Topic 5 Braithwaite’s Integrated Theory of Reintegrative Shaming

includes social disorganisation, shaming, and crime.

Mveledzo Dineo Maphasha
63172232
Code: 867603
Mrs. Joubert
23 January 2024
1. Introduction 2

2. Definitions 3
2.1. Shame 3

3. Theory of Reintegrative Shaming 4

3.1. History of Reintegrative Shaming 4
3.2. Types of Shaming 5
3.2.1. Disintegrative Shaming 5
3.2.2. Reintegrative Shaming 6
3.3. Community Healing and Restoration 7

4. Limitations of Reintegrative Shaming 7

4.1. Overall Effectiveness 8
4.2. Unintended Consequences 8
4.3. Cultural and Contextual Variations 8

5. Conclusion 8

6. References 10

1
 1. Introduction

Braithwaite's reintegration theory emphasises the importance of interdependency and

communitarianism in reintegrating criminals into society. It draws attention to how
shared values, ties to the community, and social ties can aid in an offender's
acceptance and rehabilitation. According to the theory, a community's strong sense of
belonging and shared responsibility can help to lower recidivism and encourage
successful social reintegration.

South Africa has a very high youth delinquency rate. In the Department of Correctional
Services' annual report for 2022–2023, it states that out of the sentenced juveniles, or
those between the ages of 18 and 20, 1 466 were men and 35 were women (Services,
2023:68). The number of children (less than 18 years old) imprisoned in correctional
facilities has increased, rising from 85 in 2021/22 to 97 in 2022/23. The KwaZulu-Natal
Region has the highest number of children in these facilities, with 44, followed by the
Western Cape, with 24. Children with sentences comprised 33% of the total, while
children without sentences comprised 67%.

Apart from reintegrative shaming, the Braithwaite theory encompasses the concepts
of communitarianism and interdependence. Communitarianism emphasises the value
of interpersonal relationships and civic duty. The idea acknowledges that while the
individual must follow the law, it is also the community's responsibility to prevent and
deal with crime. This theoretical framework highlights the significance of fostering
rehabilitation, forgiveness, and community support, focusing on social inclusion and
reintegrative shaming. The main ideas of the Braithwaite theory, its consequences for
criminal justice procedures, and its capacity to promote constructive change and lower
recidivism rates in South Africa will all be covered in this academic paper.

2
 2. Definitions

2.1. Shame

Shame consists of blaming an individual for some wrongdoing or flaw by expressing

a negative reactive attitude towards them and inviting an audience to do the same
(Mcdonald,2020:2). Another definition of shame tactics is punishment through
humiliation and public exposure (Gruber, 2020). According to Zhuo (2023:2), shame
is the social process of expressing disapproval to make wrongdoers regret their
actions. Therefore, shame can be defined as a social control mechanism involving
exposing, ridiculing, or stigmatising those who have committed crimes or engaged in
deviant behaviour to instil feelings of shame and encourage conformity to social
norms.

2.2. Interdependency

The degree to which people are part of networks and dependent on their parents,
employers, schools, neighbours, and other people is known as interdependency
(Zhuo, 2023:2). According to Haney and Zimbardo (2018:53), interdependency also
refers to the theory that a variety of interrelated, both environmental and individual,
factors can have an impact on criminal behaviour and crime. Thus, interdependency
describes the reciprocal relationship between various social or personal factors
supporting the emergence and maintenance of criminal behaviour.

2.3. Communitarianism

According to Goodale and Audrey (2019), communitarianism is a viewpoint that

emphasises the value of cultural diversity and collective identities in comprehending
and advancing human rights. According to a paper by Beaty (2020), communitarianism
is a political theory that aims to reconcile the demands of individual liberty and group
obligations. Thus, in the context of this essay, communitarianism is understood as a
political and social theory that prioritises community and shared ideals over individual
liberties. In the South African context, this could be understood as Ubuntu, which

3
means "I am because we are." Ubuntu emphasises the individual concerning their
surroundings and the community.

3. Theory of Reintegrative Shaming

3.1. History of Reintegrative Shaming

Early in the 1980s, John Braithwaite developed the theory of reintegrative shaming.
The traditional punitive methods used in criminal procedures gave rise to the theory.
Braithwaite looked for a substitute that put more of an emphasis on mending social
relationships and reintegrating criminals into society. His seminal work—which is best
summarised in the book "Crime, Shame and Reintegration"—put forth the idea that,
when applied in a reintegrative manner, shaming may be a more efficient and
compassionate way to deal with criminal behaviour. The theory became well-known
because it strongly emphasised interacting with others, involving the community, and
using positive reintegration techniques to potentially lower recidivism rates. The
reintegrative shaming theory was first presented in Crime, Shame, and Reintegration
(1989). It was an integrative, interdisciplinary, normative, and explanatory theory of
crime (Sinclair,2021:5).

