Extra Credit

Participatory Reintegrative Shaming Conferences 
By Andrew Hund, 1999


Delinquency is a social construct, which stigmatizes individuals with a
label and frequently leads to more non-normative behavior. The current
thinking in society is that the individual should be punished rather than
the negative behavior(s) (crime). As a result, the individual is
stigmatized as deviant and the behavior(s) are amplified through role
association. In simpler terms, crime and delinquency are primarily
behavioral problems not individual character flaws. So, in order for
youths' behaviors to be changed a positive transformation has to occur in
the community and in the approach it uses to punish youth violators of
social norms.  Participatory reintegrative shaming conferences are the
type of positive transformation that can occur so the community and the
individual end up in a win-win situation. The purpose of this paper is to
practice or apply sociology.

Specifically, this paper attempts to establish a basis for the creation of
an innovative program, which utilizes a new structure for the community
and introduces reintegrative shaming as a social control method for youth.
More specifically, this paper establishes a practical social control
system that fosters community participation via a conference. This paper
is divided into three parts. The first section is a brief history of the
field of criminology and its theoretical backgrounds. The next section
discusses reintegrative shaming in depth and the last section provides a
practical approach to implementing reintegrative shaming conference.

Criminology

The study of crime includes several areas, such as what causes it,
who commits such non-normative behaviors, as well as prevention,
deterrence, treatment and punishment of infractions. There are five major
theoretical areas in the history of criminology: classical, positivists,
critical, realist, and feminists. Before discussing these areas, the
notion of what criminology is as a discipline must be explored.

Criminology is "most literally, the study of crime, its
perpetrators, and its causes; relatedly, an interest in its prevention,
and in the deterrence, treatment, and punishment of offenders" (Marshall,
1994: 98). In essence, criminologists attempt to study criminals by
developing explanations for criminal behavior in terms of biology,
psychology, sociology, or the political economy of the particular culture.
Criminology is not to be confused with the sociology of law, which is
interested in the development and violations of laws. Within this thinking
are issues of proportionality or the desire to produce a punishment that
befits the non-normative behavior. 

Another closely related field to criminology is the sociology of deviance,
which came about in the 1960's and the early 1970's. Marshall (1994)
stressed the sociology of deviance "developed as a source of sociological
opposition to the law-enforcement and establishment-orientation of
traditional criminology, and as an epistemological critique of
unquestioned assumptions about what constitutes crime or deviance"(p. 98).

In the 1970's and 1980's, two sub-fields (critical and feminists) of
criminology developed. Both of these fields had external and internal
influences upon the discipline. The feminists approach "drew attention to
the near invisibility of women in criminological work and gave significant
impetus to rectifying the past neglect of victims of crime" (Marshall,
1994: 98). Moreover, these two sub-fields can be "identified with
supporting and asserting the rights of minority groups" (Marshall, 1994:
98). These theoretical viewing points will be discussed in more depth
later in this paper. Nonetheless, the roots of criminology were founded in
the 18th century. Today, these criminological thinkers from the 18th
century and their theories are classified under the title of classical
criminology.

Classical Criminology 
	
As mentioned before, classical criminology was established in 18th
century and is philosophically based. The study of criminal activity in
the classic-sense focused on criminology and the management of justice.
The basic principles of classic criminology are grounded in the notion of
rational choice, personal accountability, and the belief that crime was
prevented by the punishment. The study of crime began with Cesare
Beccaria's (1738-1794) book "Dei delitti e delle pene," which was
published in 1764. "Dei delitti e delle pene," is generally interpreted as
a humane alternative to the brutal 18th century sentencing and punishment
of offenders such as public beheading, hangings, and breaking people on
the wheel. 

This rationalist approach sought to achieve bureaucratic conformity, such
as making the non-normative actions fit the punishments in order to deter
others from future wrongdoings. In essence, this was a social contract
mode of thinking, which results in a rational agreement that is in the
best interest of the individual and society. To break this 'rational'
contract, is to break the laws of society, which demonstrates a free will
action and a failure to meet one's social responsibilities to the
community (Marshall, 1994, 99).

This rational thinking/social contract, from a critic's point of
view, does not take into consideration the circumstances that lead to the
non-normative infraction. This results in punishments being unjust in
certain circumstances. For example, a wife who has been repeatedly abused,
has enough one-day, and kills her husband. From a rational approach, she
would be punished the same as any other murderer. Not surprisingly, this
short-sided approach lead to the study of crime causation, which resulted
in the classicist free will rationality being replaced in 19th century
positivists criminology (Marshall, 1994: 99).

Positivists Criminology

Positivist criminology is different than the notion of positivism
in social and psychological theory. This approach is committed to the
practical application of theory and research. It claimed scientific status
because it was quantifiable and sought to determine the source of crime,
which was thought to be rooted in the individual's physical, genetic,
psychological, or moral make-up. The tools positivist criminologists
utilize are standard scientific measures such as hypothesis testing,
pragmatic investigation, classification, and categorization of phenomenon
(Marshall, 1994, 100).

The origin of positivists' criminology can be found in the
writings of Italian criminologists Enrico Ferri (The Positive School of
Criminology, 1901), Raffaele Gerefelo (1852-1934); and Cesare Lombroso
(L'Uomo Delinguente, 1876). Cesare Lombroso claimed that criminals had
certain physical features, which enabled criminologists to easily identify
them as 'throwbacks' to some early primitive state. Many criminologists
call this approach 'biological positivism,' which remained a key feature
in criminology until the 1960's (Marshall, 1994, 100).   

