A fundamental weakness of shaming is its assumption that offenders do not wish to lose the respect of their family and/or peers. Cohen suggests that delinquent subcultures can actually provide the status craved by lower-class male juveniles (Cohen, in Sykes and Matza, 2003, p231). Katz concurs: young offenders enjoy the kudos of street crime, career offenders bask in their reputations for criminality and ‘badness’. Indeed, the latter may even escalate their criminality in the present to maintain a particular position in the criminal hierarchy and increase status in the future (Katz, 2003, pp169-176). Katz argues that this “…is a powerful strategy for constructive purposiveness” (Katz, 2003, p176), creating a situation where ‘bad’ equals good. Under these circumstances, shaming is ineffective as offenders won’t engage their internal moral emotions; they have chosen not just to commit a crime but to adopt a particular lifestyle. Due to this lifestyle choice, Katz (2003, pp170-175) argues that the tendency toward the pursuit of power and status is a more appropriate starting point for the study of deviancy, rather than Mertonian theories of materialism and positivistic determinism. Furthermore, he contends that the “…attractions of sneaky thrills” are cross-cultural. Whether street yobs, career criminals, white-collar offenders or even government-sanctioned military conflicts, Katz argues that the context of maintaining power and status underpins deviant behaviour (Katz, 2003, pp176-178). In addition, Hirschi and Gottfredson (2003, pp151-153) suggest that tendencies to deviancy remain stable and constant throughout an individual’s life due to a greater or lesser degree of self-control; the lower an individual’s self-control, the greater the propensity to criminal behaviour and the lower the receptibility to shaming. This demonstrates how an understanding of why crimes are committed is crucial to appreciating the limitations of shaming.
By contrast with Katz, who argues that deviancy is chosen, Sykes and Matza claim that criminal behaviour is learned though social interaction. This creates a deviant subculture in which normative values on proper behaviour are inverted. However, within this, Sykes and Matza propose that juvenile delinquents still experience a pull towards conformity. Whilst this makes them susceptible to shaming, equally it provokes unwanted feelings of humiliation and fuels internal validations for criminal behaviour, called rationalizations, which allow offenders to absolve themselves of blame and/or responsibility for their actions (Sykes and Matza, pp231-234). These techniques of neutralisation are the building blocks to learned delinquent behaviour, and allow the offender to deny responsibility, deny injury, and even to deny the victim. Furthermore, the offender condemns their condemners and appeals to the higher loyalties of their own subculture, both techniques of which affirm the validity of their actions (Sykes and Matza, pp234-236). As a crucial component of reintegrative shaming is acknowledgment of wrong-doing and acceptance of responsibility for their actions by the offender with an accompanying will to put things right, it can be seen that techniques of neutralisation form a powerful barrier to shaming, and are a fundamental weakness in its use as a crime control resource.
Another weakness in the application of shaming is society itself. Braithwaite (2003, pp396-398) demonstrates how shaming works well in Japan. However, Japanese culture is more homogenous than is Western society, and holds respect in higher esteem (Hughes, 2001, p285). Shaming is used to great effect in New Zealand, where family conferences have success in determining responses to offending. But this relies on a strong family-orientated, communitarian society (Hughes, 2001, p286). The UK does not have this societal philosophy, with increasing numbers of divorce, lone parents and geographically dispersed families (Hall, 1998, pp10-11) Furthermore, research shows that poorly-educated, unemployed young men from ethic minority backgrounds feature most prominently in court proceedings, crime figures and prison (Box, 2003, p272; Sparks, 2001, p216). There is a worry that shaming could be used to further marginalise and remove power from already subordinate groupings, as happened to the Aboriginal people of Australia (Hughes, 2001, p288). Given that shaming often is not applied to crimes of the powerful such as organised crime (Braithwaite, 2003, p397) and that white-collar crime is hard to prove and more readily deniable than street crime (Katz, 2003, p175), the potential for creating societal power imbalances is a big weakness of shaming.
