The Use of Shame with Sexual Offenses - Essay Example

?The Use of Shame with Sexual Offences “The Use of ‘Shame’ With Sexual Offences” by Anne-Marie McAlinden is a provoking article that focuses a very important social concern. Anne has adopted a purely professional tone in her article and has dealt with serious legal aspects of the issue. She has presented the thesis very effectively in the beginning and has set the grounds for a detailed insight into various factors surrounding the thesis. Various terminologies used in the article have adequately been introduced to the reader this keeps him engaged and interested in the facts presented by the author. Although Anne has taken an obvious standpoint in the beginning but she has presented the opposing arguments quite often in the article. The article is grounded into strong ethical boundaries and Anne has presented any personal details or hints. Public protection is the essence of any legislation either it is concerned with the pre-crime evasive measures or post-crime reclamation. The author has taken up a particular aspect of restorative justice, defined to be “a way of dealing with criminal offences by involving the offender, the victim, and possible community representatives in an informal negotiating process which results in the offender's undertaking some 'reparative' task.” (Hirsch et al. 2003). Anne give the brief overview of restorative justice and challenges it was facing. There critics of the restorative justice were asking for inflicting penalizations and penalties for the committers of sexual harassment and sexual offenders. They hold the point that this restorative justice does not have much to tackle the culprit and offers no good to society in the long run. Deflem has observed this in his article, “policies designed to treat and rehabilitate offenders had an unacceptably low success rate – especially when evaluated in the light of the very science which produced those policies – the discretion given to judges to fit sentences to the offender and not exclusively the offense seemed misplaced.”(Deflem, 2006). However, Anne defended his stance for use of shame as an instrument for restorative justice and criticized the current ‘what works’ approach of criminal justice policy and pointed out the lack of focus in legislation and implementation on sexual offences. Anne categorically claims that “the traditional form of retributive justice does not seem to be working.” It is not only Anne but a number of other experts have already advocated in favor of restorative justice and allied tools for ensured and improved effects and outcomes from it. The relationship between society and the offender’s infliction is often overlooked by the theorists as Durkheim has argued, “the function of punishment has less to do with the offender and more to do with a collective reaction of the community to the violation of its norms and an effort to re-establish solidarity around those norms.” (Deflem, 2006). Sexual assault against children is considered to be the most offensive and heinous crime and the retributive justice despite sentencing the offender can not integrate the offender with the community which increases the chances of a second attempt by the offender. This disintegration of the offender, according to Anne is required to be change into integration with the community through restorative justice. Although it might be referred as a ‘paradigm shift’ but it has to be case if reintegration is a declared ultimate objective of the justice system. The restorative system has its own advantages that cannot be overlooked, Carrabine has argued for the same, “the use of integrative shaming techniques, mediation and reparation aim to provide an alternative and more appropriate way of resolving disputes, confronting offenders with their wrong doing and empowering the victim.” (Carrabine et al., 2009, p.174.). Anne has righteously pointed out the role of media in the success of the restorative justice and has not been helping the cause by calling it a ‘name and shame’ system. There are rational grounds where retributive and reintegrative techniques can go together to put a sound effect on the community. The community has a role to play in the rehabilitation of the offender, especially in turning him into a law-abiding citizen. Scholars like Braithwaite have actively advocated the role of community in the success of restorative justice process. Restorative justice is mutually beneficial systems as community is also strengthened by the successful reintegration of an offender in to a law-abiding society. (Braithwaite, 1989). It is important to note that Anne has adopted an approach that is best suited to the subject of her research. The scope of the research is clearly delimited by Anne and there is not confusion whatsoever as far the boundaries of the thesis are concerned. The article has significantly contributed towards establishing a firm standpoint in favor of instrumental use of shame in achieving the objectives of restorative justice. This thesis is surrounded by supportive arguments by numerous scholars of the past and present and the thesis seems to have ample long standing support of intellectuals. However, the use of extensive references develops a sense