Is "shaming" effective?Oct 14 '02 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Sport and Outdoor
The Bottom Line Examines whether "shaming" is effective in the criminal justice world.
Perhaps some within the Corrections field still feel as though the best form of punishment can be found within the times of Nathaniel Hawthorne and his work “The Scarlet Letter.” However, sticking the proverbial red “A” upon every offender simply does not cut to the root of the problems of crime and repeat offenders within society today. Ruth-Ellen Grimes, a professor of Criminal Justice at California State University, does indeed feel that crime can be deterred through the means of shaming. To understand Grimes’ argument, it is necessary to understand what shaming actually entails. Grimes writes, “…shaming refers to the expression of disapproval, and invocation of remorse, in a sequential process,” and then continues to how the process includes methods, “…in which the individual is confronted by significant others (peers, family, neighbors, teachers) in an effort to moralize the offender and explain the evil of such offensive behavior.” (Fields 19) Grimes’ main argument for agreeing that shaming does indeed work comes from looking at the model of shaming that is present within Japan. “When an individual is shamed in Japan, the shame is often borne by the collectivity to which the individual belongs as well- the family, the company, the school- particularly by the titular head of collectivity,” writes Grimes. (Fields 20) However, the hypothesis that she next proposes is where her argument is flawed. “Reliance on self-guilt assignment and reintegrative shaming allows for repentance and reunification.” (Fields 20) Grimes seems to think that simply by embarrassing the offender through methods of shame and self-guilt admittance that the offender will automatically not be interested in ever committing a crime ever again. To even ascertain that across the board this could be the case is absurd. Grimes also uses an argument based on “The Australian and New Zealand Experience.” She writes, “It is not the police convening the conferences who are relied on to do the reintegrative shaming; it is the family members, friends, and football coaches, selected for attendance precisely because of their special bonds of care for the offender.” (Fields 21) In a moment, I will look at the problems associated with this model pulling from Bennett’s essay on why shaming is not effective. Lastly, Grimes chooses to look at a Grasmick and Bursik study done in relation to the shame that would be imposed upon drunk drivers and the amount of actual drunk driving incidents. “Shame, a variable with a long and recently revitalized tradition in sociology, not only appeared in the analysis as a greater deterrent than the threat of legal sanctions, but also accounted for the reduction in drunk driving over an eight year period.” (Fields 23) The problem with Grimes’ argument here is that she leaves out any other variables other than shaming that could have led to such a reduction in the amount of drunk driving done over an eight year period. Stricter mandatory sentences and sanctions are not considered, programs to curb drunk driving are not considered, and advertisements are not considered. There are so many other factors rather than post-crime-committed shaming that have to be considered here, or the argument can be ruled flaccid. It seems as though Katherine J. Bennett, an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Armstrong Atlantic State University, has the argument on shaming more worked out and supports a stronger thesis that shaming is not a successful approach to punishment. In her essay, Bennett argues five main points: (1) public shaming is not innovative, (2) public shaming is probably not successful, (3) public shaming is not reintegrative shaming, (4) public shaming is based on confusion about emotions and may be harmful in itself, and (5) public shaming may result in sentences that violate certain moral constraints on punishment. (Fields 28) The first part of Bennett’s argument is that shaming is not very innovative and that the time for public punishments has probably already come and gone. “Public punishments were infrequently employed by the twentieth century; indeed by the 1800s, these punishments were regarded as a harsh, undignified, spectacle, and the community was no longer perceived as a ‘paragon of morality’.” (Fields 29) I would tend to agree with Bennett here. I think that today, means of public shaming would simply be seen as harsh and undignified. The modern comic, George Carlin, states in his monologues, that capital punishment executions should be televised. “Drop people in boiling oil and have it sponsored by Crisco,” Carlin states humorously. As outrageous as Carlin’s proposal sounds, there is a certain level of information that we can take from it. By shaming offenders, society would simply be given a spectacle, something to watch and something for the old guys in the coffee shops to talk about. Although Grimes feels as though the people within the offenders’ lives could have a positive impact upon the shaming process, it seems as though Bennett might have a better understanding of what bringing the families and friends into the correctional process could do. “A Florida public defender suggests that public shaming can have far reaching detrimental effects on the offender’s family, subjecting family members and especially children to ridicule and scorn.” (Fields 29) Bennett’s statement here is very profound and sheds a completely new light on the whole matter of shaming. Why should the family members of those who commit crimes need to be subjected to any more punishment of their own because of something that the offender did, not they? Is it really fair to make an elderly mother sit in a room “shaming” their son or daughter who is an offender? Is it really fair to exploit children’s emotions in order to get a message across to an offender? Is it fair to ask people to continually take time out of their own lives in order to be part of the shaming process? The answer should be no! The other poignant fact that Bennett puts forth is the fact that shaming could very well have a quite detrimental effect upon the offender. “Dan Kahn, assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago and a strong supporter of public shaming, allows that such shaming can result in a crippling loss of self-esteem, writes Bennett. She also goes on to use facts provided from Michael Lewis. “Lewis cogently notes that rage as a by-product of shame can result in violence against other people and other property. He believes that the amount of violent crime in this country committed by poor, black males may be attributable in part to how those individuals living in poverty and of minority status are continuously shamed- by the culture, school systems, the criminal justice system, and the white majority.” (Fields 33) Bennett’s main reason, and the argument that I would have to agree with, for pointing out these two facts is probably most fundamentally rooted in the fact that under the system of shaming, a vicious cycle exists. Crime and violence can be attributed to societal shaming, shaming can lead to more violent behavior, more violent behavior leads to more crime, more crime leads to no solution under the shaming model. Shaming doesn’t prevent crime, it can very well lead to more crime. That, in and of itself, is a major problem with the idea of shaming offenders. “Studies have empirically supported the finding that what may deter persistence in criminal behavior is not shaming but reintegration. Furthermore, public shaming engenders the maladaptive emotion of shame rather than the adaptive emotion of guilt.” (Fields 35) If society truly desires to return offenders to the community and wants them to no longer commit crimes, then society must realize that putting offenders back into the community with simply “their tail between their legs” will never solve anything. Shaming puts that tail between the offenders legs rather than instills within the offender a true sense of remorse for what it is that they have done. Offenders who feel bad for themselves is not what society needs. What society needs are offenders who truly feel bad for what it is that they have done. Bennett’s argument is much stronger than Grimes’ is. Shaming is not an innovative nor successful approach to punishment.  |
| Read all comments (5)|Write your own comment |