Eleanor and Sheldon Glvecks in the 1950's believed they could identify
criminals by their body size and shape. This approach lead to the XXY
chromosome theory of the 1960's. Klinefelter's Syndrome is the scientific
name for people with an extra X chromosome. This XXY theory claimed that
people with an extra X chromosome were more likely to commit crimes and
could be identified by their biological, genetic, and physical features.
For example, people with an extra chromosome tended to be males who were
taller, underdeveloped, lacked facial hairs, had round bodies, and were
frequently infertile. In essence, biological positivists were attempting
to be able to identify criminals by looking at them (Marshall, 1994, 100).
Another popular theorist from this school, Hans Eysenck (see, Crime and
Personality, 1977), argued that 'criminality' is obviously a continuous
trait of some kind of intelligence, height, or weight. However, this
biological determinists or behaviorists view of crime is value-loaded and
deals with social constructs rather than with scientific facts. Biological
determinism also overlooks the importance of beliefs, values, and purpose.
These shortcomings or outright bad science ushered in other theories to
explain crime, such as critical, realist, and feminist criminology
(Marshall, 1994, 100).

Critical Criminology

Critical criminology also called radical criminology, emerged, in
the early 1970's as an extremely politicized theory. The foundation of
critical criminology is based on the tradition of Marxism. In other words,
it is based on the conflict perspective and thus investigates the
oppressive power of the capitalist state. Specifically, critical
criminologists examine crime in relation to its definition and prevention
with regards to the exploitative power of capitalists. A broad overview of
this approach was complied by Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young, in
the book The New Criminology, 1973. Critical criminology is judgmental of
the behaviorist approach of positivist criminology as well as the
apolitical approach of the labeling theory (See Becker 1963).  Initially,
critical criminology was criticized by mainstream researchers as being too
polemical, such as romanticizing criminals as political resistors to
capitalism, and rigidly focusing on power dynamics, and thus neglecting
crime and its victims (Marshall, 1994, 99).

As critical criminology developed in the 1970's and 1980's, it
rediscovered its own radical history (see G. Rosche & O. Kirrchhimer,
Punishment and Social Structure, 1968:[1939]), which the critical
researchers claimed had been obscured by 'bourgeois' criminology of the
past. Today, critical criminology has allied itself with cultural studies
and researches race, racism, the state, and youth subcultures from a
neo-Marxists perspective. In addition, critical criminology has
strengthened its commitment to the elimination of prisons, better gender
accountability of the police, and published a series studies on the
institutions of the criminal justice system (see Critical Criminal Justice
Issues: Task Force Reports From the American Society of Criminology to
Attorney General Janet Reno, 1997). However, critics on the left,
primarily realist criminologists, have dismissed many of their notions as
left idealism (Marshall, 1994, 99).

Realist Criminology

Another name for realist criminology is 'left realism.' This
theory developed in the mid 1980's, as a result of the publications of
Jock Young and others in Britain (see, for example, the special issue of
Contemporary Crisis, 1987). Their followers emphasized the need to
investigate the social causes of crime as well as the interaction between
agencies of social control (such as the police and courts), the offender,
the victim, and the public (neighborhood or community). Realist's
criminologists base their ideas on theories of relative deprivation and
subcultures. In other words, they seek to examine the restrictive
circumstances facing the individuals that lead to the non-normative
behavior. The notion of reintegrative shaming emerged, in part, from this
theoretical perspective (Marshall, 1994, 100).
Feminists Criminology

Feminists criminology is a self-conscious corrective model
designed to correct mainstream criminological thinking. As a theoretical
point of view it has triple goals, which seek to critique, research, and
reformulate the field of inquiry. In other words, feminist criminology
seeks to change the masculine viewing angle to a less masculine focus. In
the 1970's feminist criminology emerged out of the women's movement and
feminist thinking. It sought to respond to the so-called new deviance
theory and critical criminology, which ignored women (Marshall, 1994, 99).

The first major work published on feminist criminology was "Women,
Crime, and Criminology" in 1977 by British sociologists Carol Smart. This
publication was a critical review of the discipline of criminology, which
stimulated others to investigate many issues surrounding crime. In
America, feminist criminology had a more controversial start with
researchers claiming violence against women was increasing as well as a
rally call for a new feminist consciousness (see F. Alder's Sisters in
Crime, 1975). Since this time the field has started to explore many
different areas, such crime and control as well as the sexist foundations
of criminology. In other words, feminists' have effectively incorporated
gender into criminology and with it inaugurated the discussion of why
crime is primarily a male phenomenon (Marshall, 1994, 99). 

