Reintegrative Shaming: The Essence of Restorative Justice. By Michael E. Marotta E00715351 CRIM 610: Theories of Criminal Behavior Dr. Gregg Barak Eastern Michigan University Winter 2009
Reintegrative Shaming: The Essence of Restorative Justice.
By Michael E. MarottaE00715351CRIM 610: Theories of Criminal Behavior
Dr. Gregg BarakEastern Michigan UniversityWinter 2009
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................1The Theory of Reintegrative Shaming...................................................................1Acceptance of the Theory.....................................................................................5Development and Integration of the Theory.......................................................13Practical Applications and Critical Dialectics.......................................................22Appendix A: Convenience Sample of College Textbooks...................................34Appendix B: Search of Academic Journal Articles..............................................36Appendix C: Reviews of Books by John Braithwaite...........................................40References..........................................................................................................46
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 1
Reintegrative Shaming: The Essence of Restorative JusticeMichael E. Marotta1
Abstract:
Over the past 20 years, John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming has garnered
sufficient attention to be included in many college textbooks. Nonetheless, some
compilers still consider it novel and untested. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of the
theory is that while it can draw on deep traditionalism across a wide range of cultures,
Braithwaite and his colleagues came to the theory by investigating the modern
pharmaceutical industry. Therefore, reintegrative shaming has attraction both for the
community practitioner – from police officer to family counselor – as well as for
corporate security managers and government regulators in the global marketplace.
The Theory of Reintegrative Shaming
“Reintegrative shaming means that expressions of community disapproval, which may
range from mild rebuke to degradation ceremonies, are followed by gestures of
reintegration into the community of law-abiding citizens.” (Braithwaite 1989: 55) That
statement is dense with meaning.
First, the key concept is “reintegration.” It is easy for a community, whether a
family or a nation-state, to hold an offender up to rebuke. Parents may yell or the FBI
can convince a federal prosecutor to bring an indictment. The salient feature of
Braithwaite’s theory is that the offender must be brought back into the community by
means of some ceremony whether the mere nods of a family or the published finding by a
1 Eastern Michigan University. This paper is presented as a requirement of CRIM 610: Theories of Criminal Behavior, taught by Dr. Gregg Barak, Winter 2009.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 2
court. In most times and places, most middle-range problems will be solved with middle-
range techniques.
Second, the expressions of disapproval must be on terms that the offender
understands and agrees with. The community must be the offender’s own. In cases
where the offender is truly a distant stranger, a process of empathetic understanding may
be required. It is not always successful; and yet the failure points underscore the basic
truth.
Third, the offender’s sense of shame is integral to the offender’s sense of guilt.
The essential characteristic of shame is the offender’s understanding, admitting and
agreeing with the rebuke. Braithwaite acknowledges the ambiguity between shame and
guilt. (Braithwaite 1989: 57). While they are differentiable, they are not always
empirically testable by different means. In other words, developmental psychologists
explain that a personal sense of shame comes from assimilating the perceived expressions
of guilt offered by others. We learn this as children. “You did this bad thing and you
should feel bad inside,” comes the message. Indeed, the empathetic child understands
internally the hurt caused to others and feels shame. This much we all know from self-
experience. However, positivism must accept less fine-grained empirical results. When
an offender uses the words guilt, shame and remorse, the distinctions might only be
analogous to words like blue, teal and green. We do not confuse guilt and shame with
pride and honor just as we do not confuse blue and green with red and orange. Beyond
that, Braithwaite asserts that it is unnecessary to seek statistical quantifications. “The
distinction is rather too fine for our theoretical purposes because ‘guilt-induction’ always
implies shaming to the person(s) inducing the guilt and because, as we will argue later, in
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 3
broader societal terms guilt is only made possible by cultural processes of shaming.”
(Braithwaite, 1989: 57) This is supported by empirical evidence. Harris and Maruna
(2006) found that feelings of shame and guilt were not differentiated by participants in a
study of community justice programs.
That the intent of reintegrative shaming is the opposite of the goal of retributive
punishment is clear from the semantics of the terms. Another of Braithwaite’s works
(with co-author Philip Petit) is titled, Not Just Deserts.2 That debate bears directly on the
efficacy of shaming. That the punishment should fit the crime was an element of Cesare
Beccaria’s enlightened theory,3 separating the modern era from the medieval. Whether
that was a discrete invention (like the light bulb) or acknowledgement of a general
opinion (like the Declaration of Independence), is a moot point. Moreover, Max Weber
found the trend toward rational law over traditional in the medieval city4. Rational law
became national law when we became nations of bourgeoisie. It may seem intuitively
obvious that lesser crimes require milder punishments and greater crimes call for harsher
consequences. However, Braithwaite strings out 16 citations pointing to studies by
Cohen, Jensen, Paternoster and others showing “but little support for the association
between crime and the severity of punishment.” (Braithwaite, 1989: 69) On the same
page, Braithwaite does acknowledge “reasonable support for an association between the
certainty of criminal punishment and offending.” In short, the degree of pain is not as
important as the fear of getting caught. More to the point, increasingly painful
retributions do not minimize recidivism.
