Stigma has been studied in multiple disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, and criminology) and conceptualized in various ways. In general, stigma is defined as a measure of shame or disgrace brought on by physical and/or mental qualities differentiating individuals from the broader population. Sociology further refines this definition by adding a discounting feature— normal individuals use stigma to discredit accomplishments and stereotype those deemed different. Stigma may be visually obvious (overt), such as race and individuals with physical disabilities, or a concealable identity (covert), such as criminal status. However, this criminal or offender identity is no longer concealable when individuals are required to disclose their status for community engagement. Criminal stigma intersects psychology and criminology to explain how the label offender or criminal negatively impacts an individual’s life upon release. Ex-offenders in many states are unable to vote and face financial and residential restrictions. Most notably, criminal stigma decreases the ability of ex-offenders to find legal employment. This entry focuses on the development of stigma, its impact on ex-offenders, and how it interacts with racial stigma to limit successful reintegration into society.
Development of Criminal Stigma
Erving Goffman outlined three types of stigma people may encounter: (1) physical deformities (e.g., cerebral palsy, hearing impairment), (2) mental deformities (e.g., depression, schizophrenia), and (3) tribal stigma (e.g., religion, race). For stigma to have a negative impact, individuals not only need to be aware they are stigmatized but also need to anticipate how others will perceive them because of it. Bruce Link and Jo Phelan further developed Goffman’s concept by framing stigma as a convergence of five components: labeling, stereotyping, discrimination, loss of status, and disconnection from the broader population. An important feature of stigma is the negative reaction of others.
Criminal stigma has received the most attention in labeling theory. This theory describes the process through which offenders internalize negative labels and attitudes. Societal reaction to initial criminal deviance (primary deviance) transforms the way in which an offender views himself or herself and thus leads to additional and repeated deviance (secondary deviance). Secondary deviance, or rather the adoption of a deviant identity, only develops if the offender is caught. Once this occurs, the acceptance of the criminal label as truth will activate criminal stigma.
Individuals labeled as offenders are more likely to recidivate than those who avoided the official offender label. One possible reason for this relationship is that people labeled as offenders will anticipate discrimination in the future due to their criminal status and therefore see no reason to adhere to conventional standards. According to modified labeling theory, labeling and societal stereotypes may lead to identity changes and negative views of self. These individuals tend to believe that they will be seen as criminal regardless of prosocial community engagement.
Negative Mental Consequences of Criminal Stigma
Stigma has been linked to negative self-esteem and self-efficacy. When individuals are low in these qualities, it hinders their ability to cope positively in future situations and can lead to detrimental outcomes such as depression and anxiety. It has also been linked to increased risk-taking behaviors. With regard to ex-offenders, perception of stigma has been correlated with withdrawal from society and increased probation violations and other maladaptive behaviors. Although not all stigmas lead to maladaptive coping strategies, it may still negatively affect those closest to the stigmatized individual. For example, having a criminal parent may stigmatize a child as someone whose genetic pool is morally bankrupt and should be avoided.
Criminal Stigma and Limits to Reintegration
Ex-offenders are stigmatized by the label ex-offender which makes it difficult for them to engage prosocially in society. Positive interactions between ex-offenders and nonoffenders in the community help reduce stereotypes associated with prior incarceration. Community engagement includes many qualities such as owning a home, residential stability, having a license, and employment. This section focuses on three domains: employment, civic engagement, and residential restrictions.
Employment
Legal employment is an important step to reducing recidivism and successfully reintegrating into society. However, out of all stigmatized groups, ex-offenders are least likely to get hired. Employers tend to be risk-averse and indicate that they view ex-offenders as more unreliable, prone to drug- and alcohol-related issues, and expect negative reactions of other employees. These reactions, in addition to the gap in employment history while incarcerated and a lack of prior experience, make it nearly impossible for offenders to secure legal employment. Even when legal employment is secured, they make 10–30% less than comparably placed nonoffenders. The exconvict label outweighs any good characteristics an individual may possess.
Civic Engagement
Political involvement is an effective mechanism for reducing the stigma of incarceration. Denial of civic participation, which includes the right to vote, run for office, and serve on juries, reminds offenders that they are not valued members of the community. This further highlights their outcast status and hinders reintegration. Ex-offenders are denied these benefits because they are viewed as morally incompetent. People fear that allowing ex-offenders to vote would change the political process. Of the 50 U.S. states, 48 have some form of sanction on voting rights for ex-offenders. In general, ex-offenders acknowledge the importance of civic participation with desistance. However, if they feel they will be rejected regardless of their prosocial engagement in the community, they lose incentives to obtain a law-abiding status.
Residential Restrictions
Residential restrictions were created with the idea of minimizing the risk of releasing offenders. Law-abiding citizens fear the encroachment of ex-offenders in their community as they believe ex-offenders will bring crime and decrease property values. This limits the ability of many ex-offenders to leave highly disadvantaged areas likely contributing to their involvement in crime in the first place.
Dual Stigma: Crime and Race
Race is also an attribute that is highly stigmatized, and it exponentially increases the negative impact of criminal stigma. Therefore, having both a racial and a criminal stigma is highly detrimental. For example, being both African American and an ex-offender makes it nearly impossible for individuals to secure legal employment. Stigma is similar to stereotyping as it produces an expectation of how someone will behave. These stereotypes may lead employers to perceive African Americans and Hispanics as more dangerous, deviant, lazy, and criminal than European Americans.
