The palgrave international handbook of a 153

144

J. Maher et al.

the age-old proverb ‘give a dog a bad name and hang him’8 (Simpson and
Speake 2000), the labelling of dogs as status giving, dangerous and aggressive
thrusts these dogs into a vicious cycle of violence. The desire to own a status
dog is linked to the label9 placed upon them by society and youth peers as
‘socially deviant’ (or antisocial) companions, resulting in a harmful cycle
where these dogs: (1) are labelled as aggressive, dangerous and linked to
criminality (for example, dog fighting), (2) are established as valued amongst
deviant youths; (3) become further associated with oppositional culture and
are labelled as socially deviant and vilified by mainstream society, (4) have
their status elevated amongst deviant youths and those pursuing anti-social or
criminal activities (Ragatz et al. 2009 and Schenk et al. 2012), and (5) are
abandoned, rejected and killed by mainstream society (including non-deviant
bull-breed owners). Moreover, ownership of these dog breeds then becomes a
tool with which society can label antisocial youth and other owners.10
Labelling theory, which focuses on the impact of social reactions to crime on
the offender, has been extensively applied in criminological literature (Becker
1973). It can be understood as involving two main components, which help
explain the harms experienced by status dogs. First, labels are imposed in part
because of the status of those labelling differs to those being labelled. Second,
as a result of the deviant label applied, secondary deviance occurs, as those
labelled struggle to adjust to this new identity. Under certain conditions, this
may lead the person labelled to greater involvement in crime and deviance.
Notably, labelling is not always passive; as suggested earlier, status dog owners
may actively seek out the deviant label rather than having it cast upon them by
others (as indicated in Braginsky et al.’s theory of mental illness 1969).
While it is difficult to disentangle how and when the labelling process
began, it is likely linked to the historical use of bull types in dog fighting, the

spread of ‘pit bull panic’ from the USA in 2002 (Delise 2007) to the UK
(and many other countries), the sensationalised media reporting of bull breed
attacks on people, the association of these dogs with the working class and
the aggressive measures used by the government to eradicate them. Status
dogs are set apart from other breeds and labelled as inherently dangerous and
aggressive. Society’s insistence on labelling specific breeds gives rise to the
most pervasive harm to status dogs—euthanasia. Many countries (for example, the UK, Ireland, USA) have introduced breed specific legislation [BSL]
8

The proverb suggests that a person’s plight is hopeless once his reputation has been blackened
attaching a name or a signature to someone or some behaviour
10
See for example the Policing and Crime Act 2009 prohibits ‘status dogs’ taken out in public by ‘gang
members’
9