Other Notable Theorists

There are various theoretical traditions that have also been used by
criminologists to study crime such as the labeling theory (Becker, 1963),
subcultural theory (Cohen, 1955), opportunity or strain theory (Cloward
and Ohlin, 1960; Merton, 1968), control theory (Hirschi, 1969),
differential association (Sutherland and Crossey, 1978), and social
learning theory (Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, and Radosevich, 1979).
Criminologists theories designed to be used in the practical sense are:
'making amends' (Wright, 1982); restorative justice (Cragg, 1992; Galaway
& Hudson, 1990; Zehr, 1990), reconciliation (Dignan, 1992; Marshall 1985;
Umbreit 1985), peacemaking (Pepinsky & Quinnery 1991) redress (De Haan,
1990), relational justice (Burnside and Baker 1994), transformative
justice (Ruth Morris 1995; Moore with Forsythe 1995, p. 253), real justice
(McDonald, Moore, O' Connell, and Thorsoben, 1995), republican justice
(Braithwaite and Petit 1990), and feminists abolitionism (Meima, 1990)
(Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994:139 & Makkai and Braithwaite, 1994: 362).
All of these sub-theories and major theoretical traditions have sought to
explain crime from their various perspectives. As a result, these various
theoretical traditions have given way to the newest development in
criminology, which is restorative justice.  

Restorative Justice

In the 1990's, many criminologists started to examine restorative justice.
Restorative justice focuses on two things, restorativeness and a
democratic process. Braithwaite claimed restorative justice became a
"unifying banner, sweeping up various traditions of justice" (Braithwaite,
1997: 3). Van Ness (1993) and Bazemore and Washington (1995) have credited
Albert Eglash (1975) with being the first to initiate the restorative
justice approach, which attempts to satisfy conservatives and liberals. 
Restorative justice is seen as an alternative to the current pendulum
swing of corrective models of liberal (welfare/rehabilitation) and
conservative (justice/retribution) modes of punishment. Zehr (1990)
claimed that "restorative justice is touted as a long-overdue third model
or new 'lens,'" to examine crime (p. 213).  This new lens or viewing angle
is a way of stopping the pendulum from swinging back and forth, between
the liberal welfare model of a less punitive justice, and the
conservatives justice model, which focuses on victim and family
empowerment, and the use of punishment as a means to reduce crime, and
reducing the economic costs. (Braithwaite, 1997: 2)

Reintegrative shaming, a notion of restorative justice, is not conceived
in the classical, positivist, critical, realists, or feminists
criminological theory per se. Instead it is founded in the ideas of
"Canadian Native people's notions of healing circles and sentencing
circles (James 1993). . . [as well as] Navajo Justice and Healing
Ceremony" (Yazzie and Zion 1996). In other words, this new theory of
criminology has merged the notions of the indigenous people methods of
punishment with western criminology. With the former having more
significance over the latter. However, the restorative justice movement
has not been accepted by all groups. Braithwaite (1997) asserted that "the
strongest opposition has come from lawyers, including some judges, under
the influence of well-known critiques of the justice of informal
processing of crime" (p. 3). This seems logical because they are the
people who will be displaced if restorative justice and/or reintegrative
shaming become widespread. 

Sociological and Psychological Views of Shame

Before discussing reintegrative shaming in-depth, the notion of shame must
be explored, which psychologists and sociologists have been examining for
sometime. The leading sociologist studying shame is Braithwaite who claims
shame occurs on two levels: "internally, through our socialization and our
sense of right and wrong (conscience) and externally through sanctions or
condemnations from family, community or important others" (Coles, 1999:
5). In other words, sociologists perceive shame as a social construct that
is socialized by wrong doing. 

Psychologists have been studying the emotion of shame since the 1960's.
Tomkins (1962) proposed the "Affect Theory" and published three volumes
describing nine emotional traits humans exhibit. Two of these traits are
positive (interest/excitement; enjoyment) and seven are negative
(Shame/humiliation; surprise/startle; distress/anguish; disgust;
anger/rage; dismal; fear/terror). Tomkins (1963) believed these traits are
innate and thus every human is born with them. 

Building upon Tomkins' Affect theory was Nathanson (1992), a psychologist,
who identified four emotional responses to shame, such as attack other,
withdrawal, avoidance, and attack self. Males frequently use the 'attack
other' when placed in a situation of shame. Nathanson (1992) also believed
shame was an inborn trait of all humans. Furthermore, Nathanson's Affect
Theory, is based on a scientific foundation, which he claims "shame is
caused by a substance secreted in the ancient subcortial portion of the
brain, a compound that causes the sudden dilation of the blood vessels in
the brain resulting in the feeling of shame" (Alternative Justice Canada,
1999: 2). In other words, shame is inborn and is concluded to have a
biological foundation. 

With the traditions of psychology and sociology in mind, it should be
noted that reintegrative shaming is tied to three major backgrounds in
criminology as well as having numerous elements of other theories.
Nathanson's views are positivist because of the desire to base emotion in
a scientific grounding, while Braithwaite's approach is a combination of
restorative justice, realists criminology, and Native American approaches. 

Stigmatizing vs. Reintegrative Shaming

In this section the current method, of stigmatizing shame, for dealing
with youth offenders will be contrasted to Braithwaite's and others new
approach of reintegrative shaming. Stigmatizing shame, according to Makkai
& Braithwaite (1994) involves the following four characteristics. The
first characteristic is disrespectful disapproval, humiliation, and
degradation of the individual. Next, are the various degradation
ceremonies (courts, jail processing, etc.) that corroborate deviance
rather than conclude deviance. Garfinkel (1956) claimed degradation
ceremonies name the "actor as an 'outsider,' that transforms an
individual's total identity into an identity 'lower in the group's scheme
of social types" (p. 420). Third, is the attachment of a formal labeling,
after the degradation ceremony, on the individual (juvenile delinquent),
rather than to the action (shoplifting, vandalism, etc.). Finally, the
individual not the non-normative behavior become a master status (Makkai &
Braithwaite, 1994: 362). Furthermore, stigmatizing shame, according to
Shermann and Strang (1997a) "disintegrates the moral bonds between the
offender and the community" (p.1). In other words, stigmatizing shame
breaks the community apart and creates the youth as an outcast, which is
destructive and counterproductive. 

