The article by Morris and Piquero (2011): For Whom Do Sanctions Deter And Label, documents on deterrence and labeling theories that make contradicting predictions on the effect of sanction on a particular crime. The authors employ different variables in their quest to prove these theories. The first variable used is treatment variable, which determines whether a respondent has ever been arrested or not. Other serves as covariates and include sex, social, economic status, age, race, peer influence, social disorganization, and place of residence.
Question Two
The null hypothesis, according to the study, would have stated that any arrest made have no relation to the offender’s profile and or social perception and no stigmatization is accrued from such action. It will also claim that the arrests made do not increase the frequency of crime or the rehabbing of the offender does not occur (Morris " Piquero, 2011). On the other hand, the alternative hypothesis contradicts this and state whether or not, arrests made lead to a rise in the subsequent offense (labeling theory). Similarly, another interpretation would be, do sanctions result in offending? Therefore, both the approaches depict the relationship between punishment and crime.
Question Three
Based on the argument laid by the authors, I would classify the alternative hypothesis as a hypothesis of association. The article shows that there is a relation between the rate of crime and the effect of arrests, which can be accrued to deterrence and labeling theory (Morris " Piquero, 2011). According to the article, deterrence theory states that arrest made should discourage the occurrence of crime in the future and serve as a reminder that offense comes with a price. On the other hand, labeling theory argues that any sanction made may increase subsequent offending through the labeling of individual arrested as criminal offenders.
Reference
Morris, R. G., " Piquero, A. R. (2011). For whom do sanctions deter and label? Justice Quarterly, 30(5), 837-868.
