Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Crime, Shame, and Reintegration

In his book Crime, Shame and Reintegration, published in 1989, Australian criminologist John Braithwaite puts forth a theoretical model for dealing with crime at the individual and community levels. Braithwaite integrates many traditional sociological theories of crime into a single view explaining why some societies have higher crime rates, why certain people are more likely to commit crime, and how communities can deal effectively with crime for the purposes of prevention.

According to Braithwaite, high rates of predatory crime in a society are indicative of the failure to shame those acts labeled as criminal. Braithwaite argues that the breakdown of community ties in modern urban communities has meant that perpetrators of crime are not made to feel ashamed of their actions, and thus continue victimizing others without remorse.

The concept of shame is the linchpin of this theory. Braithwaite suggests that if perpetrators were made to feel guilty about their actions, they would be deterred from committing further crime. He bases this assumption on the belief that those who are closely tied to family and community anticipate a negative reaction to the violation of community norms. Foreseeing the shame that they would feel, they are deterred from committing crime. However, according to this theory, shaming must be done in such a way as to be reintegrative, bringing the offender back into the community, rather than disintegrative, which would push the individual even farther out of the community. For Braithwaite, reintegrative shaming is the key to effective deterrence and crime prevention.

Background to the Theory

Braithwaite integrates the major tenets of five different theoretical traditions in 20th-century criminology into his theory of reintegrative shaming. He explains how labeling, subcultural, control, opportunity, and learning theories fit into his work. Crime, shame, and reintegration is not then an attempt to rewrite criminology, but to synthesize several seemingly disparate theories into a singular explanatory system.

Crime

Braithwaite begins with the notion, taken from control theory, that individuals are naturally drawn to commit criminal acts for personal gain and hedonistic pleasure. Proponents of control theory assume that it is more important to look at why certain people do not commit crime, rather than why some do. It is assumed that, without a particular set of restraints, the average person would commit criminal or immoral acts.

Criminological research has established that various personal and circumstantial characteristics are positively correlated to criminality. Being male, between the ages of 15 and 25 years, unmarried, unemployed or without steady employment, of lower socioeconomic status, living in a city, and having low educational attainment are all indicative of a statistically higher propensity for crime. The opposite is also true. Individuals who are female, younger than 15 or older than 25, married, of a higher socioeconomic status, living in a rural area, and having greater than secondary school education would be found to be at a significantly lower risk of committing a criminal act.

According to Braithwaite, the very characteristics that lead one person to have a higher propensity for criminality also lessen his or her relationship with family and community and leave a person less susceptible to the deterring power of shame. Those characteristics associated with a lower risk of criminality correlate to increased contact with family and community, which in turn increases a person's susceptibility to shame. For example, an individual who is married with children has responsibilities to his or her family that may constrain him or her from making risky or poor choices, whereas a single individual does not necessarily have such ties to family and responsibilities. Those who are more integrated into the community and involved in relationships with others are less likely to commit crime because they appreciate the shame and embarrassment that would result from violating community norms and values. Furthermore, those who are firmly integrated into a community feel personal responsibility for the safety and well-being of those around them. In contrast, those who are not integrated into a community or involved in meaningful relationships with others are more likely to commit crime because they do not feel a sense of responsibility to those around them, and they are not constrained by feelings of shame.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading