The Journal of Christianity in the Social Sciences

adoption by individual persons of the negative Labeling Theories and Sex label artificially imposed on them by their particular society as a result of perceived Offender Registries: The criminal and or socially deviant behaviors 21st Century Scarlet Letter (Bernard et al., 2016). Simply stated, Lemert (1951) argued that once negatively labeled by their society, affected persons were not By Tari McNeil effectively dissuaded from continuing their criminal and or socially deviant behaviors, and Liberty University instead acted in accordance to how their particular society had already defined them to be (Bernard et al., 2016). Lemert’s general theory of Lemert’s general theory of deviance (1951) (1951) has contemporary relevance in the built upon the theoretical foundation American criminal system, particularly previously established by Tannenbaum’s in the development and implementation of (1938) labeling theory, which sought to provide sex-offender registries (Bernard et al., 2016). a general theoretical explanation for the Generally speaking, sex offender registries negative and correlative effect of assigning a provide law enforcement officials with a specific behavioral label or definition to standardized means of monitoring convicted individual persons based upon their presumed sex offenders, and American society with socially deviant behaviors. Tannenbaum valuable information regarding sex offenders (1938) theorized that once negatively living and or working in their neighborhoods. associated with a societally imposed label, a It is also true that there are two specific flaws person typically internalized that societally in sex offender registries that render them st imposed label and continued the deviant susceptible to becoming the 21 century behavior because of their perception that they equivalent of the “Scarlet Letter.” were what society had defined them to be (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2016). Lemert’s Summary general theory of deviance (1951) elaborated Although this paper is primarily on Tannenbaum’s (1938) labeling theory focused on Lemert’s general theory of through Lemert’s argument that it was likely deviance (1951), Bernard et al. (2016) also that there were also biological, psychological, discussed additional evidence-based research or social components involved in criminal and on labeling theories conducted by others, and socially deviant behaviors, and that there were also provided readers with a comprehensive also two separate and graduated levels of discussion of evidence-based research into these specific behaviors: primary and secondary. conflict . As a result, readers were was defined as the provided with an informed definition and infrequent and unorganized criminal and or understanding of each theory, and its specific socially deviant behavior demonstrated by relevance and value to a better understanding individual persons which had elicited a of criminal and or socially deviant behavior. A negative reaction and behavioral label from brief overview of labeling theories and the general society of those persons. Left is provided (Bernard et unchecked and unlabeled, Lemert (1951) al., 2016). argued that these particular behaviors were Tannenbaum’s labeling theory (1938) not likely to increase in either frequency or was developed from his research into conflicts nature (Bernard et al., 2016). Secondary that he believed typically occurred between deviance was defined as the internalized juveniles and adults in urban areas. There are