According to Makkai & Braithwaite (1994) individuals who live "with a
great deal of stigma; their reaction to further shame was rage and
vindictive escalation of violence rather than remorse" (p. 364). An
example of negative shaming was pointed out by Shermann and Strang (1997a)
who stressed that:

Stigmatic shaming is what American judges employ when they make an
offender post a sign on his property saying 'a violent felon lives here,'
or a bumper sticker on his car saying 'I am a drunk driver.' Stigmatic
shaming is designed to separate the youth offender from the larger society
as an outcast or deviant for the rest of their life.  By labeling him/her
as someone who cannot be trusted to obey social norms, stigmatic shaming
results in the offender committing more deviant acts. (p. 1). 

So, the attachment of a label (stigma) results in the amplification of the
non-normative behaviors rather than the reduction. Furthermore, the
so-called "outsiders" are placed in a situation of amplified shame and
humiliation and nothing could be more obsequious, so they defy society
and/or strike out. In Shermann's (1992) interpretation, "Defiance is a
means of avoiding shame in the face of any effort to cut one down to size,
including an arrest" (p. 203).  In other words, stigmatic shaming is
counterproductive because it increases non-normative behavior rather than
reducing it.

In contrast, reintegrative shaming, according to Scheff (1989), is defined
as a responses to crime in which "expressions of community disapproval
[are]. . . followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of
law-abiding citizens" (p. 741). Makkai & Braithwaite (1994) claimed
reintegrative shaming involves four characteristics: 1. Disapproval of
behavior while sustaining a relationship of respect; 2. Ceremonies, such
as healing circles and/or diversionary conferences, attempt to certify
that deviance is terminated by a formal procedure to decertify deviance;
3. Disapproval of the negative behavior without labeling the person
negatively; and 4. Not allowing deviance to become a master status (p.
362). 

The goals of reintegrative shaming, according to Richard Lawrence (1991)
is to "encourage offenders to accept responsibility, to internalize laws
and community expectations, and then work toward acceptance and support of
them" (p. 461). In essence, the youth becomes interdependent on the
community and, this realization of being interdependent on the community
is essential for reintegration. Likewise, the higher the degree of
interdependency the more likely the youth will be reintegrated back into
the community more successfully. Creating a situation of high
interdependency is necessary for a productive community and the citizens
who reside in that community. This interdependency can be achieved by a
reintegrative shaming conference (Makkai & Braithwaite, 1994: 377).

Conferences

In this section five issues surrounding the conference are discussed: 1. A
broad overview of the conference process; 2. The facilitators role; 3. The
victims role; 4. A practical guide for a participatory conference, and; 5.
The prevention of future non-normative behaviors.  Braithwaite & Mugford
(1994) claimed that in a reintegrative ceremony:
	. . . disapproval of a bad act is communicated while sustaining the
	identity of the actor as good. Shame is transmitted within a
	continuum of respect for the wrongdoer. Repair work is directed at
	ensuring status trait that overwhelms other identities.
	Communicative work is directed at sustaining identities like
	daughter, student, promising footballer, in preference to creating
	'master' identities like delinquent (p. 142).

Reintegrative shaming conferences are not to be confused victim-offender
mediation, which are different approaches. Reintegrative shaming involves
more people in the community, rather than a select few participants, which
occurs in mediation. This is due to reintegrative shaming acknowledging
that a wider range of people have been victimized by the non-normative
behavior. In reintegrative shaming there is also deliberate distinctions
between condemning the behavior and condemning the youth. The most
important distinction between reintegrative shaming and mediation is that
everyone who had been affected by the incident participates, in the
conferencing, not just the victims or the youth. In essence, reintegrative
shaming is a more democratic process because all participants are valued
members of the community and allowed to participate in the process
(Alternative Justice Canada, 1999: 2). 

There are primarily three types of conferences being used in various
regions. The first is the New Zealand model, the second is the Wagga Wagga
model. The third model, which is almost identical to the New Zealand model
and is being used in Canada called "Family Group Conferences (FGC)." The
FGC is the most conservative in its approach and is a close cousin to
victim-offender mediation. It should be noted that there are numerous
restorative justice /reintegrative shaming type conferences occurring
throughout various parts of the westernized world and are primarily based
on these models. Nonetheless, the main difference between the New Zealand
model and the Wagga Wagga model is that the Wagga Wagga model use police
as facilitators, which will be discussed later in this paper. 

Regardless of the model, conferences as an experience, are more intense,
personal, and take longer then the court system. They include members of
the youth's family as well as religious members, or other institutional
type groups in which the individual belongs or identifies with. This
increases the shaming process because the individual had to go before a
large group of family, friends and associates. Having that group of people
reinforce the wrong doing in a positive fashion is essential to developing
a feeling of shame in the individual. Conferences should focus on the
non-normative behavior rather than the youth and seek to draw out the
negative consequences of the incident and collectively create plan for an
acceptable resolution. This in turn reduces the likelihood the person will
commit another non-normative behavior in the future. In other words, the
individual will have a constant reminder of the shame that is brought
about by conducting an anomic activity. However, if the youth fails to
keep the mutual agreement their case can be referred to the prosecutor,
but no information learned at the conference can be used for or against
the youth in a court trial (Shermann and Barnes, 1997: 1).

