The shame debate is occurring largely in law reviews, and shaming is being used by an apparently growing number of judges across the country. These shame penalties can be divided into two categories: public exposure penalties and debasement penalties. Public exposure penalties can include a bumper sticker that labels drunk driving offenders, a sign in front of an offender's home, advertisements in newspapers, and the wearing of a T-shirt that labels the offender. Debasement penalties are designed to lower the status of the offender in the community through humiliation. This can include the performing of menial and degrading tasks. Labeling theory posits that a person's sense of self and behavior that stems from self-concept are directly related to the labels and perceptions imposed on the individual in societal and institutional interactions. This article concludes, based on labeling theory, that judicial shame penalties are problematic, in that they may isolate the offender and drive the offender toward alienated and delinquent-prone peer groups. Reintegrative shaming, on the other hand, such as is found in restorative justice programs, are more promising. Such shaming requires that offenders perform positive tasks that show the community they are committed to positive behavior that makes them worthy to be restored into the community. 69 references
New Debate About Shame in Criminal Justice: An Interactionist Account
NCJ Number
185261
Journal
Justice System Journal Volume: 21 Issue: 3 Dated: 2000 Pages: 301-322
Date Published
2000
Length
22 pages
Annotation
A new debate has emerged about the potential of shaming as an effective instrument of formal social control; this article analyzes this debate by resurrecting and elaborating on core concepts of labeling theory.
Abstract