2 Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Justice by John Braithwaite and Philip Petit, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.3 An Essay on Crimes and Punishments of Cæsar Bonasana, Marquis of Beccaria, 1764, translated from the French by Edward D. Ingraham, second American edition,Philadelphia, Philip H. Nicklin, 1819.4 The City by Max Weber, translated and edited by Dan Martindale and Gertrud Neuwirth, Collier Books, New York, 1958, pp 183-184 within Chapter 4, “The Plebian City.”
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 4
Finally, reintegrating the offender with the community requires reconciling the
offender with the victim. This can be difficult. Teenage vandalism is one thing. Assault,
rape and homicide call into question our fundamental beliefs about the righting of
wrongs. Basic as those beliefs are, they remain cultural constructs. We are not born
knowing what to do when an armed robber stabs out your eye (Zehr, 1990: 19 ff.) .
Intense emotions hallmark every encounter between the victim and the offender. No
formula exists. We have no codex to tell us when enough time – or too much time – has
passed. Yet, until and unless this happens, restoration is incomplete and even unbegun.
For informal justice to be restorative justice, it has to be about restoring victims,
restoring offenders, and restoring communities as a result of participation of a
plurality of stakeholders. This means that victim- offender mediation, healing
circles, family group conferences, restorative probation, reparation boards …
whole school antibullying programs, Chinese Bang Jiao programs, and exit
conferences following Western business regulatory inspections can at times all be
restorative justice. Sets of both optimistic propositions and pessimistic claims can
be made about restorative justice by contemplating the global diversity of its
practice. Examination of both the optimistic and the pessimistic propositions
sheds light on prospects for restorative justice. Regulatory theory (a responsive
regulatory pyramid) may be more useful for preventing crime in a normatively
acceptable way than existing criminal law jurisprudence and explanatory theory.
Evidence-based reform must move toward a more productive checking of
restorative justice by liberal legalism, and vice versa. (Braithwaite 1999: 1)
In what may be more than a minor point of semantics, John Braithwaite (writing with
Valerie Braithwaite and Eliza Ahmed), suggested that “shaming” itself is a problematic
label. “Responsibility” and “healing” are more productive. (Henry and Lanier 2007: 289)
The first barrier is always with the offender. If he remains intransigent, reintegration is
impossible. Calling the process a “healing meeting” rather than a “shaming session”
seems more likely to facilitate the desired outcome.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 5
Stigmatizing shaming clearly cannot reintegrate an offender into the community.
Stigmatizing shaming is just another label that assigns as the “master status” or primary
identity of the person the label of “homosexual” or “thief” or “wife beater.” Every
person is more than such a label. (Braithwaite 1989: 55) On this basis, Braithwaite
cogently seeks to avoid the oppressive shaming known to religious communities (evident
under Islamist sharia law) and the “show trials” of totalitarian dictatorships.
Just as restorative justice is the goal of reintegrative shaming, so, too, does
Braithwaite sets dominion as the goal of restorative justice. Braithwaite defines
dominion as the absence of arbitrary power over the individual. “Our idea is that if the
criminal justice system is designed to promote dominion, then it will also promote values
such as people's physical integrity, freedom of movement, secure property rights,
procedural rights, a suitable concern for equity, and so on.” (Braithwaite 1994: 765-766).
In other words, in a society where dominion is the standard of republican justice, an
offender’s irresponsible act has clear consequences that do not involve dropping him into
a criminal justice system whose sine qua non is arbitrary power.
Acceptance of the Theory
“The momentum of restorative justice in the past 20 years has been breathtaking: from a
few small experiments in the mid-1970s, restorative justice has today become ‘the
flavour of the month’ in many justice circles, and is clearly gaining respectability.” (Mika
and Zehr in McEvoy and Newburn 2003: 135).
A convenience sample of 14 contemporary textbooks for criminology and
criminal justice in the library of Eastern Michigan University (Appendix A) reveals that
all but two of them acknowledge the existence of the theory. Depth of presentation
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 6
depends on the theoretical expectations of the authors, including apparent advocacy or
demurrage (if any) on this or other issues. These books include those targeted to 100-
level and 200-level occupational training for police officers as well as upper-level
university textbooks for potential supervisors.
Liqun Cao (2004) considered reintegrative shaming only a reformulation of
labeling theory (140) and wrote that there are “relatively few” tests (183). Lilly, Cullen,
and Ball (2007) acknowledged the many qualitative and quantitative studies behind the
theory, but declared, finally: “Studies that employ surveys to measure reintegrative
shaming and then assess its impact on self-reported delinquency – the methodological
approach most used to test criminological theories – are still in short supply.” (140).
Nevertheless, neither of those actually passed judgment on the theory. That lack of
declaration may be an artifact of our relativistic, subjectivist age of cultural context.