In essence, conferences are designed to help repair the harm done to the
youth. It humanizes the non-normative behavior by allowing the victim and
his/her supporters the opportunity to discuss the behavior and the
non-monetary losses, which is not allowed in court.  Furthermore, the
youth  feels ashamed and takes responsibility for his/her action(s), in
the form of an apology and compensates the victim in monetary and
non-monetary terms. Closure of the conference, which normally takes 1 to 2
hours, begins when the victim and their supporters are asked to forgive
the youth (Daly and Kitcher 1999, p. 3).  In the next sections, the
various roles of the of the facilitator, victim, and youth (non-normative
infractor) are explored.

Facilitators Role

As mentioned before, the Wagga Wagga model conferences in Canberra,
Australia, are facilitated by specially trained police officers. Their
duty is to keep the discussion focused on what the youth has admitted to
doing and how this incident can be resolved for mutual satisfaction. "This
is sometimes difficult to achieve because of the anger that victims and
their supporters may feel and their temptation to humiliate the offender"
(Shermann and Strang, 1997a: 3). This is one area the facilitator should
not to allow the conference to go, because it will become a degradation
ceremony. 

Police as facilitators can have a positive and/or negative effect. Findley
(1993) suggests that "police might more safely adopt the rule as a
catalyst for community organization so that dialogue can occur within a
relevant community about a particular crime and its offender" (p. 39).
However, the most obvious drawback of police officers are that they are
perceived by the community as authority figures or social control agent
and thus have the potential to dominate or alter the proceedings
inadvertently. The authoritarian approach may have an adverse effect on
some juveniles who are having issues of anti-authoritarianism. In
addition, "Police perspective is more associated with ideas of deterrence
and protecting community" (Daly and Kitcher, 1999: 3). It is the authors
contention that sociologists or social science majors should be used as
facilitators, but the choice of the facilitator is at the discretion of
the community. Regardless of the credentials of the facilitator, s/he has
to be independent and impartial.

The role of the facilitator includes three tactics, which were advanced by
O'Connell. According to O'Connell (1995) the facilitator, regardless if
they are a police officer or not, should convene their own conference and
be independent and impartial facilitator. For example, s/he should
personally telephone each of the participants before the conference and
invite them, regardless if they are representatives for the victim or
youth. Secondly, the facilitator should maximize the number of
participants at the conference. Increasing the number of participants,
increases the probability one will be able to open up and express painful
emotions, which increases the emotionality. Another crucial factor for
facilitators is to learn how to start conversations between the victims
and youth supporters. The topic area should center around how they first
felt about the crime. O'Connell (1995) felt the initial demonstration of
feelings is likely to be painful emotions such as grief, fear, and shame
(in the form of helplessness and powerlessness). Thirdly, the conferences
must be timely. In fact, conferences should be conducted as soon after the
non-normative behavior as possible. Not having a conference in a timely
manner will result in a decreased amount of emotionality and thus the
notion of shaming will be diminished (Scheff, 1995: 13-14).

Informal guidelines helps foster positive dialogue between the all parties
at the conference, which the objective is to reach emotionality (see
Halbermas, 1986). For example, ground rules the facilitator should enforce
are no name calling or badgering the youth, which can turn the conference
into a degradation ceremony rather than a reintegrative ceremony. However.
"If the offender can come to the point of 'sharing and communicating' her
shame instead of hiding or denting it the damage to the bond between the
offender and the other participants may be required" (Scheff, 1995: 4). 

Victims Role

"Victims play a crucial role in this, for they are in a unique position
to communicate the irresponsibility of the act" (O'Connor and Sweetapple
1988: 117-18). As mentioned before, victims are allowed to express
unedited personal issues (monetary and non-monetary) associated with the
non-normative behavior.  Granted, most delinquent acts are thoughtless and
done on the spur of the moment. For example, a young person who spray
paints a business or automobile with rock'n roll bands names or some other
miscellaneous symbols will mistakenly see the act as entertaining fun
which does not hurting anyone. In other words, the individual believes
they have damaged the property of a faceless person in the name of fun or
defiance against authority. In the conference; however, the youth comes to
realize, the 'faceless' property-owner (victim) is an elderly couple who
are now fearful of youths. The youth also learns the incident has resulted
in the elderly couple feeling insecure in their own home, as do their next
door neighbors. Both have come to view the neighborhood as a dangerous
place. Getting this message of victimization across is the basis for
creating the right kind of shame (Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994: 144).

Braithwaite and Mugford (1994) went on to claim "victims commonly
say that they do not want the offender punished, they do not want
vengeance; they want the young offender to learn from his mistake and get
his life back in order" (p. 149). Most victims want compensation for the
damaged caused. Others waive any claims to reimbursement because they have
a desire to see the youth make a fresh start or get a second chance
(Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994: 149). There is much debate about whether
the victim should have the power to veto the decision or agreement of the
group. However, this issue should be left up to the community to decide
before a conference is performed. 

