A Article On Condemn The Crime, Not The Person

In “Shame: The emotions and morality of violence,” James Gilligan, a professor of Psychiatry at New York University, argues to make a point that shame can lead to violence in a certain amount of people. After working and interviewing with two convicts in a prison, he learns that there are three preconditions to be met before being considered violent. The first is to not show their feelings of being ashamed due to it threatening their masculinity. The second is that they can’t counteract shame with their social status, achievements, friends and family. The last is not to feel love, guilt, or fear. These preconditions make Gilligan more understanding of the inmates and their lives.

The purpose of this essay is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. This will be accomplished by providing a description of the theory before examining the literature surrounding its strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the theory surround its novel concepts, utility amongst academics and its policy implications. On the contrary, the weaknesses of the theory surround its limited empirical evidence, its ambiguous terminology and its impracticability towards certain offences and certain offenders.

The corrections system has gone through the medical model, the community model, and the crime control model over the last century. In the late eighteen hundreds, the belief that incarceration itself did not reduce crime was emerging. Community based sanctions, like probation and parole, were thought to be great additions and that they would work well in conjunction with incarceration. (Wodahl, 8) Between

Retribution has been associated with increased punishment, decreased treatment, but not with reduced recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990). Not only has there been no reduction in recidivism, there has also been no increase in deterrence through the use of punitive measures (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Deterrence-oriented interventions have actually been shown to increase recidivism by 12%, as demonstrated by Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis (as referenced by Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

Restorative justice is an innovative approach to the criminal justice system that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crimes committed. The methods used in the conventional justice system may deter the offender from committing further crimes, but it does neither repair the harm caused, nor help them acknowledge their responsibility, instead it stigmatises them, worsening the situation instead of improving it (Johnstone 2003). “Stigmatisation is the kind of shaming that creates outcasts; it is disrespectful, humiliating” (p.85). It breaks the moral bonds between offender and community and can result in the creation of a destructive cycle that may result in fear and isolation. The shaming by stigmatisation creates a negative effect which

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

It’s common to argue that a perpetrator “deserves” to be shamed, but in fact human psychology doesn’t work this way. Many pedophiles, for instance, recognize that that they are inexorably—even biologically—bound to impulses that they themselves loathe. Does the shaming—through public registries for example—cause the pedophile to reform? Unlikely. Does it deter others from engaging in pedophilic acts, or does it drive them to darker corners and sneakier tactics?

When we hear shaming our minds quickly go to someone being embarrassed and humanized for their past actions. In public view for people to create judgments and uncertainty about a behavior seen from a certain person. This description falls under the common form of shaming known as stigmatization, found in our criminal system stigmatization is disrespectful shaming, “where the offender is treated as a bad person. The offender is left with that stigma permanently” (Braithwaite, 2000, 282) due to the forgivingness found in this form of shaming. Stigmatization shaming only tends to bring more shame than a resolution so crime tends to increase the crimes because the offender feels like there no way out, so I might as well

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

This essay explains sentencing in the United States Criminal Justice system. The objectives of punishment in the United States corrections is to help deter crime and to ensure reoffenders don’t reoffend. Sentencing impacts the corrections system and society in a positive manor by eliminating offenders out of the community. Sentencing may include one of the following: probation, fines, prison, community service, probation and so forth depending on the state you reside and the type of offense you commit. Each crime committed doesn’t have a set sentence, therefore they are determined on a case to case basis. The main goal of the criminal justice system is to defend the community and serve justice. Sentencing plays a vital role in the Criminal Justice system.

The three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system is to punish the offender, compel law breakers to undergo rehabilitate treatment and restitution. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as evil. Although it is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. It is said if an offender gets punished by unpleasant and unwanted consequences it will most likely discouraged him/her from breaking the law again. Also it satisfies victims thirst for revenge and prevents future vigilantism and incapacitates dangerous predators so they can be off the streets; a safer community. Rehabilitation, some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent,

The current conventional criminal justice process takes a more punitive, ‘retributive’ view of criminal justice. The retributive approach has become grounded into our current system of justice whereby it intends to establish blame on offenders and make them repay their debt to society by inflicting a form of punishment (Ball, 2000). The general stance in relation to the ‘retributive system’ is that its more offender-oriented and its focus is the past rather than the future (Griffiths, 1999). In addition to establishing blame, it tends to give less attention to future-oriented concerns such as how to repair the damages caused by the crime and how future recurrences can be prevented (Young, M, 1999). It has been argued that the existing ‘retributive system’ places excessive emphasis on the past whilst being less constructive towards victims, offenders and the society, as a result youths tend to get labelled as criminal from an early age leading in some cases to a life delinquent offending behaviour (Braithwaite, 1989). At present a crime is viewed as a social conflict within society, and so a crime is perceived an offense against society rather

Victimless crimes, the illegal act(s) that involves consenting adults and lacks a complaining participant, have been the topic of heated debate for some time now (Kendall, 2014). This debate centers primarily on the question as to whether these acts should be crimes at all. The arguments take several forms. One of the controversies involves the importance of personal freedom versus society’s idea to uphold moral standards. A second issue addresses the problem of the conception of harm. People who stand on this side on this side of the argument raise questions as to whether victimless crimes are harmful not only to the participants but to others in society as well. More importantly, they ask whether such acts result in negative

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal