Question 1
In his extension of labeling theory, John Braithwaite explores the nature and impact of shaming. He distinguishes two different types of shaming namely the disintegrative shaming and reintegrative shaming.
Disintegrative Shaming refers to a type of negative labeling by the system of juvenile justice that is consistent with traditional labeling notions, and that is consistent with traditional labeling notions, and that assume stigmatize forms and eliminate targeted youths (Braithwaite 32). For a juvenile who is marked as either delinquent or pre-delinquent, legitimate avenues to conventional membership society become severely restricted. As a result, the juvenile will likely turn to others who are similarly situated and collectively those youths will form either a gang or a delinquent subculture.
Reintegrative shaming, by contrast, involves the expression of community disapproval beginning from reprimand to formal court sanctions, followed by indicators of forgiveness and reacceptance into the community responsible law abiders (Hirschi 52). Braithwaite offers a thoughtful reformulation of labeling perspective. His central proposition is that reiterative shaming will reduce future offending whereas disintegrative shaming would enhance the likelihood of future delinquency. A testament to the appeal of Braithwaite’s theory is the fact that it is among the most empirically tested from the various labeling theories, although researchers have found mixed support for its ideas. In his initial test, John Braithwaite examined changes in compliance with regulations by nursing homes in Australia and found that reintegrative shaming increased compliance, evidence that argues on behalf of the theory.
Leaning Zhang and Sheldon Zhang explored the relationship between reintegrative shaming and predatory forms of delinquency using a national sample of youths (Guru et al. 123). Consistent with the theory, they hypothesized that parent and forgiveness of transgressor that parent and peer disapproval of delinquent behavior and forgiveness of the transgressor contribute to lower delinquency. Their findings were mixed, however. Parental indulgence and peer shaming diminished the possibility of predatory delinquency, whereas peer forgiveness significantly increased the likelihood of predatory delinquency. When (Braithwaite 42) surveyed 2,280 youths from Hong Kong, however, he found that disintegrative shaming in which delinquents were swiftly punished and stigmatized was very effective as a method as a method of social control. In practice, Hong Kong society preferred disintegrative rather than reintegrative shaming. Similar findings on the effects of shaming on recidivism were produced from respondents.
Braithwaite’s theory additionally found its way into juvenile practice. For instance, many jurisdictions have developed drug courts to process offenders who have substance abuse problems but minimal another criminal history. By avoiding traditional court processing, drug offenders can focus on treatment and rehabilitation and avoid potential stigmatizing labels that arise from adjudication. When Terance Miethe and his colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of drug courts in Las Vegas as it relates to reintegrative shaming, however, their findings contradicted the theory: Person processed in drug courts had significantly higher recidivism rates than comparable defendants who were prosecuted in traditional criminal courts (Miethe and Robert 245).
Question 4
Travis Hirsch is perhaps the most well-known and influential social control theorist. Hirsch’s in his context, laid out his theory of delinquency, provided measures of each concept and presented data from a sample of school student that’s supported his theory. Hirschi defined a “pure” informal control theory and compared it with other theories of crime. According to Hirschi, assumptions about human nature clearly different command systems from other hypotheses of crime. Most hypotheses of crime attempt to demonstrate why individuals participate in crime. In doing so, they recognize factors that drive or force people towards deviance. Considering an individual must be “forced” to crime, Hirschi held that these theories affect believes that are naturally good.
In contrast, most control theories answers the question as to why all people cannot engage in crime with the perception that crime is normally a quick and easy way to fulfill a desire. In that sense, the underlying assumptions are that human nature leans towards deviance. Hirschi argued that because of this initial assumption, a control theory needed no “pushes” as in containment theory toward crime. Instead, they need only explain why some people refrained from. His explanation was that humans refrained from crime because they developed a social bond.
Hirschi’s theory identifies four elements of the social bond that tie an individual to society. They include; attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. A person that has an investment (comment) in society is also tied to the norms of society. Conventional actions such as taking a job and developing a social reputation build prosaical ties and discourage criminal involve. Seeking success, will not risk the chance of advancement by committing crimes.
Similarly, to the extent that one cares for the opinions of others, they are less likely to engage in crime. The extent of taking time to engage in a conventional activity is indeed a time-consuming process. The more heavily one is involved in conventional activities; the less time there is available to engage in deviant behavior. Finally, belief in the way society operates engenders compassion to the other people’s rights as well as respecting for the laws. Although Hirschi included some forms of direct control –parental supervision, his theory focuses mostly on indirect control. Attachment –close relationships with others and commitment are important because they represent something that might be lost on a person engages in delinquencies.
Works Cited
Braithwaite, John. Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.
Hirschi, Travis. Causes of delinquency. Transaction publishers, 2002. Print.
Guru, Khurshid A., et al. "Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter?." Journal of Endourology 23.1 (2009): 123-128. Print.
Miethe, Terance D., and Robert F. Meier. "Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model." Journal of research in Crime and Delinquency 27.3 (1990): 243-266. Print.