A Practical Guide for a Participatory Conference  
(A Summary Version is Located in Appendix A)

The incident prior to the conference is being assumed here such as the
police investigation that lead the apprehension of the youth and the
authorities referral or diversion of the youth to the reintegrative
shaming conference. In other words, a conference can only occur if the
youth chooses to acknowledge committing the incident being made by the
social control agents. The victim, in most conference settings, must also
choose to be a part of the reintegrative shaming conference. If both
decide to participate, the conference can proceed. The victim and youth,
then select members to participate in the conference. The conference must
be in a timely manner and be conducted by an independent and impartial
facilitator. The facilitator directs the proceedings and the participants
are seated in a circle, which allows for eye contact and establishes an
appropriate distance between victim and youth. There should be nothing in
the center of the group like a table. In other words, the goal is to
create a forum for open discussion.

Strang and Sherman (1997) "the conference begins with statements by the
offenders about what they did, followed by statements by the victims about
the harm the crime caused, both material and psychological"(p. 1). The
youth should discuss the incident in regards to their perspective via
open-ended questions from the facilitator. Supporters of the victim and
youth are asked open-ended questions about the incident from their point
of view, its impact, and to suggest a potential resolution. Braithwaite
and Mugford (1994) "reintegrative ceremonies succeed when one side makes
an early gesture of self-blame or self-deprecation . . . Self-deprecating
gestures from either side can facilitate reintegration, which is
powerfully facilitated by exchanges" (p. 152). A self-deprecating is a
humbling experience for the youth that fosters the sociological and
psychological aspects of shame.  

After both sides have discussed the non-normative behavior. The victim is
consulted first for his/her input on a satisfactory resolution. Then, the
victim supporters are requested for their input. Finally, the youth is
asked for a proposed resolution and then the youth supporters are asked
for a potential resolution. When group consensus is achieved, in a
democratic process, the resolution is finalized. The mutual agreement must
be honored by youth otherwise it will be referred back to the prosecutor
for the appropriate action.

Closure occurs after a democratic decision has been achieved. The
facilitator then invites all participants to one location for refreshments
and in some cases a tradition meal or potluck. This brings closure to the
incident and reconnects victim, youth, and the community. It should be
noted that some conferences only focus on repairing the harm of the
non-normative action. However, this approach goes beyond that by offering
the youth assistance. For example, the youth could be allowed to
participate in academic programs to help them finish school if needed.
They could also be encouraged to participate in self-help programs such as
anger management, conflict resolution, and/or how to get a job. Or more
practical type enhancements such as how to use a computer, paint, draw,
write poetry and/or study sociology. If all goes smoothly the
participatory reintegrative shaming conference will result in the
prevention of future non-normative behavior.

Prevention of Future Non-Normative Behavior(s)

There are several elements of reintegrative shaming that result in the
prevention of additional crime. As mentioned throughout this paper, the
essential element of reintegrative shaming is that the youth acquire
feelings of shame about their non-normative behavior. Scheff  (1995)
claimed, "The idea that one can be ashamed of being ashamed leads to the
concept of continuous loops of shame, which is our explanation of
mechanism of repression" (p. 4). This positive repression is necessary for
crime prevention. According to Braithwaite (1989) shame foremost "deters
criminal behavior because social approval of significant others is
something we do not like to lose. Second . . . both shaming and repentance
build consciences which internally deter criminal behavior" (p.75).

Another factor that reduces future crime is a fair process. Specifically,
being permitted to correct the non-normative behavior(s) in a fair and
honest environment is a major deterrent to the youth committing future
crimes. According to Shermann and Barnes (1997) there is "growing evidence
in the US and Australia [which] shows that offenders are less likely to
re-offend" if five things are accomplished when dealing with the legal
system (p. 2). For example, the youth is less likely to re-offend if the
system: 1. took time to listen to them; 2. Allowed them the opportunity to
correct any factual errors in their case; 3. Had their rights explained
and protected; 4. Were treated with equal rights as anyone else, and; 5.
Were addressed with respect and courtesy (Shermann and Barnes, 1997: 2).
All these are accomplished with the purposed reintegrative shaming
conference offered in this paper. However, "conferences will never usher
in revolutionary changes; they do, however, give little people chances to
strike little blows against oppression" (Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994:
158). 

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper has been to practice or apply sociology.
Specifically, this paper has established a practical guide for conducting
a participatory reintegrative shaming conferences as a social control
method for youth. Furthermore, the youth has been shown three things: 1.
How their non-normative behavior injured others (i.e., materially and
non-materially); 2. An identification with the victim(s); 3. The
recognition of the actual aftereffect of their misdeeds. However, the
scope of the program is not limited to just youth criminal behavior. There
is potential for this reintegrative shaming conferences to work with
various types of non-normative behavior(s). 

For example, reintegrative shaming can be used for the following age
groups and non-normative behavior(s): persons under 12 years old for
criminal behavior and/or conduct/discipline issues such as bullying,
acting out, etc.; for persons between 12 - 17 years of age for criminal
behavior and/or conduct/discipline issues; for persons over 18 years of
age for criminal behavior, workplace/sexual harassment, spousal abuse; and
all age groups for chemical dependence issues (Alternative Justice Canada,
1999: 11). All of these non-normative behaviors and/or conduct/discipline
issues can be addressed with the participatory process established in this
paper. Participatory reintegrative shaming conferences are an essential
element to creating a better community. It is the hope of the author that
the implementation of these conferences will foster a more democratic and
egalitarian system in the communities they are put into practice. 

