Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Whither criminological theory?
- 2 The dominant theoretical traditions: labeling, subcultural, control, opportunity and learning theories
- 3 Facts a theory of crime ought to fit
- 4 The family model of the criminal process: reintegrative shaming
- 5 Why and how does shaming work?
- 6 Social conditions conducive to reintegrative shaming
- 7 Summary of the theory
- 8 Testing the theory
- 9 Reintegrative shaming and white collar crime
- 10 Shaming and the good society
- References
- Index
5 - Why and how does shaming work?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Whither criminological theory?
- 2 The dominant theoretical traditions: labeling, subcultural, control, opportunity and learning theories
- 3 Facts a theory of crime ought to fit
- 4 The family model of the criminal process: reintegrative shaming
- 5 Why and how does shaming work?
- 6 Social conditions conducive to reintegrative shaming
- 7 Summary of the theory
- 8 Testing the theory
- 9 Reintegrative shaming and white collar crime
- 10 Shaming and the good society
- References
- Index
Summary
The Deterrence Literature
The criminological literature on deterrence provides one important motivation for turning to informal methods of social control such as shaming for the key to explaining crime. This literature shows reasonable support for an association between the certainty of criminal punishment and offending, but little support for the association between crime and the severity of punishment (Waldo and Chiricos, 1972; Bailey and Lott, 1976; Kraut, 1976; Silberman, 1976; Teevan, 1976a, 1976b, 1976c; Anderson et al., 1977; Meier and Johnson, 1977; Minor, 1977; Cohen, 1978; Jensen and Erickson, 1978; Bishop, 1984; Williams, 1985; Paternoster and Iovanni, 1986; Piliavin et al., 1986). Deterrence research is now demonstrating a much stronger effect of informal sanctions on deviance than formal legal sanctions (Burkett and Jensen, 1975; Kraut, 1976; Anderson et al., 1977; Meier and Johnson, 1977; Jensen and Erickson, 1978; Akers et al., 1979; Tittle, 1980b; Meier, 1982; Paternoster et al., 1983a, 1983b; Bishop, 1984; Williams, 1985; Paternoster and Iovanni, 1986; but see Piliavin et al., 1986).
It would seem that sanctions imposed by relatives, friends or a personally relevant collectivity have more effect on criminal behavior than sanctions imposed by a remote legal authority. I will argue that this is because repute in the eyes of close acquaintances matters more to people than the opinions or actions of criminal justice officials.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Crime, Shame and Reintegration , pp. 69 - 83Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1989