35 Christus Cultura

individual persons by their specific societies, two essential concepts to this labeling theory: but which did not effectively dissuade those definition of the situation, and internalized definition affected persons from continued criminal and (Bernard et al., 2016). Tannenbaum found or socially deviant behavior (Bernard et al., that juveniles and adults in urban areas 2016). Overall, Tannenbaum (1938) and typically defined neighborhood conflicts Lemert (1951) both found that labeling differently. While juveniles saw their specific behaviors of individual persons as behaviors as typical child’s play even as the criminally and or socially deviant and also juveniles grew older, adults appeared more directly associating socially undesirable likely to believe that juveniles should “grow behaviors with the social identity of those out” of certain behaviors at some point in the persons, did not effectively dissuade those reasonably foreseeable future (Bernard et al., persons from continued criminal activity or 2016). When that did not happen as quickly as further deviant behaviors (Bernard et al., adults desired, adults tended to figuratively 2016). attach a negative label or stigma to specific Other researchers found that at least deviant behaviors and to the juveniles, which some criminal offenders did not consider established a negative correlation between the themselves as such, even if already proven presumed deviant behaviors of juveniles and guilty of a criminal offense. Although each of the overall social identity of those juveniles. these researchers studied a different type of Once a juvenile internalized the negative criminal offender, Yochelson and Samenow definition of their behaviors and social (1976), Cameron (1964), and Cressey (1953), identities, Tannenbaum (1938) found that all found that the criminal offenders they juveniles tended to act in accordance with the studied had not internalized a negative self- image that their society believed them to be image of themselves as a result of criminal (Bernard et al., 2016). convictions (Bernard et al., 2016). Instead, as Lemert’s general theory of deviance Sykes and Matza (1957) argued, each was able (1951) elaborated on Tannenbaum’s labeling to rationalize or “neutralize” their criminality theory (1938). Lemert (1951) included both so that it either justified their criminal juveniles and adults in his theoretical offending or ameliorated their criminal explanation of criminal and deviant behaviors, culpability. Specifically, Sykes and Matza and also stated that these behaviors were (1957) stated that there were five explanations likely influenced by biological, psychological, for this type of justification or neutralization and social factors specific to individual of criminal offending: denial of injury, denial of persons (Bernard et al., 2016). Although responsibility, denial of the victim, condemning the Tannenbaum (1938) essentially explained the accuser, and a stated belief in a higher loyalty basic elements of the differing types of (Bernard et al., 2016). Overall, each researcher criminal and deviant behaviors, Lemert (1951) provided a nuanced perspective on the variety specifically affixed explanatory terms to of criminal offenders, criminal offenses describe the two levels of deviant behavior: committed, and how specific offenders primary and secondary. (Bernard et al., 2016). reconciled criminal offending with their Recall that primary deviance was explained as desired social image (Bernard et al., 2016). the infrequent and unorganized criminal or Bernard et al. (2016) provided an socially deviant behavior demonstrated by overview of conflict theories, and a brief individual persons, which had elicited a explanation of each is provided. Sellin (1938) negative reaction and behavioral label from stated that conflict was inherent when the their specific societies. Secondary deviance cultural norms of a particularly complex was explained as the internalized adoption by society were violated. More specifically, Sellin individual persons of the negative reaction (1938) stated that there were two types of and behavioral label imposed on those

36 The Journal of Christianity in the Social Sciences

between them, and that increased levels of conflicts: primary cultural conflicts and secondary criminal offending were more likely when the cultural conflicts (Bernard et al., 2016). Primary differing levels of authority possessed greater cultural conflicts were defined as conflicts that power than the subordinate citizens (Bernard arose between the conflicting cultural norms et al., 2016). of two different cultures in a particular society. Secondary cultural conflicts were Contemporary Relevance defined as those that occurred when a single Although the labeling theories and culture evolved into many different conflict theories described are somewhat subcultures within the same complex society different in their attempts to provide an (Bernard et al., 2016). Sellin’s theory (1938) adequate theoretical explanation for criminal held that with differing cultural norms in the offending, there is a common element same society, that the resulting conflict between each theory when evaluated and between those norms significantly contributed compared as a whole. Each theory included a to the level of criminal offending in that description of conflict and its potential particular society because the existing law in influence on criminal offending (Bernard et those particular societies would no longer al., 2016). Labeling theories stated that represent a consensus among all cultures in conflicting definitions of deviant behaviors that society (Bernard et al., 2016). Vold (1958) inevitably resulted in differing interpretations elaborated on Sellin’s (1938) conflict theory of appropriate behaviors and helped thwart and explained the significance of groups in effective solutions to criminal offending. conflict theory. More specifically, Vold (1958) Conflict theories focused on the specific explained that the differing goals and social nuanced details of certain characteristics dynamics of competing groups contributed to typically present during times of conflict: a sense of conflict as each worked to make differences in cultural norms, levels of their specific contribution to a particular authority, and group and individual dynamics society (Bernard et al., 2016). Vold (1958) (Bernard et al., 2016). Although no one believed that conflicts between competing specific criminological theory alone could groups in a particular society contributed to adequately explain the genesis and evolution the level of criminal offending in a particular of all criminal offending, each theory included society, because of the conflicting legal goals a description of a specific label that was of the majority citizens tasked with the attached to a specific culture, a specific type specific crafting and enforcement of laws for of authority and citizenry, and or to specific that society, and those not in the majority group and individual dynamics, which helped who were tasked with abiding by laws they did provide a better understanding of how not draft and may not intend to abide by specific labels could help identify relevant (Bernard et al., 2016). Turk (1969) developed actors and potential areas of conflict. This his theory of during a particularly may aid in a more informed understanding of turbulent period in American history, and his the criminal offending, resulting in more theory represented a nuanced perspective on effective interventions and legal sanctions for criminological theory reflective of that time. criminal offenders (Bernard et al., 2016). Turk (1969) argued that there were specific Returning to Lemert’s general theory conditions conducive to conflict between the of deviance (1951), his theoretical explanation differing levels of authority and subordinate of the significance of primary and secondary citizens in a particular society (Bernard et al., deviance in relation to criminal and deviant 2016). Generally speaking, Turk (1969) stated behaviors has profound implications for the that the level of organization and effective development and implementation of psychological sophistication of each were sex offender registries (Bernard et al., 2016). predictive of the likelihood of conflict

