Thank you for the positive feedback. Thinking about my thinking (metacognition in modish terms) can be helpful. Rather than focusing on feelings, I tend to think that reexamining my work is a more fruitful way to reflect on it. It allows me to contextualize myself and question my thinking as if someone else had written the piece. I think its totally fine to change one's mind if there are good reasons to review one's position. On the other hand, I am fairly happy with how this has aged so far, so that is good-ish.
Nice work! To add to the conversation, I wonder if you've had a chance to review criminology/sociology work on labelling theory or stigmatization? I think it would add to your analysis. It addresses questions such as whether being labeled a criminal itself increases the chances of reoffending.
I have not! This seems that it can call for a re-reexamination of what started as a very short article.
My sense is that such labels can indeed have an effect. If we act on those labels by imprisoning, etc., then depending on what prisons/jails look like, we are, in some ways, giving people an environment to form networks with other people who engage in activities our community has deemed undesirable. That could also have an effect.
I think I need to go look for the literature you mentioned. I hope to soon have access to library materials through a university, and then this will be something I can do.
This is a thought-provoking article, and the revisit adds a layer of complexity to a seemingly simple question.
We’re not sure if this angle has been explored before, but we think it’s really about the word “criminal” itself (and how it translates into other languages). Originally, it was coined to describe someone who committed an act that went against society's agreed-upon norms (laws), and these individuals were judged and punished severely, sometimes fatally. Reintegration wasn’t much of an issue back then; those who survived the punishment often isolated themselves or left the area.
As crimes became more severe and print media began to sensationalize them, criminals were increasingly portrayed as the ultimate villains in society’s eyes. The word “criminal” thus gained a much more potent and negative connotation. To accommodate this shift, we institutionalized this “mark of Cain,” so to speak, where in some societies, a convicted criminal loses basic rights, like the right to vote. So, the term "criminal" stops being just a description and starts to define someone’s entire identity. Once it becomes an innate characteristic, reintegration and acceptance into society become much more difficult.
I’m no expert on this, and I hope it doesn’t sound like incoherent rambling, haha. Feel free to correct me where I’m off!
Nice article, guys, & very reflexive (to use a modish term). I wish more academics would follow your example. Thanks, too, for the shout out!
Hi Jason
Thank you for the positive feedback. Thinking about my thinking (metacognition in modish terms) can be helpful. Rather than focusing on feelings, I tend to think that reexamining my work is a more fruitful way to reflect on it. It allows me to contextualize myself and question my thinking as if someone else had written the piece. I think its totally fine to change one's mind if there are good reasons to review one's position. On the other hand, I am fairly happy with how this has aged so far, so that is good-ish.
Nice work! To add to the conversation, I wonder if you've had a chance to review criminology/sociology work on labelling theory or stigmatization? I think it would add to your analysis. It addresses questions such as whether being labeled a criminal itself increases the chances of reoffending.
I have not! This seems that it can call for a re-reexamination of what started as a very short article.
My sense is that such labels can indeed have an effect. If we act on those labels by imprisoning, etc., then depending on what prisons/jails look like, we are, in some ways, giving people an environment to form networks with other people who engage in activities our community has deemed undesirable. That could also have an effect.
I think I need to go look for the literature you mentioned. I hope to soon have access to library materials through a university, and then this will be something I can do.
This is a thought-provoking article, and the revisit adds a layer of complexity to a seemingly simple question.
We’re not sure if this angle has been explored before, but we think it’s really about the word “criminal” itself (and how it translates into other languages). Originally, it was coined to describe someone who committed an act that went against society's agreed-upon norms (laws), and these individuals were judged and punished severely, sometimes fatally. Reintegration wasn’t much of an issue back then; those who survived the punishment often isolated themselves or left the area.
As crimes became more severe and print media began to sensationalize them, criminals were increasingly portrayed as the ultimate villains in society’s eyes. The word “criminal” thus gained a much more potent and negative connotation. To accommodate this shift, we institutionalized this “mark of Cain,” so to speak, where in some societies, a convicted criminal loses basic rights, like the right to vote. So, the term "criminal" stops being just a description and starts to define someone’s entire identity. Once it becomes an innate characteristic, reintegration and acceptance into society become much more difficult.
I’m no expert on this, and I hope it doesn’t sound like incoherent rambling, haha. Feel free to correct me where I’m off!
Thank you for the kind words and commentary. We agree that certain categories start to define identities and that this can have a series of problems.