delinquent peer groups, as the “outsider” begins to have his or her social identity replaced by a new, “true” interpretation (Garfinkel, 1956, p. 421). These processes lead to the solidification of the negative label, resulting in social exclusion in the form of lesser education, lesser paid jobs, and less social support (Denver et al., 2017; Kroska et al., 2016; Restivo & Lanier, 2015). According to Hirschi’s theory of social control, these severed social bonds lead to criminal behavior (Lee et al., 2017). Ostracized from old social circles, the labeled individual may form new bonds with delinquent peers and learn crime from them, increasing the likelihood of criminality (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002). These points all contribute to the advances in developmental criminology that discuss life course trajectory in regards to labeling theory (Denver et al., 2017).

​​Criminal justice.

In the criminal justice system, labeling has made some notable contributions within juvenile courts in recent years with regards to implications for policy and deterrence. Recidivism rates for juvenile offenders are usually higher than for adult offenders, perhaps because of two tenets of labeling theory: that the delinquent label changes opportunities over the life course, leading the labeled individual to have to find unconventional ways to obtain socioeconomic success, and that the label leads others to treat the offender in accordance with that label, thus allowing for adoption/internalization of the label (Kroska et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2017; Restivo & Lanier, 2015). Recent research has led to the realization that any naming and shaming is stigmatizing, causing juvenile courts to review and change policies (Lee et al., 2017). Due to labeling theory contributions, some juvenile courts no longer release the names of young offenders, and proceedings are kept private to prevent this social label from forming or sticking (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002). Another contribution is the finding that youth rehabilitation programs may be better than juvenile detention centers for juvenile offenders because rehabilitative programs do not have the same stigmatizing effects, thus potentially shielding them from the loss of opportunities and the self-fulfilling prophecy in the future (Kroska et al., 2016).