37 Christus Cultura

monitor the daily life activities of these Sex offender registries are a dual-purposed particular offenders. (Bernard et al., 2016). and externally imposed sanction on convicted Secondary deviance as it is applied to sex criminal offenders: a standardized means for offender registries located in the United effective law enforcement monitoring of States, could be explained as the resulting convicted sex offenders, and as a publicly realization of convicted sex offenders that available resource for concerned citizens they have not only criminally convicted of regarding specific sex offenders living and or specific sex offenses, but also socially working in their neighborhoods. A convicted and segregated as a result of their comprehensive overview of sex offender conviction for specific sex offenses designated registries and their relevance to Lemert’s by their particular jurisdictions (Bernard et al., general theory of deviance (1951) are 2016). Although specific restrictions provided. convicted sex offenders varies by jurisdictions, convicted sex offenders are Sex Offender Registries typically prohibited from certain types of According to Thomas (2012), the employment such as professional positions United States and the United Kingdom have associated with minor children (Thomas, been the trailblazers responsible for the initial 2012). Mandated residency requirements for development and implementation of sex convicted sex offenders is also common offender registries. There are currently (Levenson, 2009). As a result, some convicted approximately 650,000 registered sex sex offenders could internalize a negative self- offenders in the United States, so there is image initially imposed on them as a result of clearly a need for an efficient and accurate sex their criminal convictions for sex offenses and offender registry in this country (Levenson, fail to desist from continued criminal 2009). A comprehensive explanation of the offending especially when similarly situated relevance of Lemert’s general theory of with other convicted sex offenders in close deviance (1951) to the effective development proximity. and implementation of sex offender registries There are two specific flaws in the in the United States is provided. A brief current development and implementation of overview of suggested recommendations for sex offender registries in the United States sex offender registries located in the United today: relatively unfettered public access to States is also provided. individualized information about specific sex Lemert’s general theory of deviance offenders, and sometimes illogically mandated (1951) was not specifically developed as a residency requirements for convicted sex means of providing guidance for the effective offenders. Thomas (2012) stated that the development and implementation of sex United States is the only country in the world offender registries in the United States, but that provides interested persons with open this theory is relevant to American society’s access to information about convicted sex determination that there must be a offenders included on sex offender registries standardized database of individualized and located in the United States. This is despite publicly available information regarding the the varying jurisdictional definitions of what enormous amount of convicted sex offenders constitutes sex offending, and the current in the United States today (Bernard et al., accuracy of the published information about 2016). Primary deviance as it is applied to sex specific sex offenders (Thomas, 2012). offender registries located in the United Mandated residency requirements for States, could be explained as the generally convicted sex offenders typically include negative reaction of society to the criminal prohibitions against residing in within a deeds of convicted sex offenders and the certain proximity to parks, day care centers, correlative societal need to identify, label, and