Devah Pager found that having a criminal record is one of the worst qualities a person can have on a job application. However, minority status appears to be just as, if not more, detrimental. Pager conducted a study of race and crime on employment. Job applications with identical qualifications were sent to several employers with changes only made regarding race and criminal status. Four groups were assessed: noncriminal African American, criminal African American, noncriminal Caucasian, and criminal Caucasian. Across all groups, having a criminal record reduced the likelihood of receiving a callback. However, race showed a more significant impact. African Americans without criminal records were less likely to receive callbacks than Caucasians with a criminal record.
As Pager noted, individuals may soften the impact of criminal stigma with personal contact. An in-person or over-the-phone interview allows the ex-offender to explain his or her charge. However, this process also showed racial bias. For Caucasians, the effect of criminal stigma diminished when they were given an opportunity to defend themselves. However, for African Americans, personal contact exacerbated the effects of the criminal record because it likely confirmed the employers’ previously held beliefs that they are more prone to criminality.
The issue of race also permeates other aspects of criminal stigma. African Americans are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system. This results in a high percentage being disenfranchised or disqualified from services such as welfare, financial aid, and public housing. Minorities are also more likely to be in communities characterized as high in disadvantage, poverty, and crime. It becomes a cycle of stigma. Minorities, already stigmatized by their race, are stereotyped as more prone to crime. As a result, they are policed more and generate more arrests. This leaves them with an additional criminal stigma that further limits their ability for success in the community.
Reducing the Effects of Criminal Stigma
It is evident that current policy is ineffective in reducing the number of people reoffending, with roughly two-thirds of ex-offenders returning to prison. Not only is it detrimental to public safety, prison is becoming increasingly costly. It is no longer affordable to incapacitate offenders. Addressing the barriers to reentry and reducing stigma are becoming imperative as more and more offenders are released into the community.
Stigma has detrimental effects on the way people expect to be treated and thus how they feel about themselves. Research has shown that stigmatized individuals may be more prone to mental health deficits and maladaptive behaviors. However, there are ways to reduce stigma. Men who have strong family ties while in prison are more likely to succeed once released. They are also more likely to succeed if they are married or take on parenting roles.
Employment is one of the most effective ways to reduce recidivism. It is not only beneficial for reducing crime by reducing opportunities but helps change the offenders’ negative identity and gives meaning to their lives. Therefore, it would be beneficial to both the ex-offender and the community to consider policies that reduce criminal stigma. Some current government programs provide employers tax breaks and other financial incentives to hire ex-offenders. In addition to these programs, many civil rights organizations are pushing for a ban the box policy that would give offenders a fairer chance in the employment process. This policy calls for the removal of prior conviction information on the job application, allowing offenders to be judged on their qualifications before having to divulge their prior criminal record.
Desistence research finds that social ties to family are beneficial to reentry success. For example, good-quality social ties to family may lead to ex-offenders acquiring a job through personal connections. Families are more likely to forgive an offender’s criminal history. This helps reduce stigma and build social bonds. Familial ties are also beneficial because they produce a controlling effect on the offender, provide emotional support, and help facilitate changes in antisocial attitudes or identity.
Research shows that the most critical period for failure is within the first 6 months of release. After 7–10 years without criminal incidents, very few people reoffend. Therefore, sealing records of low-risk offenders after 7 years without a reoffense might also be a minimally controversial option. In Canada, most offenders have the opportunity to seal their records by applying for a pardon (although some are excluded, e.g., sex offenders). To request a pardon, misdemeanor applicants must demonstrate good behavior in the community for 3 years. Felony applicants are required to wait 5 years. Committing a crime within that period makes the offender ineligible. This pardoning process provides offenders with incentives for good behavior. The United States could benefit from an incentive program as it could lift the residential, financial, and voting restrictions that leave an individual disenfranchised and disengaged from the community.
Implications
Stigma reduces the quality of life for all those affected. It generates feelings of shame and self-consciousness that leave people feeling isolated. Stigmatized individuals are often dehumanized, devalued, and viewed as outcasts. The stigma of criminals is perpetuated by the idea that offenders choose to commit crime and therefore are undeserving of resources. However, noting the detrimental effects of stigma and its negative impact on crime, it could be beneficial for all individuals and the broader society to address these issues.
References:
- Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the average citizen: Stigma, role transition, and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 261–293). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
- Bos, A. E., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746147
- Decker, S. H., Spohn, C., Ortiz, N. R., & Hedberg, E. (2014). Criminal stigma, race, gender and employment: An expanded assessment of the consequences of imprisonment for employment. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/244756.pdf
- Goffman, E. (1986). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
- Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(6), 363–385. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
- Pager, D. (2007). Two strikes and you’re out: The intensification of racial and criminal stigma. In D. Weiman, S. Bushway, & M. Stoll (Eds.), Barriers to reentry (pp. 151–173). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
- Pettit, B., & Lyons, C. (2007). Status and the stigma of incarceration: The labor market effects of incarceration by race, class, and criminal involvement. In D. Weiman, S. Bushway, & M. Stoll (Eds.), Barriers to reentry (pp. 203–226). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
- Visher, C. A., & Kachnowski, V. (2007). Finding work on the outside: Results from the “returning home” project in Chicago. In D. Weiman, S. Bushway, & M. Stoll (Eds.), Barriers to reentry (pp. 80–114). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.