Text Kelly Smith
Photography Julian Lucas

The goal is to stimulate a larger conversation about the negative effects racial profiling has on individuals and society in regards to our criminal justice system, and the negative effects labeling has on formerly incarcerated individuals and it's infringement on their ability to become law abiding citizens. More specifically, how the criminological theory of labeling can be used as a means to finding stop and frisk policy unconstitutional as well as finding the implementation of ban the box laws necessary for the proper integration of post incarceration.  

To begin, labeling theory is basically described as people's reaction to deviance by socially  constructing labels and stereotypes. The best example for this would be how we view  superheroes and vigilantes. The best representative of a superhero who is simultaneously a vigilante, would be Batman. Society labels him as a hero, which carries a positive connotation or reaction behind it. But inversely, society also labels him as a vigilante, which carries a negative connotation or reaction behind it. The whole point of this example is to further labeling theory's description in the sense that deviance or criminal behavior is contingent upon or constructed by societies' perception or opinion. A more realistic example that applies to the criminal justice system would be how society views life being taken. In most parts of society when someone takes a life, they are labeled as a “murderer”, which carries a negative connotation behind it and this is because it goes against society’s moral values and penal codes. Furthermore, the individual's life that was taken was in fact innocent and undeserving of that happening to them. On the opposite side of the spectrum, some parts of society celebrate when a life is taken and this is based on circumstance. One might celebrate the life taken from an individual who has done  harm to their community, such as when a “murderer” is given capital punishment. This coincides with society's moral values, like the classic eye-for-an-eye principal, and is within legal  justifications. This type of death is not perceived as innocent and it is justified because of their label, “murderer".  

Other concepts that need to be defined in order to make the connection to the labeling theory, would be racial profiling, stop and frisk, and ban the box. On a generalized basis, racial profiling refers to “the discriminatory practices by law-enforcement officials of targeting  individuals for a suspicion solely based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion, or national  origin”, (A. n.d). But the targeted discriminatory methodology for this paper’s specification in  the realm of racial profiling would be race and its formation of stop and frisk. Stop and frisk  refers to “the brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect”, (L. 1992). This was originally  supported by the Fourth Amendment which allowed police to stop a suspect when they had  "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed”, (L. 1992). The origin of stop and frisk and its legal justification came from Terry v. Ohio 329 U.S 1 (1968). This supreme court case allowed officers to make a reasonable search for weapons of a person they believed to be armed and dangerous without it ever being virtually unreasonable because the  officer's safety and that of others what was potentially endangered, (L. 1992). Up until the recently, stop and frisk remained constitutional, until Floyd v. City of New York, which was a  federal class action lawsuit decided in 2013 by a U.S. District Court Judge. The Judge ruled that  stop and frisk was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protections. The ruling gave its solution to this racially motivated tactic by directing the police to adopt a written policy that would specify where, when, and how these types of stops could have authorization, purposefully to dis-include the sole basis of race, (C. 2015). Within this case, there was a surmounting abundance of evidence that stop and frisk policy “is used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens”, (Thompson 2019). “In 1999, Blacks and Latinos made up 50 percent of New York’s population, but accounted for 84 percent of the city’s stops. According to the court’s opinion, between 2004 and 2012, the New York Police Department made 4.4 million stops under the citywide policy. More than 80 percent of those stopped were Black and Latino people. The likelihood a stop of an African-American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of White New Yorkers stopped, and the likelihood of finding contraband on an African American who was stopped was one-third that of White New Yorkers stopped”, (Thompson 2019). In literal terms, banning the box is removing the question  “have you ever been convicted of a felony”, in a job application. Ban the box laws, for lack of  better terms, are laws that allow a formulary incarcerated individuals to have access to job opportunities and legitimate employment. Without this type of protection, those who have been  convicted of crimes are essentially blacklisted because they are labelled, “Felon” and the  employer can deny the application based solely upon that quality.  

One of the main reasons why labeling theory can be used as a means of research to discontinue the use of stop and frisk and promote the implementation of ban the box laws is because its effects increase crime. Some theorists believe that when people are arrested and incarcerated for crimes, they are labeled as “criminals”, causing people to be reluctant in associating with these individuals. In most minimum-wage jobs it's mandatory that one discloses their criminal record, and that leaves no room for previously incarcerated individuals to have an equal opportunity at survival. This in turn, causes the individual labeled as a “criminal” to have a hard time obtaining employment and ultimately forcing them to stray away from legal behavior and pushing them towards criminal behavior. This clearly becomes an issue because this  essentially means that formerly incarcerated individuals will have no other options other than  illegal activity to generate an income. To further support this claim John Braithwaite argues that  labeling only increases crime when we as a society do not work together to re-integrate the  labeled “criminal” back into law abiding society. He basically says that labeling can only start to  reduce crime when we guilt/shake our heads at the offenders while simultaneously forgiving  them and allowing them easy passage through our original normative society. So in terms of ban  the box laws, labeling theory theoretically has furthered the implementation of these kinds of  laws because we not only need to allow formerly incarcerated individuals to have easy passage  back into society but also allow them to have the ability to seize job opportunities and secure  legitimate employment.  

