The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Braithwaite 's Reintegrative Shaming Theory

The labelling theory shows how crime is socially constructed based on labels created by the powerful, which is important for our understanding of who commits a crime as they show how the powerless can be labelled as deviant whilst powerful groups are not. This undermines the

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 focus of this paper will be on two contemporary criminological theories and their application to the crime film, Eastern Promises. The two theories to be discussed, and subsequently applied to the film, are labelling theory and differential association theory. Labelling theory falls under the symbolic interactionist approach, and the primary level of analysis of this theory is micro, as it tends to focus on the effect of labels on an individual’s sense of “self”. The basis of labelling theory is that no act is inherently deviant; it is only when the act is labelled deviant that it becomes so. When someone is labelled as deviant, they begin to see themselves as the label they have been assigned. This can cause the behaviour to happen more frequently, as the individual who has been labelled begins to see themselves as they label they have been given. A criticism of labelling theory is that it lacks empirical validity, and is deterministic. There is no way to effectively test this theory, so there is no way to know for sure how accurate the concept of labelling is and the effect it has on an individual and their propensity towards criminality. This and other aspects of labelling theory will be broken down and discussed later on in the paper.

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.

Labeling theory makes no attempt to understand why an individual initially engaged in primary deviance and committed a crime before they were labeled; this then limits the scope of the theory’s explanations and suggests the theory may not provide a better account for crime. Labeling theory emphasizes the negative effects of labeling, which gives the offender a victim status. Also, the same likelihood exists for developing a criminal career regardless of deviance being primary or secondary. Furthermore, labeling theorists are only interested in understanding the aftermath of an individual getting caught committing crime and society attaching a label to the offender. This differs from the view of social learning theory, which seeks to explain the first and subsequent criminal acts. Many critics also argue that the racial, social, and economic statuses of an individual create labels, as opposed to criminal acts; this theory then fails to acknowledge that those statuses may factor into the labeling process. As a result, the above suggests that labeling theory does not provide a good account for crime and appropriately has little empirical support. Moreover, in terms of policy implications, labeling theory implies a policy of radical non-intervention, where minor offenses

Theories of victimization essentially does something morally unpopular, by discussing how the victim caused their own victimization. Identified below are four theories of victimizations and examples of both strength and weakness of each. The goal for this paper is to briefly define at the four theories in order to grasp a better understanding of how individuals can lessen the opportunity to become a victim of a crime.

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’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?

There are many theories in the field of criminology that seek to explain the reasons behind why people commit crimes. Social process theory is one such theory and asserts that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others (Schmalleger, 2012). There are four types of social process theories including: social learning theory, social control theory, labeling theory, and dramaturgical perspective. This paper will explore two of the theories including social learning theory and social control theory. The paper will discuss social process theory and the history of its development, the theory’s importance to criminology, examples of

The racial stereotyping of minority groups is a prevalent problem within the United State’s criminal justice system. It is a regrettable issue which permeates American society. The young Black male, in particular, is often portrayed as a criminal based on incorrect assumptions regarding who perpetrates crime. There are several components contributing to the criminal stigma of Blacks. The way crime is conveyed by American culture is possibly as important as how crime actually functions. The widespread belief that Black males commit the majority of crime skews the view society’s perception of Blacks. Typifications of Black males include a violent, threatening, thug-like character. The connection between race and crime is so deeply seeded in

Individuals who experience stigmas experience of moving through life with an attribute that is deeply discrediting. Stigmatizing shaming is whenever a criminal is labeled as a threat to society and is treated as an outcast. The labeling process and society’s effort to marginalized the individual reinforce the individual’s criminal conduct and perhaps influence to future criminal behavior and higher crime rates (Textbook 155). People who represent law and order or who impose definitions of morality on others do most of the labeling. Thus the rules by which deviance is defined express the power structure of society; such rules are framed by the wealthy for the poor, by men for women, by older people for younger people, and by ethnic majorities for minority groups. For example, many children wander into other people’s gardens, steal fruit, or skip school. In a wealthy neighborhood, parents, teachers, and police might regard such activities as relatively innocent and the children are let off with a slap on the hand and not stigmatized. However when such acts are committed by children in poor areas, such as in Oakland, California, they are considered acts of juvenile delinquency. Once these boys are labeled as a delinquent, teachers and prospective employers are more than likely to deem them to be untrustworthy. The boys then relapse into further criminal behavior, widening the gulf between

‘Labelling theory is the view of deviance according to which being labelled as a “deviant” leads a person to engage in deviant behaviour.’ This states that if a person were to labelled as a thief, that person would be treated different (looked down upon). This could leave this person to do what they are labelled as and commit theft. This is backed up with study.com’s definition of labelling theory, which states ‘people become criminals when labelled as such and when they accept the label as personal identity’. This moves into strain theory as the strain theory cultural theory as in Merton’s strain theory argues that ‘the American cultural

The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.

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

However, it has been shown that given the label of a ‘criminal’ may motivate individuals to