1. Labeling Theory Review of “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

2. The Classic Labeling Process Primary Deviance Most engage in this Typically sporadic, not serious Formal Sanctions Degradation ceremony Stigmatizing Change in Self-Concept looking glass self hard to resist formal label Secondary Deviance Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant

3. Criticisms of Labeling 1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling  Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction individuals as deviant in a vacuum.” 2. Controlling initial levels of deviance, formal sanctions have little (no?) effect. 3. No “negotiation,” obsession with “formal” sanctions...

4. John Braithwaite Austrailian Criminologist Crime, Shame, and Reintegration Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious)  BUT, Central concepts are not that complex Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization Interdependency Communitarianism

5. What is “shaming?” Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame  snide comment, verbal confrontations  stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter”  Naval tradition of “captains mask” In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment  Offenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

6. Braithwaite II Interdependency  “attachment” with social others (indirect control at micro level) Communitarianism  similar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro) In communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.

7. Types of “Shaming” Reintegrative  Love the sinner, hate the sin  Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them Stigmatizing  no effort made to reconcile the offender with the community  offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status  degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

8. Examples of Shaming Stigmatizing  United States  Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community) Reintegrative  Japan  Ceremonies to shame and welcome back

9. The Model Interdependency (MICRO) Communitarianism (MACRO) Type of Punishment Reintegrative Shaming Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime

10. Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming? Japan vs. U.S. crime rates  Since WWII, Japan U.S.(others) Why?  High Interdependency and Communitarianism  Reintegrative Shaming emphasized  Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

11. Implications of Braithwaite? Restorative Justice  Emphasis on “repairing harm” Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation and restoration  Community involvement Crime control the domain of the community Community as facilitator in restorative process Crime has social dimensions of responsibility Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime

12. Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory” Defiance  “the net increase in the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of the future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction.”

13. What causes defiance? Sanctions are defined as “unfair”  Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the offender or his/her group  The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory, excessive, undeserved) Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community Offenders defines sanctioning as stigmatizing (reject the person) Offenders denies or refuses to