he criminal justice system, labeling has made some notable contributions within juvenile courts in recent years with regards to implications for policy and deterrence. Recidivism rates for juvenile offenders are usually higher than for adult offenders, perhaps because of two tenets of labeling theory: that the delinquent label changes opportunities over the life course, leading the labeled individual to have to find unconventional ways to obtain socioeconomic success, and that the label leads others to treat the offender in accordance with that label, thus allowing for adoption/internalization of the label (Kroska et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2017; Restivo & Lanier, 2015). Recent research has led to the realization that any naming and shaming is stigmatizing, causing juvenile courts to review and change policies (Lee et al., 2017). Due to labeling theory contributions, some juvenile courts no longer release the names of young offenders, and proceedings are kept private to prevent this social label from forming or sticking (Braithwaite & Drahos, 2002). Another contribution is the finding that youth rehabilitation programs may be better than juvenile detention centers for juvenile offenders because rehabilitative programs do not have the same stigmatizing effects, thus potentially shielding them from the loss of opportunities and the self-fulfilling prophecy in the future (Kroska et al., 2016). Another policy effort that has resulted from labeling theory is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2012 change to United States federal guidelines, which now require employers to make individual assessments to consider the type of crime and the age of the criminal record, the relevance of the offense to the job, and evidence of good conduct and rehabilitation when reviewing applications (Denver et al., 2017). This is meant to give offenders a better chance with re-entry, helping both offenders and those they encounter to recognize that people are more than their labels. Finally, in 2016, the United States Department of Justice implemented a policy change that requires person-first language when describing offenders: instead of “convicted felon,” one would say “person with a felony conviction” (Denver et al., 2017). This change in language is meant to reduce the chance of a label sticking to an individual. As history has shown, labels often do not stick to powerful offenders (Gottschalk, 2016). This is where theories regarding crimes of the powerful come into play.>