NCJ Number
183139
Date Published
2000
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews various types of shaming penalties and assesses their effectiveness.
Abstract
According to Kahan (1996), shaming penalties can be categorized in four ways: literal stigmatization, stigmatizing publicity, self-debasement, and contrition. Literal stigmatization marks the offender with a symbol that is designed to encourage public ridicule; stigmatizing publicity attempts to communicate to a large audience the identity of the offender and the unacceptability of his/her conduct; self-debasement involves humiliating public rituals; and contrition is an apology ritual. Even in individualistic, noncommunitarian cultures, it is possible for shaming sanctions to be used effectively as a punishment. Although it is questionable as to whether shaming will either have a rehabilitative effect or act as a significant deterrent to crime when applied in a nonintegrative manner, shaming could achieve a variety of other societal purposes. Shaming penalties allow society an outlet in conveying its condemnation of certain behavior and in reaffirming certain moral values. Shaming may contribute to the general deterrence of certain crimes, particularly when it comes to potential offenders who have much status to lose, such as would-be white-collar criminals and middle-class people, who are more apt to have strong civic and professional social attachments. Shaming may also function to protect the public through notification of the offender's status, although this raises the potentially troubling prospect of vigilantism. 26 references