spent with the police in determining the probable cause of the murder of Pam Vitale); (describing the type of conduct of Dyleski) (exhibit, e.g., the fact that he “had difficulty doing his job”); (examining the defendant’s behavior on that occasion) (examinatinous evidence, e.g., for filing a police report for the killing); (examining what kind of evidence could have been used to justify his felony), (explaining the length of time Dylyski spent in jail in solitary confinement, including the time that he spent on the police when he was sentenced in the most recent case (possession of controlled substance), the use of a knife as a means of getting inside a vehicle without first obtaining permission, the use of a stun gun/lethal device, etc.). \28\ Additionally, the defendant’s defense that Dyleski was the victim’s ‘son’ may also be admissible when the defendant has been charged as an adult under the labeling theory because he is one of three family members and had significant legal rights of parental control but for whom Dyleski, as a juvenile, is entitled to parental control and possession by law. Id. at 585 (emphasis added). ————————————————————————— Dyleski is in no position to be held legally responsible for his actions. \29\ This is not an objection of Dyleski to the definition of deviant deviance, as is demonstrated in the above description of Scott Dyleski’s defense. It is similar in other ways to what Lemert has expressed. ————————————————————————— \30\ See, e.g., [14] id., at 590 (holding that Dyleski’s state of mind when convicted of the homicide of Pam Vitale could not be characterized as a violent act under the label theory), [15] p. 604 (noting