According to Makkai and Braithwaite (1994), reintegrative shaming is an integrated

theory incorporating elements of Becker's Labelling Theory, Sutherland's Differential
Association Theory, and Hirschi's Control and Social Bond Theories. Braithwaite has
developed a thorough guide to dealing with delinquency by understanding how
criminal behaviours start (differential association theory), why people decide to stop
committing crimes or never save them in the first place (control and social bond
theory), and how to influence juveniles through labelling (labelling theory). In its
evolving form, reintegrative shame theory explains why institutions need to be
reshaped to promote more successful conflict resolution and healing, which calls for
engagement and sensitivity to context and culture (Forsyth and Braithwaite, 2020:10).

4
 3.2. Types of Shaming

In his reintegrative shaming theory, John Braithwaite distinguishes between two types
of shame: disintegrative and reintegrative.

3.2.1. Disintegrative Shaming

The shame of this kind is linked to marginalisation and stigma. It happens when the
criminal justice system or society rejects and isolates the offender through the
application of shame. Disintegrative shame increases the risk of reoffending and can
cause further alienation and resentment. According to Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox
(2018:5), isolating people based solely on their criminal behaviour causes them to
become estranged from the community. However, disintegrative shaming closes doors
to redemption within that community by rejecting and disliking the whole individual
(Forsyth and Braithwaite, 2020:11).

Stigmatisation happens when the community makes an effort to socially isolate the
offender by imposing penalties like jail time. Recent initiatives to raise the proportion
of minors waived to adult court constitute stigmatisation. The goal of these laws is to
isolate these young criminals from society. But there's a chance that these sanctions
will spark a rebellion (Mangold and Edwards, 2014:207). Disintegrative shame is also
associated with unresolved shame. Forsyth and Braithwaite (2020:12) claim that those
who experience this shame cause offenders to believe their offence was wrong. This
manifests as anger and blame directed at other people.

Shame of this kind is perceived more as a form of punishment than as a tool for
healing. An offender receives two labels: one for their deeds and another for being a
criminal, which further isolates them from the community. In Pietermaritzburg, South
Africa, a teenage boy was accused of stealing a handbag, and the community nearly
beat him to death (Sewsunker, 2023:n.p.). Even though the boy insisted he didn't steal
the bag, it was simple for the community to want to hold him responsible because he
had already been labelled a thief. Because the community does not accept them,

5
doing this pushes criminals into a culture of ongoing crime and delinquent behaviour
(Zhuo,2023:4).

3.2.2. Reintegrative Shaming

Reintegrative shame has a positive impact on adults as well as delinquent teens. Per
Scheuermann and Keith (2022:118), reintegrative shaming aims to reintegrate
offenders into society by upholding their love and respect for others. The goal of
reintegrative shame is to promote social reintegration and constructive change. It
entails admitting the wrongdoing while simultaneously laying out a plan for the offender
to be accepted back into society. Reintegrative shame strongly emphasises mending
fences, re-establishing trust, and providing a supportive and accepting environment
for the offender to reintegrate into society.
Reintegrative shaming, in conjunction with communitarianism, enables a community
to mend after an offender has expressed regret and made amends with those they
have hurt (Sinclair,2021:6). Another aspect is making the offender aware of their bad
choices during the crime. According to Forsyth and Braithwaite (2020:11),
reintegrative shaming entails shaming a particular act of wrongdoing while affirming
the whole person, providing opportunities for reparations, and providing rituals for
forgiveness and acceptance that signify re-entry into the community.

Instead of being viewed as a form of punishment, this kind of shame is considered a

rehabilitation tool. Reintegrative shaming was a strategy that Braithwaite supported.
Reintegrative shame, which takes its cues from the loving family social environment,
involves using precise rules for behaviour and consequences. But rather than focusing
on the offender, the penalty focuses on the criminal act. Reintegrative shaming entails
punishing the offender and then trying to forgive and reintegrate them into society
(Mongold and Edwards, 2014:207).

Instead of being viewed as a form of punishment, this kind of shame is considered a

rehabilitation tool. Reintegrative shaming was a strategy that Braithwaite supported.
Reintegrative shame, which takes its cues from the loving family social environment,
involves using precise rules for behaviour and consequences. But rather than focusing

6
on the offender, the penalty focuses on the criminal act. Reintegrative shaming entails
punishing the offender and then making an effort to forgive them and reintegrate them
into society (Mongold and Edwards, 2014:207).

3.3. Community Healing and Restoration

When someone rejects or disapproves of them, they feel ashamed. Rehabilitating

offenders after a community offence is crucial to lowering recidivism. Regarding
deterrence, Sinclair (2021:2) claims that humiliation and shame are essential
indicators of punishment and deterrence. Disapproval from those the offender knows
and respects is necessary for a better outcome. The offender must also admit their
actions were harmful and see shame as required to reintegrate into society (Forsyth
and Braithwaite, 2020:12).

For the process to be just and equal, offenders must be treated respectfully for proper
restoration (Hipple,2015:1114). For restorative justice, healing is fundamental. Healing
can be defined as recovering from harm and preventing further harm (Forsyth and
Braithwaite,2020:14). The goal of both types of damage is to strengthen the bonds of
love and respect between the offender and the community. The quality of an offender's
relationships with those around them determines how strong their interdependency is.
Ultimately, relationships characterised by love and relaxation can reduce crime and
discourage recidivism (Zhuo, 2023:4). According to Zhuo, Chen, Liu, and Jiang (2023),
strong school ties reduce wrongdoing and prevent shame. According to the
Department of Correctional Services, 18121 victims and 5545 offenders participated
in restorative justice programs (Service,2023:131).