The extraneous suffering that convicts endure when they are arrested, imprisoned, and even  during post-incarceration, only causes an entrapping outcome for the convict. This feeling of entrapment is contingent upon the negative stigma that society has created around the label,  "criminal”. This title instills anger and fear in society, which is then internalized by the newly released convict, creating a feeling of self-worthlessness, and in turn, causing more resistance  and disbelief in the legal system. That resistance and disbelief translates to discouragement in the ex-convict’s integration back into society, causing a desire for comfortability and familiarity,  which is obtained through the lifestyle they originally inhabited to survive.  

In the critical examination of the labeling theory by Johannes Knutsson, he utilizes his dissection of the theory not only to allow his readers a better understanding of labeling but to showcase what harms it potentially causes to society and individuals. He starts out by highlighting the significance language plays in human thought. “Language plays an altogether fundamental role in human thinking, and it bestows on man his unique ability to master his  environment”, (Knutsson, 1977, p. 21). Language is not only how we have learned to communicate but it allows a person to be able to have control in their environment. The words we use do in fact carry a lot of weight behind them, we may not be aware of this but it's important that we understand word choice has significant effects on ourselves and the people around us. So when we use our language to label someone or a group, we are in a sense confining that individual or group to that label. Knutsson supports this by saying that “if a person is treated by others as a deviant he will regard himself as one and behave in accordance with this deviant identity, (Knutsson, 1977, p. 28). To get a better picture, he gives this illustration for the  corridor of deviance or basically how one takes on the deviant role when labeling occurs: “1) a  person lives in a group where qualities and acts are viewed as deviant; 2) this person is believed to exhibit deviance; 3) he gets typed and assigned deviant status; 4) his actions come to official notice and he becomes an official case in various agencies of social control; 5) this social  processing propels him into organized deviant life, and out of conventional life; 6) finally, as a  culmination of this entire process, he redefines himself, assumes the status and performs the  deviant role, becoming in the end what everybody said he was at the outset”, (Knutsson, 1977, p.  30-31). If you think about it, societal views and their idea of normative behavior is what essentially shapes how people want to be viewed. So when society utilizes that type of power and influence to stigmatize individuals that are involved in deviant or criminal behavior, it  creates biases against people. Then when you add in stereotyping and the historical context  behind institutionalized racism and how America views people of color, racial profiling becomes  the result. “As long as a child is unaware of what is "disobedient" or "ill-bred", such conduct kind has no qualitative significance for him”, (Knutsson, 1977, p. 34). But the problem is  historically with young black men their conduct does have qualitative significance. Their conduct  is questioned and labeled, even when the subject of "disobedience" or "ill-bred" is something as  simple as walking down the street with a hood on and hands in their pockets. Knutsson also  explains how the way people do things or view things may be different among other groups. “A  person may belong to a minority group or subculture whose values and ways of behaving may  lead to violations of the rules of the dominant group. He may be simply unaware of the rules and violate them unintentionally, (Knutsson, 1977, p. 37). And with stop and frisk, more times than not, these “violations” or causes for suspicion are unintentional because it's based upon the  simple concept of complexion or skin color, which is something that's out of the individual's complete control.  

At the end of the day, we need to view all of the people in society with an all inclusive lens.  Labeling causes more harm than it does good. And in regards to stop and frisk, we need to stop  labeling people, making assumptions based upon those labels, and punishing them for the color of their skin. There are 27 states in America that have no laws that support ban the box. If we want formally incarcerated individuals to become law biting citizens, we need to allow them an equal opportunity to employment. They have already paid for their crimes, so why continue to make them pay?  

References  

A. (n.d.). Racial Profiling: Definition. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from https://www.aclu.org/ other/racial-profiling-definition 

B., & Skaggs, S. L. (n.d.). Link's modified labeling theory. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from  https://www.britannica.com/topic/labeling-theory/Links-modified-labeling-theory 

C. (2015, January 1). Case Study: Floyd v. City of New York: Civil Rights Litigation  Clearinghouse. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/ default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/racial-justice-lit-wkshp/case_study_- _floyd_v._city_of_ny.pdf 

Geller, L. (2019, October 22). Is Stop and Frisk Legal? Retrieved December 3, 2020, from  https://lawofficeofleongeller.com/blog/stop-frisk-legal/ 

Knutsson, J. (1977). Labeling Theory - A Critical Examination. Retrieved December 3, 2020,  from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=47664.  

L. (1992). Stop and frisk. Retrieved December 03, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ stop_and_frisk 

P. (2020). Ban The Box States: Full List And Map. Retrieved December 3, 2020, from https:// www.paycor.com/resource-center/ban-the-box-state-by-state 

Thompson, T. (2019, March 15). NYPD's Infamous Stop-and-Frisk Policy Found  Unconstitutional (1098144509 831749103 T., Ed.). Retrieved December 03, 2020, from  https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-and-frisk-policy-found unconstitutional/ 

Kelly Smith is a student at Pace University In New York City and is from Orange County. After leaving California, Kelly’s perspective changed. Her eyes opened to so many new aspects of life, including issues within our institutions. Kelly’s goal is to continue learning and expanding, with the hope of spreading knowledge and provoking awareness throughout all communities.