June Tangney's 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.

Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory draws on traditional criminological theories such as labelling, subcultural, opportunity, control, differential association and social learning theories (Braithwaite, 1989). John Braithwaite first put forward his theory of reintegrative shaming in his book, Crime, Shame

There are five distinct philosophies to the punishment of criminal offenders. The deterrence model is based on the belief that punishment or threat of punishment will prevent citizens, offenders or non-offenders, from committing or recommitting crimes (Fagin, 2016), 2016). A real-life example of the deterrence model would be corporal punishment. Because the children who witnessed the punishment would not want to commit the act, and the child receiving the punishment would not want to recommit their crime, it was believed to be an effective strategy in forming school children’s behavior (Fagin, 2016). The belief that criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and it would never be safe to release them back into the community falls under the incapacitation philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016). The most common type of incapacitation is imprisonment. When offenders are imprisoned, they are unable to commit new crimes, and will no longer pose a threat to their communities. Rehabilitation on the other hand, is the belief that criminals can be cured of their criminality, and can be released back into the community (Fagin, 2016). Counseling, educational programs, and work skill programs are all different real-world examples of the rehabilitation model (Fagin, 2016). The aim of these programs is to help offenders get better and become a productive member of society. The idea of punishing criminals because they deserve to be punished fits into the retribution philosophy of punishment (Fagin, 2016), 194). An example of this philosophy today would be

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

In her article, “Condemn the Crime, Not the Person,” June Tangney argues that shaming causes more harm than good. She focuses on alternatives to traditional sentences instead of shaming and incarceration. As a more recent trend, officials are using shaming sentences more and more. Tangney states that it is important to know the distinction between shame and guilt. Tangney states, that research has shown feeling of guilt “involve a sense of tension and regret over the bad thing done.” Guilt makes people feel bad. It makes them want to change their behavior whereas shame does not motivate people to feel better and they are less likely to stop their wrong behavior (577). She also states that scientific evidence suggested publicly shaming a person makes a problem instead of creating a constructive change in them and individuals may hide and escape the shameful feelings and try to blame others (577). In conclusion, Tangney suggest community service as a sentence for offenders to pay their debt to society for their wrongdoing, been linked to the crime they did. Her tone is informative and innovative and keeps the reader interested while reading. However, this article displays weakness in term of the evidence the author presents, it is one sided and does not provide evidence her suggestion for community service as a sentence option works. Therefore, it fails to persuade the reader.

Unacknowledged Shame Theory is seen in a perspective that shame can cause a destructive emotion and can promote crime instead of preventing it if it is not managed positively. By using apology in return for forgiveness symbolises that reparation can commence (Braithwaite, 2004).

As a country, we should care about all of our citizens and work toward bettering them, because we are only as strong as our weakest link. When it concerns the issue of corrections it should not be a discussion of punishment or rehabilitation. Instead, it should be a balance of both that puts the spotlight on rehabilitating offenders that are capable and willing to change their lives for the better. Through rehabilitation a number of issues in the corrections field can be solved from mental health to overcrowding. More importantly, it allows offenders the chance to do and be better once released from prison. This paper analyzes what both rehabilitation and punishment are as well as how they play a part in corrections. It also discusses the current reasons that punishment as the dominant model of corrections is not as effective as rehabilitation. After explaining rehabilitation and punishment, then breaking down the issues with punishment, I will recommend a plan for balance. A plan that will lower incarceration rates and give offenders a second chance.

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?

Shaming or puritan punishment like forcing people to keep a sign with a dishonorable inscription seems more like retaliation yet, not justice. Nonetheless, if we look at this problem from a different angle, exposing criminals to the public condemnation may be quite beneficial because it may have a powerful educational effect on potential criminals, and thereby may prevent some of the crimes that could already be planned. At the same time, a prison cannot cause such a vivid condemnation that public shaming does consequently, cannot be an effective behavioral corrector just by itself. I think that combining these two types of punishment into one can give a staggering result and, perhaps, in the near future humanity will forget about such problem

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.

Based on the information gathered from different materials, proceeding with jails, prisons, probation, parole, juvenile, and community corrections may range from many perspectives. Jails and prisons are different from a few perspectives, but it may also vary on the length of time to serve for punishment. Parole and probation are reservation options to help educate criminals about ethical knowledge. Community corrections are also provided to help keep the environment safe from harm. After evaluating the past, present, and future trends of community-based corrections, the program has helped develop other alternatives for offenders. This will help the criminals

Over the years, many theorists have been considering alternative type sanctions for offenders, because of the ever growing issue of prison overcrowding of our jails at state, local and federal level. The use of alternative type sanctions seem to be growing, and is getting a second look from many prisons, and jails as an option for some offender. Also, “in addition to relieving jail and prison overcrowding, the level of risk many offenders represent is too much for probation, but

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Today punishment is the most dominant correctional goal of both the state and federal government in response to criminality. The purpose of punishment is to protect society, rehabilitate criminal offenders, and reduce recidivism. In both the state and federal correctional institutions, their objectives are to use punishment as form deterrence while

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