The theory of reintegrative shaming is rather prevalent in the modern US justice system. On a bigger scale, the method of reintegrative shaming can be described as a form of discredit that is authorized by the legal system (criminal justice in particular) to reinforce the moral link between the community and the wrongdoer (Siegel, 2015). This paper thoroughly reviews the basic principles of the theory of reintegrative shaming and discusses the limitations that are inherent in this criminal justice methodology. The most ubiquitous definition of reintegrative shaming describes the latter as the discontentment displayed by the community (from slight reproach to serious disapproval and degradation) (Miles & Raynor, 2014). The wrongdoers are then welcomed back to the law-abiding community and are expected to behave appropriately when accepted by the citizens. The level of reacceptance may vary among the citizens (from a humble smile to the formal situations during which the former inmate is defined as not aberrant). The process of disintegrative shaming can be considered inefficient because it triggers the declassification of society (Wagner, 2013).
The process of shaming should be similar to what happens in the families – the parents may criticize their child’s misbehavior, but they do not split the family. The same should happen when society shames the wrongdoers – the criminals should realize their mistakes, but society should not banish them. Shaming of the criminals may straightforwardly lead to labeling, and this should not be an expected outcome of the US criminal justice (Siegel, 2015). Nonetheless, the process of shaming should be perceived as a potential way to resolve numerous problems and not a serious error of the criminal justice system. If applied carefully, the shaming process can be reintegrative. In this case, the procedure of social reacceptance may be considered a reward while the shaming procedure is a disciplinary penalty (Wagner, 2013). The majority of US citizens believe that experiencing shame for inappropriate behavior and delinquencies is utterly appropriate. If the legal system of the United States decides to protect the criminal, it will be synonymous with authorizing the wrongdoers’ behavior and accepting it as appropriate (Miles & Raynor, 2014). Nevertheless, one of the most important questions that should be answered by the criminal justice system of the United States is whether the alternative punitive methods are more efficient than shaming. Even taking all the above said into consideration, the fact of incarceration is far more defaming than the fact of being virtually exiled from the community (Anderson, 2015).
The history shows that the process of reintegrative shaming leads to compassion and re-approval. On the contrary, the disintegrative practices mostly lead to stigmatization, and the former inmates are only limited to prejudice and stereotypical outlooks (Anderson, 2015). The majority of the current practices involving shaming can be defined as unsystematic and often impulsive manifestations of the criminal justice system strategies intended to amend the overstrained and underperforming legal system of the United States (Siegel, 2015). The application of the practices may ultimately lead to the development of two diametrically dissimilar outcomes. First, the offenders may not be able to return to the community successfully. Second, the process of reintegrative shaming may imperceptibly turn into disintegrative (Wagner, 2013). Nonetheless, the reintegrative shaming is believed to bring back an upstanding citizen. Even though there is little evidence confirming this supposition, the current shaming practices need paramount improvements while this methodology is still relevant and effective.
References
Anderson, J. F. (2015). Criminological theories: Understanding crime in America. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Miles, H., & Raynor, P. (2014). Reintegrative justice in practice: The informal management of crime in an island community. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Siegel, L. J. (2015). Criminology: The core (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wagner, W. E. (2013). Practice of research in criminology and criminal justice. New York, NY: Sage.