38 The Journal of Christianity in the Social Sciences

requirements, assuming that those properties and other areas that are typically frequented were also available for selection, but this also by children. Levenson (2009) stated that while means that the entire sex offender population there was limited research about the of that particular county would be limited to effectiveness of housing restrictions, some living in that specific area of the county. This studies had concluded that these particular would likely do little to safeguard the mandated residency restrictions had little perception and reality of public safety in that effect on the of some sexual particular geographic area, and also do little to offenders since it was a well-established fact positively affect the property values of those that the sexual victimization of children is properties (Levenson, 2009). Unless well- typically done by those closest to them such thought out and implemented, information as a member or by a person otherwise about specific sex offenders included on sex already known to the family. As a result, offender registries located in the United States sexual predators are more likely to have ready risks subjecting sex offenders to becoming access to their desired victim regardless of the unwitting recipients of the 21st century version actual residency of the perpetrator of that type of the scarlet letter, becoming further branded of sexual victimization (Levenson, 2009). by society as a result of criminal convictions Two recommendations for more for sex offenses. accurate and effective implementation and development of sex offender registries in the Christian Worldview United States are provided. First, public Joshua 2:1-24 provided a welcome access to individualized information about biblical perspective on both the negative and specific sex offenders should be restricted to positive and effects associated with that individuals personally requesting access to society’s stigmatization and labeling of sexual that information directly from the relevant law offending, as well as a biblically purposed enforcement agency. Although perhaps version of the scarlet letter (New International intimidating to some interested persons, it is Version). Rahab was a known prostitute in preferable that that law enforcement provides Jericho, a biblical land targeted by Joshua and current and accurate information regarding several spies who were intent on seizing convicted sex offenders only to identified Jericho on God’s command for the residency persons rather than allow unfettered access to of God’s children. Although the local society this type of information from the comfort and had looked down on Rahab because of her anonymity of one’s own home. Especially occupation as a prostitute, Joshua didn’t. with the varying jurisdictional definitions of After having received refuge in Rahab’s house sex offending, and sometimes inaccurate or from representatives of the King of Jericho outdated information, sex offender registries intent on apprehending spies known to be could become a source of nosy neighbors and hostile to the ruling interests of the King, criminally minded citizens. Second, while it is Joshua instructed Rahab to tie a scarlet cord understandable that American society would in the window of her house so that when want to help better ensure the safety of its Joshua and his men returned to seize the land most vulnerable citizens, some mandated they would not also unintentionally cause residency restrictions are simply unreasonable. harm or fatal injury to either Rahab or her For example, Levenson (2009) stated that family as a result of her previous faith-based 99% of homes in Orange County, Florida are aid and assistance to them. Because of her within 2,500 feet of parks and day care faith-based and valuable assistance to God’s centers. Not only does it mean that convicted earthly cavalry, Rahab’s deliberate placement sex offenders only have approximately 1% of of the scarlet cord in a window of her home the homes in that county to choose from in spared her and her family from the wrath of order to fulfill mandated residency

39 Christus Cultura

God during the battle vanquishment of Jericho (Joshua 6:17).

Reentry Policy and Criminal Theory

References By Steven D. Grant

Liberty University Bernard, T., Snipes J., & Gerould, A. (2016). Vold’s theoretical criminology (Seventh In January 2008, Pres. George W. Edition). New York, NY: Oxford Bush signed into law the Second Chance Act of University Press. 2007. The purpose of this law was to Levenson, J. (2009). Restricting sex offender reauthorize government funding for reentry residences: Policy implications. Human programs originally passed in 1968 under the Rights, 36(2), 21-23. law entitled Omnibus Control and Safe Thomas, T. (2012). The registration and Streets Act (United States, 2008). Reentry monitoring of sex offenders: A comparative programs have been a part of study. London, England: Routledge. programs throughout history with the primary question hypothetically being, how do offenders reintegrate into society after their incarceration, and what can society do to prevent released offenders from becoming part of the 68% of those individuals that returned to within three years after initial release (Lafleur & O’Grady, 2016)? While this hypothetical question is fundamental to modern reentry theory, this question is only a reformulation of a question that has been pondered by various civilizations across time. The concept of reentry and how it is implemented in a society has risen and fallen across time as attitudes of societies toward crime has changed (Kleinfeld, 2016) The scope of this paper is to consider the formation of current reentry policies and how specific criminal theories may have influenced the formation of these policies.

Current Reentry Policy The concept of for violations of the law seems to be a basic idea Moses & The Ten Commandments. Image Credit: to the human psyche (McGeer & Funk, 2015). Pixabay, Modified. Indeed, in the first criminal act recorded in Scripture, the of Abel by his brother Cain, punishment is meted by God, the ground was cursed so Cain would no longer

40