in reader as if the thesis is flowing from the previous theory and research. The structure of the article is comprised of the four major portion which talks about the subject matter with different aspect to cover all areas of the subject that might be of interest for the reader. The data collection and presentation by Anne clearly displays her depth of research on the thesis. The first part talks about the theory of restorative justice and use of shame to provide a theoretical framework for the rest of the discussions. Anne has adequetly presented the theory by introducing various stakeholders and their corresponding role in the formation of a final stance. Various definitions of the restorative justice are provided in this part to cover the main theme of the article. Anne presented the references on legislation and implementation of restorative justice in some major countries to provide an overall progress on the subject in these countries. Shaming is separately dealt by Anne to give the reader some insight into this particular technique and approach of restorative justice. The argument is mainly based on the Braithwaite theory which is accepted as the most renowned criminologist on the subject of reintegrative shamming. The importance of Braithwaite theory is illustrated by Siegel in these words, “One of the key foundation of restoration movement is contained in Braithwaite’s influential book ‘Crime, shame and reintegration’.” (Siegel, 2009, p.244). It is not only shaming and its various facets taht are discussed at length to support the argument but the opposite arguments for stigmatizations have also given apt space which provides the article balance of thought and approach. It is because the opponents of the restorative justice also using shaming but differently, “Both the rehabilitation ideal and the due process movement have been viewed suspiciously by the experts concerned by stigmatization and labeling of the offenders.” (Siegel, 2009, p.244). In the second part of her article Anne has exposed the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of disintegrative justice. In support of her argument she has presented the media reports of the second attempt of sexual assault by the convicted offenders which clearly had paved the way for the arguments of reintegrative justice. The need of the categorization and registration of sexual offenders is stressed through highlighting the legislation gaps in the United States Megan’s Law and Part II of Sexual Offence Law 2003 in United Kingdom. (Legislation, 2003). This part also presents the change that is coming in the community in relation to the growing awareness and acknowledgement of reintegrative justice as a better alternative at judges level. “There is nevertheless a logical connection between a multifactor explanatory approach, and a response to crime which favors reorganization of the offender's moral sensibilities. The link is to be found in the notion of individual "choice" and responsibility.” (White, 1994, p.185-186). Anne presentation of related information is systematic and convincing which have a clear potential of persuading the reader. However, she criticized the popular responses in favor of disintegrative activities and shaming practices while focusing the adverse effects that disintegrative policies like shaming and naming are inflicting on the society in the form of habitual offenders. The third part of the article talks about the efforts that are made in the direction of reintegrative justice. The United States programs like ‘The safer society program’, ‘Community Reintegration Program’ and ‘The Stop it now program’ are referred as a relative success in the implementation of reintegrative justice. Anne further presents efforts of various communal circles and societies to support the reintegration of offenders through support, networking and control. In the last part of the article Anne focuses the critics of the restorative justice through shaming and pointed out the dangers community and popular response see in the implementation of the new approach in dealing with sexual offenders. Anne has address concerns like the accountability of offender and responsibility of the government towards ensuring a successful healing of the injuries inflicted by the offender. The article has successfully presented various aspects of the issue and effectively conveys the author’s standpoint. References Braithwaite Jhon, 1989, Crime, Shame and reintegration, Cambridge University Press, UK. Carrabine Eammon, Pam Cox, Maggy Lee, Ken Plummer & Nigel South, 2009, Criminology a sociological introduction, Routledge, USA. Deflem Mathieu 2007, Sociological theory and criminological research: views from europe and the united states, Vol 17, No. 2, Hardbound, viewed 25 May, 2011, Hirsch Andrew Von, J.V. Roberts, Anthony. E. Bottoms, Elizbeth Burney & Per-Olof Wikstorm 2003, Restorative justice and criminal justice: competing or reconcilable paradigms? Hart Publishers, UK. Siegel J. Larry, 2009, Criminology, Thomson Wadsworth, Canada. Legislation, 2003, Sexual Offences Act 2003,The National Archive, viewed 25 May, 2011, White Rob, 1994, Shame and Reintegration Strategies: Individuals,State Power and Social Interests, viewed 26 May, 2011, Read More