 
References

Akers, R.L., M.D. Krohn, L.Lanza-Kaduce, and M. Radosevich. 1979. "Social
Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory."
American Sociological Review 83:114-53.

Alder, Freda. 1975. Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal.
New York, St Louis, San Francisco, Dusseldorf, London, Mexico, Sydney,
Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Alternative Justice Canada. 1999. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers.
Retrieved April 28, 1999. (http://www.lis.ab.ca/coles/main_faq.htm): 1-4.

Bazemore, G., and Washington, C. 1995. "Charting the Future of the
Juvenile Justice System: 
Reinventing Mission and Management." Spectrum (Spring), 51-66.

Beccaries, Ceasere. 1950.  Dei delitti e delle.  2nd ed. edited by Piero
Calamendrei: Florence: LaMonnour. 

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. New York: Free Press.

Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, NY:
Cambridge University Press.

---- 1992. "The Historical Movement for Restorative
Justice." Restorative Justice:  Assessing an Immodest Theory and a
Pessimistic Theory. Retrieved April 18, 1999.
(http://www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/braithwaite/introduction.html): 1-5.

Braithwaite, John, and Stephen Mugford. 1994. "Conditions of Successful
Reintegration  Ceremonies: Dealing with Juvenile Offenders." British
Journal of Criminology. 34(2): 139-171.

Braithwaite, John, and Philip Pettit. 1990. Not Just Deserts: A Republican
Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press.

Burnside, Johnathan, and Nicola Baker (eds). 1994. Relational Justice:
Repairing the Breach. Winchester: Waterside Press.

Cloward, Richard A., and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and
Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent  Gangs. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe,
Ill.: Free Press.

Coles, Walter. 1999. Family Group Conference: aka Community Justice Forum.
Retrieved April 28, 1999. (http://www.lis.ab.ca/coles/Manual2.pdf): 1-13.

Cragg, W. 1992. The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of
Restorative Justice. London: Routledge.

Daly, Kathleen, and Jan Kitcher. 1999. The (R)evolution of Restorative
Justice through  Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships. Retrieved April 28,
1999. (http:www.ethics-justice.org/v2n1/conference.html): 1-7. 

De Hann, W. 1990. The Politics of Redress: Crime, Punishment, and Penal
Abolition. London: Unwin Hyman.

Dignan, J. 1992. "Repairing the Damage: Can Reparation Work in the Service
of Diversion?" British Journal Criminology. 32:453-72.

Eglash, Albert. 1975. "Beyond Restitution: Creative Restitution." In
Restitution in Criminal Justice, edited by J. Hudson, and B. Galaway.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Erickson, K.T. 1962. "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance." Social
Problems. 9:307-14.

Eysenck, Hans, J. 1977. Crime and Personality. London & Henley: Routledge
& Kegan Paul Ltd. 

Ferri, Enrico. 1901. The Positive School of Criminology. (English ed.
Published in 1908 by C.H. Kerr and Company. Chicago.

Findley, M. 1993. "Police Authority, Respect and Shaming." In Current
Issues in Criminal Justice. 5:29-41.

Galaway, Burt, and Joe Hudson. 1990. Criminal Justice, Restitution and
Reconciliation. Monsey, NY:  Criminal Justice Press.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1956. "Conditions of Successful Degradation
Ceremonies." American Journal of Sociology. 61:420-4.

Gerefelo, R., and C. Lamborso. 1876. L' Uomo Delinguente. Milan: Hoepli
(5th ed) Turini: Boccu. 

Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a
Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. London: Polity Press.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

James, T.M. 1993. Circle Sentencing. Supreme Court of the Northwest
Territories: Canada.

Lawrence, Richard. 1991. "Reexamining Community Corrections Models." Crime
and Delinquency 37(4):449-64.

Makkai, Toni, and John Braithwaite. 1994. "Compliance with Regulatory
Standards." Criminology 32(3):361-85.

Marshall, T.F. 1985. Alternatives to Criminal Courts. Aldershot: Gower.

Marshall, Gordon. 1994. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free
Press.

McDonald, J., D. Moore, T.O'Connell, and M. Thorsborbe. 1995. Real Justice
Training Manual: Coordinating Family Group Conferences. Pennsylvania:
Pipers Press.

Meima, M. 1990. "Sexual Violence, Criminal Law and Abolitionism." In
Gender, Sexuality and Social Control, edited by B. Rolston, and M.
Tomlison. Bristol, England: The European Group for the Study of Deviance
and Social Control.

Moore, David B., with L. Forsythe. 1995. A New Approach to Juvenile
Justice: An Evaluation of Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga. Wagga
Wagga: Charles Sturt University.

Morris, Ruth. 1995. "Not Enough!" Mediation Quarterly. 12(3):285-291.

Nathanson, Donald, L. 1992. Shame and Pride, Affect, Sex, and the Birth of
the Self. New York: Norton & Company.

O'Connell, T. and P. Sweetapple. 1988. Children in Justice. Sydney:
Longman-Cheshire. 117-68.

O'Connell. T. 1994. Personal Communication to Dr. Tom Scheff.

