Critic of Shame Is Worth a Try

punishment is already in existence, the problem is that it is not enforced. This lack of

　　Punishment is a necessary evil, it is required to deter criminals from committing crimes and to serve as an example to other potential criminals

In the article, “ Condemn the Crime, Not the Person,” published in the Boston Globe on August 5th, 2001, Tangney argues against the public shaming policy as a method for punishment. She reports that while the judges are searching for creative alternatives to traditional sentences, public shaming stands out as a beneficial method. However, scientific evidence proves that there are disadvantages to this implementation. Tangney notes that public shaming; instead of leading people to constructive changes, it belittles individuals and leads them to do a number of defensive tactics such as being aggressive toward others. On the other hand, guilt, which is a sense of remorse, fosters constructive changes in behavior.

Unacknowledged Shame Theory is seen in a perspective that shame can cause a destructive emotion and can promote crime instead of preventing it if it is not managed positively. By using apology in return for forgiveness symbolises that reparation can commence (Braithwaite, 2004).

Shaming or puritan punishment like forcing people to keep a sign with a dishonorable inscription seems more like retaliation yet, not justice. Nonetheless, if we look at this problem from a different angle, exposing criminals to the public condemnation may be quite beneficial because it may have a powerful educational effect on potential criminals, and thereby may prevent some of the crimes that could already be planned. At the same time, a prison cannot cause such a vivid condemnation that public shaming does consequently, cannot be an effective behavioral corrector just by itself. I think that combining these two types of punishment into one can give a staggering result and, perhaps, in the near future humanity will forget about such problem

The purpose of this essay is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. This will be accomplished by providing a description of the theory before examining the literature surrounding its strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the theory surround its novel concepts, utility amongst academics and its policy implications. On the contrary, the weaknesses of the theory surround its limited empirical evidence, its ambiguous terminology and its impracticability towards certain offences and certain offenders.

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?

When we hear shaming our minds quickly go to someone being embarrassed and humanized for their past actions. In public view for people to create judgments and uncertainty about a behavior seen from a certain person. This description falls under the common form of shaming known as stigmatization, found in our criminal system stigmatization is disrespectful shaming, “where the offender is treated as a bad person. The offender is left with that stigma permanently” (Braithwaite, 2000, 282) due to the forgivingness found in this form of shaming. Stigmatization shaming only tends to bring more shame than a resolution so crime tends to increase the crimes because the offender feels like there no way out, so I might as well

It is believed that punishment works to protect people from their criminals as it used to be seen as a fear in people’s mind to avoid inappropriate behaviour against other people, harming other people in certain ways and breaking the laws set by society or government. Punishment is a common view of human beings and they choose to behave appropriately towards their duty to follow rules set out by government laws to avoid fines or sentences. Sentencing is categorised n various degrees depending on the type and severity of crime committed, and imprisonment is considered as most common way to protect communities from its offenders and deterrent to re-offending all over the world. As Murray (1997) claims that punishment reduces crime

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.

Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.

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.

“Shame corrodes the very part of us that believes we are capable of change”(Brené Brown). In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, a woman is publicly shamed for having a child with a man who is not her husband. Another example of public shame can be seen in modern day articles “Florida ‘Scarlet Letter’ Law is Repealed by Gov. Bush,” by Dana Canedy, and “Houston Couple Gets ‘The Scarlet Letter’ Treatment.” Both talk of public shame that people have had to endure in the present day. Public shaming is not an effective punishment because it is a cruel and unusual punishment, it does not deter crime, and it can emotionally traumatize the one being shamed.

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

Ever since the beginning of time man has committed crimes. Crimes were described as acts which go against the social and moral norms of society and people. People have learned to deal with these crimes in many different ways. One of the most used forms of dealing with crime is punishing those who commit crimes. There are numerous ways in which people have punished those who commit crimes throughout history from making the criminal pay fines to banishing them from the community. However, in modern times, there are fewer acceptable forms of punishment that are used. For very unserious crimes, governments may simply make a criminal pay a small fine or do service for the community in some way. Offenders who