Introduction
The process of shaming is relatively new to criminology.
According to Braithwaite
crime can be dealt with by stigmatisation or by the process
of re-integrative shaming. His definition of shaming is “…all
social processes of expressing disapproval which have the
intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being
shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the
shaming.”
This means that crime is dealt with by making the offender
feel ashamed of his behaviour, with the intention that he
is not stigmatised as a criminal but is aware that society
expects his behaviour to be of a higher standard. Therefore
the emphasis is not placed upon the individual; it is placed
squarely on the behaviour of the individual vis-à-vis
the offence for which the shaming is being utilised.
This system has been meet with some success. The theory entails
the shaming of the individual for his crime whilst simultaneously
reinforcing the principles of respect and some family values.
Braithwaite believes that the framework of a family or strong
community structure can create the conditions necessary for
shaming to be successful. This success depends on the individual
being repentant for his crime and feeling embarrassed and
ashamed that he has let his community and/or family down.
This is perhaps evidenced in Japanese society. The strong
ties to community and stern family ties result in shaming
being used.
“Japan is a classic example of where re-integrative
shaming works. Japan has a particularly low crime rate for
a highly industrialised society and makes little use of imprisonment.”
Within this system the offender has the opportunity to ask
for forgiveness from his community and family, and admit to
the crime, and this facilitates the repentance and embarrassment
necessary for shaming to be a success. However, from the different
perspectives to be assessed here, shaming has some weaknesses.
It will probably be concluded that certain societal conditions
need to be present for shaming to be palatable for everyone
and that these required conditions are not present in our
society. Shaming therefore may not be able to work without
a change within the values of our society.
Proponents of deterrents
The deterrent system is one of the older sentencing
rationales of responding to crime and how to prevent it. This
theory calls for offenders to be given harsh sentences in
order to deter others from committing crime, as if they do
they too will be given harsh punishment.
The Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham is a well-known proponent
of this theory. His belief was that pleasure was greater than
pain. Pain should thus be avoided at all costs. A corollary
is that punishment, which is pain, should also be avoided.
The punishment has to be given if it will deter others from
committing crime, as they would want to avoid the pain. The
punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed, the
effect on the victim of the crime and the deterrent effect.
Therefore punishment can be justified on these grounds as
long as it matches the crime.
Deterrence theory hinges on the belief that
all humans are rational human beings who consciously weigh
up the benefits of crime against its possible cost. If the
cost were high enough, the criminal would subsequently not
commit the crime.
The proponents of deterrence theory would
not support shaming to a great extent. Deterrence theory puts
the emphasis on the individual and holds them responsible
for the crime. The process of shaming can only work in a family
structure or strong community. The onus of the crime is removed
from the offender and possibly on to society. It is up to
society to help the offender, and the punishment of the offender
may not prevent others committing more crime, as there is
no punishment, there is only embarrassment.
Shaming runs counter to the deterrence theory
due mainly to its consideration of the individual. Within
deterrence theory the individual has made a choice to break
the laws of the society. The rational choice has been made
and the individual has decided that criminal behaviour is
worthwhile. The sentence given can be anything as long as
it is likely to have a deterrent effect. Within shaming on
the other hand, the consequence of the crime is not likely
to have a deterrent effect, as there is no punishment as such.
The individual is not punished to deter others, he is treated
as an end in himself, as Kantian philosophy requires. In deterrence
the individual essentially has no meaning if an exemplary
sentence will control future crime. However,
“Sentences are not the only from of
general deterrent. In some cases it is the process which is
the punishment – being prosecuted, appearing in court,
receiving publicity in a local newspaper – rather than
the sentence itself.”
In that context, shaming can be construed
as a form of deterrence. Going through some form of judicial
process and then having to return to the community, family
and friends, can have a deterrent effect. The consequence
of the crime is a humbling process of admitting to crime and
asking for forgiveness. This could act as a deterrent to others
if they see someone they know being exposed to this process
and being ‘shamed’ by the community. In this case,
a proponent of deterrence would be supportive of the shaming
process as itself acts as a general deterrent.
It must be added that this would only extend to certain circumstances
and would have to be subjective. Some communities or families
would regard certain crime as irrelevant. Shaming would subsequently
be ineffective. There is also the philosophical debate. The
dichotomy between shaming and deterrence is perhaps most clearly
manifested in the treatment of the individual following a
crime. The subjective approach necessary for shaming to be
a success as a deterrent cannot be reconciled with the deterrent
theory’s treatment of the individual; they just do not
matter if the sentence, perhaps no matter how harsh, will
prevent more crime. The subjective individual approach required
for shaming, on its own or as a deterrent method, would therefore
be anathema to a proponent of deterrent theory.
|