Pepinsky, H.E., and R. Quinney (eds). 1991. Criminology as Peacemaking.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Rosche, Georg., and Otto Kirchheimer. 1968:[1939]. Punishment and Social
Structure. with  forward by Thorsten Sellin. New York: Russell & Russell
Publishing.

Scheff, Tom J. 1988. "Shame and Conformity: The Deference-Emotion System."
American  Sociological Review 53(3):395-406.

----- 1990. "Review Essay: A New Durkheim." American Journal of
Sociology 96(1):741-46.

---- 1990. Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion, and Social
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

---- 1995. "Strategy for Community Conferences: Shame and the
Social Bond." Personal  Communication via Electronic Mail to Dr. Jerry
Krause. Date sent: May 12, 1995. 

Shermann, Lawrence W. 1992. Policing Domestic Violence. New York: Free
Press.

Shermann, Lawrence W., and Geoffrey Barnes. 1997. Restorative Justice and
Offenders' Respect  for the Law. Paper 3, RISE Working Paper, Law Program,
RSSS, ANU, Canberra. Retrieved April 18, 1999.
(http://www.cjcentral.com/rise/rise3.htm): 1-4.

Shermann, Lawrence W., and Heather Strang. 1997a. The Right Kind of Shame
for Crime. Paper  1, RISE Working Paper, Law Program, RSSS, ANU, Canberra.
Retrieved April 18, 1999. (http://www.cjcentral.com/rise/rise1.htm): 1-5. 

Shermann, Lawrence W., and Heather Strang. 1997b. Restorative Justice and
Deterring Crime. Paper 4, RISE Working Paper, Law Program, RSSS, ANU,
Canberra. Retrieved April 18, 1999.
(http://www.cjcentral.com/rise/rise4.htm): 1-5. 

Smart, Carol. 1977. Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique.
London, Henley, and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 
 
Strang, Heather, and Shermann, Lawrence W. 1997. The Victims Perspective.
Paper 2, RISE  Working Paper, Law Program, RSSS, ANU, Canberra. Retrieved
April 18, 1999. (http://www.cjcentral.com/rise/rise2.htm): 1-4.

Sutherlund, Edwin H. and Donald R.Cressey. 1978. Criminology. 10th ed. New
York: Lippincott.

Taylor, Ian., Paul Walton, and Jock Young. 1973. The New Criminology: for
a Social Theory of Deviance. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 

Tomkins, Sylvan. 1962. Affect/Imagery/Consciousness. Vol. 1: The Positive
Affects. New York: Springer.

Tomkins, Sylvan. 1963. Affect/Imagery/Consciousness. Vol. 2: The Positive
Affects. New York: Springer.

Ulbreit, Mark. 1985. Crime and Reconciliation: Creative Options for
Victims and Offenders. Nashville, TN: Abigton Press.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: National Institute
of Justice. 1997.  Critical Criminal Justice Issues: Task Force Reports
>From the American Society of Criminology to Attorney General Janet Reno.
Washington DC. GPO: 1-142.

Van Ness, Daniel. 1993. "New Wine and Old Wineskins: Four Challenges of
Restorative Justice." Criminal Law Forum. 4:251-76.

Wright, M. 1982. Making Good: Prison, Punishment and Beyond. London:
Hutchinson.

Yazzie, Robert, and James W. Zion. 1996. "Navajo Restorative Justice: The
Law of Equality and Justice." In Restorative Justice: International
Perspectives, edited by Burt Galaway, and Joe Hudson. Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.

Young, Jock. 1987. "The Tasks Facing a Realist Criminology."
Contemporary-Crises 11(4): 
337-356.. 

Zehr, Howard. 1990. Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Criminal Justice,
Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.

 Appendix A - A Practical Guide Listing for Reintegrative Shaming
Conference* 

1. Non-Normative Behavior:
-Distinguish and inspection by social control agents.
-Youth admits/takes responsibility for non-normative behavior.
-Assessment whether incident is suitable for participatory reintegrative
shaming conference.
-determination of authorized official to divert from court system.

2. Offer of Reintegrative Shaming Conference
-Offer to the youth to participate.
-Offer to victim and others affected by incident to participate.
-Particulars of conference established which must be timely.
- Independent and impartial facilitator (Social Scientist) selects
participants. Should include youth, their family, friends, victim and
victim supporters. 

3. Reintegrative Shaming Conference
-facilitator conducts proceeding.
- participants are seated in a circle, which allows for eye contact among
all establishes an appropriate distance between victim and offender. There
should be nothing in the center of the group such as a table.
-Facilitators guides conferences with a set of open-ended questions.
-Speaking lists: 1. Youth speaks on behavior; 2. Victim(s) speaks of
incident; 3. Victim supporters speak of incident; 4. Youth supporter(s)
ask speak about incident.

4. Mutual Agreement by Group Consensus
-victim asked for satisfactory solution.
-victim supporters asked for contribution.
-youth supporters asked for contribution.
-above three come to a consensus for solution.
-youth asked for contribution on solution and if it is fair.
-If yes solution is finalized - then all terms must be honored.
-If no the solution is re-discussed until consensus is achieved.

5. Closure
-facilitator invites all participants to another place for refreshments
and less formal interactions.
-youths offered assistance (i.e., self-help or education-enhancement
programs

*Adapted from the Canada Family Group Conference

Return to JT's homepage