It appears that shaming has a number of hefty weaknesses, but what of its strengths? Shaming can strengthen societal bonds and it can have benefits for victims of crime, it can cut crime and reduce recidivism, plus it can indirectly reduce prison numbers and in doing so provide more resource for rehabilitation programmes. I look at each of these strengths in turn.
Znaniecki (in Braithwaite, 2003, p396) argues that punishment “…seems to significantly reinforce agreement or solidarity” in the social grouping doling it out. Braithwaite contends that this participation is key to confirmation of moral and immoral, right and wrong behaviour for wider society. Reintegrative shaming confirms the moral code from the perspective of society and instils it in the offender (Braithwaite, 2003, p396). This is illustrated by the successful community justice centre formulated and run by the New York community of Red Hook. The centre uses reintegrative shaming and a holistic approach to criminal, housing and family justice to deal with offenders and tackle social inequalities. The result is a confident, cohesive community connected to the judiciary and less fearful of crime (Wavell, 2003, p66). As well as benefits for society, shaming can have profound effects on the victims of crime. The British Crime Survey (BCS) showed that victims of burglary or mugging would prefer answers from their assailants, rather than seeing them imprisoned (Wright, 2002, p63). Thames Valley police are using reintegrative shaming with youth offenders to provide victims with opportunities to confront their offenders. Victims feel acknowledged and can let go of the fear invoked by suffering crime (Ludlow, 2003, p65); in one particular instance, assailant and assaulted forged a friendly relationship (Miranda, 2002, p62).
These are powerful benefits of shaming, but its real strength is that shaming can cut crime rates and reduce recidivism. Thames Valley police claim that reintegrative shaming centred on restorative cautions showed a marked reduction in youth reoffending (Wright, 2002, p62). Offenders expressing genuine remorse may have their sentences reduced (Ludlow, 2003, p65). Critics argue that criminals may be disingenuous about this to reap the rewards of lighter sentencing – even Braithwaite admits that this is a possibility (Braithwaite, 2003, p395). The community of Red Hook refutes this, stating that shaming and restorative measures are not an easy option for offenders (Wavell, 2003, p66); for petty offenders, facing their victims is difficult and negates any kudos gained from criminality (Wright, 2002, p63). And shaming can go beyond youth crime. Grendon Prison uses reintegrative shaming techniques alongside rehabilitation programmes and works successfully with habitual offenders who have committed serious crimes. The programme promotes pro-social behaviour, self-management and cuts recidivism in a population deemed highly likely to reoffend (D315 CD2, 2005).
But what of shaming’s potential to affect prison populations? Currently, the average custodial sentence is just 6-8 months (D315 CD2, 2005) and the number of offenders being sentenced for these relatively short terms is increasing (Murray, 2004, p53). Research suggests that a more effective way of handling these offenders is for discretionary measures to be taken (Von Hirsch, 2003, pp346-347). An increase in the use of shaming and restorative programmes instead of prison in these circumstances could have an effect on the UK’s prison population, perhaps seeing inmate numbers reduced. Sturt states that the single greatest impediment to effective rehabilitation is the rising prison population (D315 CD2, 2005). Relief from the burden of rising inmate numbers could free up valuable personnel and monetary resources for prisons to concentrate more effectively on treatment and training programmes. Good rehabilitation changes destructive patterns of behaviour, cuts recidivism (Rose 2002, 2002, p50) and does away with some primary reasons for offending, therefore shaming creates opportunities for an exponential impact on crime rates and prison numbers in the long-term. Walklate (2001, p304) suggests that the police alone cannot combat crime. The number of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales towards the end of the last century was approximately 4.5 million (Muncie, 2001, p23). The BCS found that there is a gaping chasm between the numbers of crimes committed and those recorded (Muncie, 2001, p26). If shaming and restorative measures can prevent even as few as 1% of crimes, the investment must surely be worthwhile.
