Stop Labelling People Who Commit Crimes Analysis

Around the world, lawbreakers are usually categorized according to their faults and that is their image in front of the world. Kimberly Brownlee, a PhD graduate in philosophy from the University of Oxford, author of Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience (2012) and a professor in Warwick University, claims that calling people with labels not only hides the difficulty of the situation but also stops them from remodeling their lives again. Labels like ‘criminal’ and ‘murderer’ are the reasons why people are rejected in society even after they have completed their term of punishment.
The article “Stop labelling people who commit crimes criminals”, by Kimberly Brownlee (2017) talks about the unfairness of labeling people according
She first begins to address the issue by demonstrating, through examples, the prevalence of epithets in the area of crime. By doing so, she alerts the reader of an issue that may not have crossed their mind previously. Once she obtains the attention she sought out for through this approach, she goes on to use another: analogy. Brownlee utilizes the technique of analogy to question why epithets are normalized for areas of crime but stigmatized in other “social” areas. This comparison leads one to contemplate the seriousness of this issue while considering the different contexts in which epithets have been used. This further connects the reader to the topic at hand. Throughout the essay, Brownlee considers different perspectives to the matter, such as the usefulness of epithets in areas of crime in the past. By later combining this strategy with her supporting explanations as to why the use of epithets is an unfair practice, the author makes sure to provide the reader with enough information to find the path to a well-informed opinion on the matter. A combination of these techniques provides the passage with structure and coherence, as each strategy falls into an order throughout the
The article talks about the story of the book the South of forgiveness. The book is written by an offender and his victim. The article fails to recognize that this is an extremely unique situation and rare to find. It cannot be generalized for the purpose of the article. Not every offender can be forgiven even if they committed the crime once. Another flaw in the article is perhaps that it equates all crimes to be equal. A petty thief or compulsive liar’s actions cannot be equated to those of a person who has murdered someone. Removing labels from a crime reduces the weightage on them; everyone who has committed a crime cannot be treated equal. Different criminals cannot be treated equal and criminals cannot be treated equal to civilians. The article fails to recognize the opposing view of the point made. The article takes the approach where anyone who has committed a crime can be forgiven as long as the crime isn’t unforgiveable. However, the article doesn’t draw a line to where a crime is forgivable, because it cannot easily be defined morally. It leaves an abstract idea of unforgivable crimes. What may be forgivable by some may not be by others. Some may believe petty theft is a big crime whilst for others it may not be. Where a person can or cannot be labeled is not given in the article and it is a vague argument. According to the essay, “By reducing people to their crimes, we see them as