Perceptions of Stigma following Public Intervention for Delinquent Behavior

Foster, Jack; Dinitz, Simon; Reckless, Walter C.

doi:10.2307/799614

Cited by 34 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (1972) failed to observe that apprehended boys perceived interpersonal difficulties associated with being apprehended. Sherman and Berk (1984), in a field experiment on domestic violence, found that arrested subjects showed significantly less subsequent violence than those not arrested.…”

Section: Consequences Of Negative Social Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…However, other investigators have concluded that formal negative sanctions do not influence commitment to deviant careers (Gove 1975;Wellford 1975;Hawkins 1976;Hepburn 1977), do not influence variables that are hypothesized to mediate the relationship between sanctions and deviance (Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless 1972), and do indeed deter rather than amplify deviance (Sherman and Berk 1984;Berk, Campbell, Klap, and Western 1992). For example, Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (1972) failed to observe that apprehended boys perceived interpersonal difficulties associated with being apprehended.…”

Section: Consequences Of Negative Social Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Negative social sanctions, self‐derogation, and deviant behavior: Main and interactive effects in longitudinal perspective

Kaplan

Damphousse

1997

Deviant Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Consequences Of Negative Social Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Consequences Of Negative Social Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Negative social sanctions, self‐derogation, and deviant behavior: Main and interactive effects in longitudinal perspective

Kaplan

Damphousse

1997

Deviant Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Gold and Williams (1969) in comparing matched groups of delinquents found that those who had been apprehended commited a higher number of subsequent offenses. Another followup study of apprehended youth (Foster et al, 1972) found that only some perceived a negative impact in the deviant label. Mahoney (1974) reviewed several studies finding partial support for the labeling perspective.…”

Section: Deterrence and Labelingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Contrast and complementarity in three theories of criminal behavior

Bales

1982

Deviant Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One early study was conducted by Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (1972). They studied approximately two hun-dred males who had been labeled by the juvenile court.…”

Section: Labeling and Social Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Families, Schools, and Delinquency Prevention

Loury¹,

Wilson²

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A.), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone. Typeset by TCSystems, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 987654321 ISBN 978-1-4615-7031-8 ISBN 978-1-4615-7029-5 (eBook) Preface The essays in this volume result from the convergence of two streams of activity. The first stream was an effort, led by Professor Mark Moore of Harvard University, to think through the current status and future prospects of the juvenile court and the juvenile justice system in the United States. With the support of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Moore convened a series of conferences on this subject, involving scholars, judges, prosecutors, and others who shared a desire to resolve some of the debates and to clarify the uncertainty surrounding what the juvenile court should and could do. The fruits of those deliberations are contained in the first two volumes of this series: a book by Moore on the role of the court (From Children to Citizens, Volume I: The Mandate for Juvenile Justice) and a collection of essays, edited by Francis X. Hartmann, providing various perspectives on that role (From Children to Citizens, Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court).These conferences and essays left Moore and others dissatisfied: Something was missing. It was possible, perhaps, to clarify the mission of the juvenile (or family) court by showing how it could serve as a kind of trustee for "bankrupt families," but it was not clear what kinds of services the court might be able to supply to families in need of help. The court could, of course, punish; but punishment, albeit important, tended to be imposed, for reasons that were not likely to change, on the older, more experienced delinquents. Traditionally, the court was supposed to do more than punish-it was intended to act in loco parentis, helping atrisk children and their parents to avoid the path that led to serious delinquency. The founders of the juvenile court expected it to act early rather than late in the delinquent career and to provide services as well as discipline.Over the years, for reasons explained by Moore, the court has managed to disappoint both those who argue for more certain or more severe punishment and those who favor better and more caring services. As a result, it struggles on in a kind of limbo with an uncertain mandate, a demoralized staff, and weak public support. How the court might better v vi Preface fill its disciplinary role is easily imagined, but many people despair of the court's ever doing much of a preventive or therapeuti...

show abstract

Perceptions of Stigma following Public Intervention for Delinquent Behavior

Cited by 34 publications

References 3 publications

Negative social sanctions, self‐derogation, and deviant behavior: Main and interactive effects in longitudinal perspective

Negative social sanctions, self‐derogation, and deviant behavior: Main and interactive effects in longitudinal perspective

Contrast and complementarity in three theories of criminal behavior

Families, Schools, and Delinquency Prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About