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
4 - The family model of the criminal process: reintegrative shaming
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
After an empirical study of The Impact of Publicity on Corporate Offenders, Brent Fisse and I concluded:
If we are serious about controlling corporate crime, the first priority should be to create a culture in which corporate crime is not tolerated. The informal processes of shaming unwanted conduct and of praising exemplary behavior need to be emphasized.
(Fisse and Braithwaite, 1983: 246).However, in that book, and in an earlier contribution with Gilbert Geis, a sharp distinction was made between the merits of shaming for controlling corporate crime and its demerits with crime in the streets.
A major risk in apprehending the traditional criminal is that the stigmatizing process will push him further and further into a criminal self-concept. This is the contention of labeling theory. Evidence such as that from the Cambridge longitudinal study of delinquency has been interpreted as support for the labeling hypothesis. This study showed that boys who were apprehended for and convicted of delinquent offenses became more delinquent than boys who were equally delinquent to begin with but who escaped apprehension… These labeling arguments cannot readily be applied to corporate offenders. They are likely to regard themselves as unfairly maligned pillars of respectability, and no amount of stigmatization is apt to convince them otherwise. […]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Crime, Shame and Reintegration , pp. 54 - 68Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1989