opportunities throughout their life course. This deterministic view implies that crime is simply inevitable for some people, and could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy or to profiling of those that are labeled in the community. Another weakness is that the theory is difficult to study empirically, and therefore little credible evidence has been found to support the theory. This leads to another criticism, the chicken and egg issue: did the label cause the deviance, or did the deviance incur the label? This is also evident with the Pygmalion Effect, which focuses on outside perceptions of labels instead of an internalized label (Thompson, 2014). For example, if a teacher is told a child is a “problem child,” then he/she is more likely to treat the child in accordance with that problem label, instead of the child thinking he is bad and behaving badly because of the label.
Labeling theory does have its advantages as well. First, it may have merit on crimes of the powerful, as naming and shaming could produce guilt and lessen the likelihood of recidivism for the labeled individual if disapproval comes from someone the individual highly respects (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002). Still, there is a corporate veil that protects the powerful from stigma (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002). Another advantage is that labeling theory brought up conversations and discussions of reintegration through internal shaming and the risks of public shaming to protect vulnerable offenders like juveniles from losing opportunities in the future, as well as implications for life course trajectory (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002; Denver et al., 2017; Kroska et al., 2016). These discussions led to advances in developmental criminology, and to policy efforts aimed at improving opportunities for offenders and reducing recidivism (Denver et al., 2017).