In conclusion, shaming is a tool for making offenders face up to the impact of their actions and accept responsibility for the harms they have caused. On a lower level, it teaches people right from wrong, so that on a higher level the notion of committing criminal acts becomes unthinkable. Shaming goes beyond deterrence and connects individuals with their inner conscience. It can be seen that shaming has both strengths and weaknesses, with critics arguing that offenders will exploit restorative measures for their own gain. In addition, offenders’ motives for criminality impact on how successful shaming may be; not all offenders lose family and peer status through offending, rendering shaming useless. Furthermore, techniques of neutralisation dilute the possible effects of shaming, as offenders rationalise their behaviour and cast themselves as the victim. This all sounds depressing, and shaming has a tough battle to fight. But the arguments for shaming are compelling. By engaging an individual’s moral-emotional response to their own behaviour, shaming can cut youth crime and in doing so perhaps halt potential career criminals. Recidivism is reduced and, in the long-term, so too could be prison populations, allowing the fostering of more successful rehabilitation programmes. The end result could be more effective prisons promoting alternatives to crime for offenders upon release, less crime, fewer victims and enhanced societal quality of life. Shaming may be seen by some as a risk but, should the criminal justice system and society at large have the courage to pursue it as a crime control resource, the rewards could be very high.
(2073 )
References:
Box, S (2003). ‘Crime, power and ideological mystification’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Braithwaite, J (2003). ‘Reintegrative shaming’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition (2003). Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
D315 (2005) Audio CD 2, Programme 1 ���Does prison work?��� Open University.
Hall, C (1998). ‘A family for nation and empire’. In G Lewis (Ed). D218: Forming Nation, Framing Welfare. Routledge, London, in association with the Open University.
Hirschi, T and Gottfresdon, M R (2003). ‘The generality of deviance’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition (2003). Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Hughes, G (2001). ‘The competing logics of community sanctions: welfare, rehabilitation and restorative justice. In E McLaughlin and J Muncie, Controlling Crime. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Jewkes, Y et al (2006). D315 Policy File. Thanet Press, Margate. In association with the Open University.
Katz, J (2003). ���Seductions and repulsions of crime’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition (2003). Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Ludlow, M (2003). ‘Criminals who say sorry win cut in sentence’. The Sunday Times, 22 June 2003. Copyright NI Syndication. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
McLaughlin, E, Muncie, J, Hughes, G and Westmarland, L (2003). Theory Guide 2: Crime Control. The Open University.
Miranda, C (2002). ���Thugs are now my mates’. Evening Standard, 10 May 2002. Copyright Evening Standard. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Muncie, J (2001). ‘The construction and deconstruction of crime’ in J Muncie and E McLaughlin (Eds). The Problem of Crime. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Murray, C (1997). ���The ruthless truth: prison works’, Sunday Times, 12 January 1997. Copyright News International Syndiation.. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Rose, D (2002). It’s official – prison does work after all’. The Observer, 5 May 2002, Copyright The Observer. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Sparks, R (2001). ‘Prisons, punishment and penality’. In J Muncie and E McLaughlin (Eds). Controlling Crime. Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Sykes, G M and Matza, D (2003). ‘Techniques of neutralization’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition (2003). Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Von Hirsch, A (2003). ‘Giving criminals their just deserts’. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition . Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Wavell, S (2003). ‘Brooklyn justice is the perfect Blunkett model’. The Sunday Times, 13 July 2003. Copyright NI Syndication. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Wilson, J Q (1983). ‘On deterrence. In E McLaughlin, J Muncie and G Hughes (Eds). Criminological Perspectives, 2nd Edition . Sage Publications, London. In association with the Open University.
Wright, G (2002). ‘Making offenders face their victims can halve crime’. Evening Standard, 10 May 2002. Copyright Evening Standard. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
Wright, M (2002). ‘David Blunketts big idea’. The Observer, 14 July 2004. Copyright Martin Wright. In Jewkes, Y (2006). D315 Policy File, Open University.