4. Limitations of Reintegrative Shaming

While John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming has been influential, it is not
without limitations. Some of the critical criticisms include the following:

7
 4.1. Overall Effectiveness

A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (2018) examined the
effectiveness of reintegrative shaming in reducing future criminal behaviour. The
authors found that while reintegrative shaming may have positive short-term effects
on reducing subsequent crime, these effects tend to fade over time. This suggests
that, over time, individuals are not inclined to commit due to seeing the shame and
stigmatisation in the community. This can be linked to why individuals commit crimes.

4.2. Unintended Consequences

Recent research suggests that reintegrative shaming may only sometimes produce
the desired outcomes. One study by Ttofi and Farrington (2012) found that shaming
interventions, when poorly implemented, can lead to increased delinquency and
aggression among offenders. This highlights the importance of considering individual
differences and tailoring interventions to specific contexts to avoid potential adverse
effects.

4.3. Cultural and Contextual Variations

The Braithwaite theory primarily emerged from Western contexts, and its applicability
in different cultural and societal settings remains to be determined. Cross-cultural
research by Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) highlighted variations in attitudes towards
shame and the effectiveness of reintegration across different cultures. Understanding
these variations is crucial to ensure the theory’s principles are adaptable and practical
in diverse contexts.

5. Conclusion

The Braithwaite theory of reintegration offers a compelling alternative to the punitive

approach in the criminal justice system. By emphasising social inclusion, reintegrative

8
shaming, and restorative justice practices, this theory promotes the rehabilitation of
offenders in society. By focusing on forgiveness, accountability, and community
support, the theory has the potential to reduce recidivism rates, enhance community
safety, and create a more inclusive and rehabilitative system. While the Braithwaite
theory of reintegrative shaming offers a promising approach to criminal justice, recent
scientific sources highlight several limitations that must be addressed. Recognising
and addressing these limitations will be crucial in refining and adapting the theory to
ensure its effectiveness and ethical integrity in diverse criminal justice systems.
Continued research and evaluation are necessary to enhance our understanding of
reintegrative shaming and its potential impact on reducing crime and promoting social
reintegration.

9
6. References

Bottoms, A. T. J., 2012. Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to

Legitimacy in Criminal Justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), pp.
119-170.

Cullen, F. T. A. R. &. W. P., 2018. Reconceptualising Deterrence Theory. In:

Criminological Theory: Past to Present. 6 ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.
367-72.

Forsyth, M. &. B. V., 2020. From reintegrative shaming to restorative institutional

hybridity. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 3(1), pp. 10-22.

Goodale, M. &. A. R., 2019. The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law Between
the Global and the Local. London: Cambridge University Press.

Haney, C. &. Z. P., 2018. The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years
after Pell v. Procunier. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), pp. 51-65.

Mcdonald, L., 2020. Shaming, Blaming, and Responsibility. Journal of Moral

Philosophy, Volume 1, pp. 1-25.

Mongold, J. L. &. E. B. D., 2014. Reintegrative Shaming: Theory into Practice.

Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 6(3), pp. 206-212.

Scheuerman, H. L. &. K. S., 2022. Experiencing Shame: How Does Gender Affect
the Interpersonal Dynamics of Restorative Justice. Feminist Criminology, 17(1), pp.
116-138.

Services, D. o. C., 2023. 2022/2023 Annual Report. [Online]

Available at: http://www.dcs.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DCS-Annual-
Report-Ready-for-Tabling.pdf
[Accessed 15 January 2024].

Sewsu, 2023. Sewsunker, A. [Online]

Available at: https://www.citizen.co.za/south-coast-herald/lnn/article/vigilantes-attack-
kzn-teen-for-allegedly-stealing-a-handbag/
[Accessed 18 January 2024].

Sinclair, E., 2021. Indigenous Reintegrative Shaming: A Comparison of Indigenous

Legal Traditions of Canada and Braithwaites Theory of Reintegrative Shaming. An
Undergraduate Journal of Contemporary Connections, 5(1), pp. 1-10.

Ttofi, M. M. &. F. D. P., 2012. Risk and protective factors, longitudinal research, and
bullying prevention. New Directions for Youth Development, 20(113), pp. 85-98.

Zhuo, Y. C. X. L. J. &. J. X., 2023. Interdependency, Perceived Shame, and

Probability of Wrongdoing Among Chinese Students: A Partial Test of the
Reintegrative Shaming Theory. Crime & Delinquency, Volume 1, pp. 1-28.

10
ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of Unisa’s
policies.
2. I declare that this assignment is my original work. When I have used someone
else’s work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed referencing style.
Every contribution to and quotation in this assignment from other people's
works has been referenced according to this style.
3. I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy my work and pass it off as
their work.
4. I did not use another student’s work and submitted it as my own.

Mveledzo Dineo Maphasha

63172232
Code: 867603
23 January 2024

11