The Language of Stigmatization and the Mark of Violence: Experimental Evidence on the Social Construction and Use of Criminal Record Stigma

Abstract

After years of stagnation, labeling theory has recently gained new empirical support. Simultaneously, new policy initiatives have attempted to restructure criminal record stigma to reduce reintegration barriers, and subsequent recidivism, driven by labeling. For example, in a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) language policy, person-first terms (e.g., "person with a conviction") were substituted for crime-first terms (e.g., "offender"). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also issued guidelines to structure how decision-makers use criminal records. Unfortunately, little is currently known about the social construction and use of criminal record stigma or the potential effects of such policy changes. In the current study, we provide two unique empirical tests. In study 1, we examine the social construction of stigma by testing DOJ's language policy with experimental data from a nationally representative sample of American adults (N = 996). In study 2, we use a separate nationwide experiment (N = 1,540) to examine how the contextualization of criminal records influences social exclusion decisions. Across both studies, we find consistent evidence of a "mark of violence." The public perceives that individuals with violent convictions are the most likely to commit future crimes, and it is more supportive of excluding these individuals from employment. Crime-first terms exacerbate perceived recidivism risk for individuals with violent convictions.

Criminal Records, Positive Employment Credentials, and Race

“…An additional concern about the generalizability of our findings is that we are primarily interested in how people react to both stigmatizing and mitigating circumstances rather than querying employers specifically in response to real job applications. While prior research comparing public and employer preferences for employment opportunities for people with criminal records finds strong similarities, employers may emphasize certain applicant or criminal record traits more than the public (Denver et al 2017). Therefore, we also separately consider only respondents who had reviewed job applications and made employment decisions in the past.…”

“…First, both of the convictions referenced an 18-month prison sentence, and the two crime types tend to yield roughly similar median prison sentences (BJS 2013). Second, prior research indicates respondents have more negative reactions to violent convictions relative to other conviction types (Denver, Pickett, and Bushway 2017; Holzer et al 2007; Hunt et al 2018; Pager 2007), which could result in meaningful differences when evaluating positive credentials.…”

Employer aversion to criminal records: An experimental study of mechanisms

“…Once labeled, stigma involves stereotyping that connects records to a range of undesirable characteristics associated with the criminal justice system. These attributes—such as dangerousness and untrustworthiness—reflect broadly negative characteristics of a discredited group as opposed to characteristics specific to the prohibited behavior that prompted criminal justice involvement for any individual (e.g., Becker, /1963; Denver, Pickett, & Bushway, ).…”

The language of incarceration

“…However, he does not specifically address the debates about person-first language. In the first study of its kind focused specifically on the language related to criminal record stigma, stimulated by the change in language policy by the US Department of Justice, Denver et al (2017), using experimental data from two large samples, found that the use of crime versus person-first language for people convicted of violent crimes negatively impacted on people’s perceptions of the individual’s risk of recidivism. The authors focused on whether person-first language impacted on the participants’ perception of the risk of recidivism and also zeroed in on whether the type of crime, the time since release, and the employment context mattered in this assessment.…”

“…The authors found that the language that is used to describe people only had an effect for people charged with convictions for violent crimes, and that these perceptions translate into people’s decisions to engage in job denial. In summary, they claim that “the violent offender label is particularly virulent and powerful” in the context of American life (Denver et al, 2017: 156). The authors endorse the US Department of Justice initiative to eliminate stigmatizing language and point to the continued use of stigmatizing terms in the criminological literature.…”