Also, absolute statements run the risk of disproof and therefore stigmatizing shaming.5
On the other hand, Lanier and Henry (1998) take a more integrating view. They also
place reintegrative shaming within the field of labeling theory (1997: 173). However,
they do take a broader view and cite others who join them in seeing this as an integrating
theory that draws on differential association, learning, and control (173), as well as
Milovanovic’s “recovering subject” and place the theory within the field of restorative
justice (178). Whereas Cao, Lilly, et al., leave reintegrative shaming as a subset of
labeling theory, Lanier and Henry also recognize, at least implicitly, that this is a rational
choice theory (173). Their summary view, then, is more inclusive and nuanced.
5 Perhaps the iconic example is that William Thompson, Baron Kelvin, for whom absolute temperature is named, declared heavier-than-air flight impossible in 1895. Kelvin also said that radio had no future. In 1943, Thomas Watson, Sr., of IBM predicted a worldwide need for five computers, and 30 years later Digital Equipment’s Ken Olsen saw no need for anyone to have a computer in their home. Etc., etc.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 7
A sample derived from the JSTOR database of journals is presented in Appendix
B. This list of 49 significant publications indicates that the concept of “reintegrative
shaming” has achieved visibility and general acceptance. Appendix C lists 62 reviews of
the books of John Braithwaite and his colleagues. While constructive criticism and fault
finding (and even veiled ad hominem attacks) are accepted and expected in an objective
review, especially of a new idea, the overwhelming response was (and remains) positive
and accepting.
Braithwaite did have a heated exchange with Ernest van den Haag. That The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology would host this debate, and that van den Haag
would deign to engage, underscores the esteem that Braithwaite earned. Despite the titles
of the articles and replies, the significant fact is that both scholars abandoned the concept
of just deserts. For van den Haag the primary purpose of punishment was general
deterrence. Fear of punishment clearly does not deter the present practitioner, but must,
in his view, deter some future criminals. For Braithwaite, the problem was that just
deserts offers only internal contradictions rather than standards of action when attempting
to decide whether and to what extent a corporation or an individual should be punished
for white collar crimes. The debate covered a lot of ground that need not be plowed here.
The salient perspective is that Braithwaite’s views on corporate crime and white
collar crime are in accord with his theory of reintegrative shaming. Rather than seeking
to punish – though that may be an outcome – his goal is to bring the errant company or
harmful individual back into the fold. In The Impact of Publicity on Corporate Offenders
(1983), Fisse and Braithwaite assert that shaming works not on the company per se –
though that can happen vicariously – but primarily on its employees, especially its senior
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 8
staff and corporate officers who feel a sense of lost social status when bad publicity
plagues their enterprise. In Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation
Debate (1992) Ayres and Braithwaite argue for a close relationship between regulators
and businesses, so that neither is the adversary of the other. Informal discussions lead to
compliance more often and more cheaply than going to court. While it would be easy to
spark a debate with the Cato Institute, no criminologist or sociologist has come forward
to dispute the main points of those books: businesses are entities within communities.
Therefore, the engagements and modalities that bring individuals together after a divisive
conflict are available for the commercial sector as well.
An insightful and friendly criticism comes from Nathan Harris and Shadd
Maruna, writing in Sullivan and Tifft (2006): “Surprisingly, the original formulation of
the theory (Braithwaite, 1989) includes only a cursory discussion of what the emotion of
shame even is.” Perhaps, like art and obscenity, we all know it when we see it, even if
we cannot define it. Nonetheless, a bit of introspection suggests the nuanced distinctions
between shame, guilt, remorse, sorrow, humility, humbleness, and disgrace. The words
“bashful” and “abashed” literally strike at the distinction Braithwaite makes. Being
“bashful” means being full of bashes – beaten into submission. That is not the goal of
republican justice which assures dominion through reintegration of the offender with the
community. That, too, was offered as a counterpoint by Harris and Maruna who said that
“shame and shaming do not belong in restorative justice work.” It is important to bear in
mind that, like Braithwaite, they reject only the counter-productive label, not the
reintegrative purpose.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 9
Andrew von Hirsch specializes in punishments and penal theory.6 Von Hirsh
objected to the pursuit of justice without “just deserts.” Braithwaite, of course, seeks to
do more than merely visit proportionate pain upon the criminal. More subtly, it might
said that reintegration is, indeed, the most just of consequences. Be that as it may, Von
Hirsch asserted that
… desert theory … is a key concept-that of blaming; it directs policymakers to
judge specifics in terms of whether, and how much, blame is due. … The goal
for white- collar cases would then be to administer proportionate, deserved
punishment to the maximum extent feasible, taking into account problems of
successfully prosecuting such crimes. Thus, priority would be given to
imprisoning those offenders whose crimes were the most reprehensible. The
thalidomide executives, and not some smaller- fry who might make useful
examples to their industry, would become the prime targets for the tougher
sanctions. Would this mean that all such malefactors will receive their full,
merited penalty? In a system having limited resources, of course not. Serious
offenders would, however, be at higher risk of receiving substantial punishment:
it is they who would be more likely than other white-collar criminals to go to
prison and to receive terms approaching (even if not always equalling) those
received by violent street criminals. The more one disregards desert, as Dr.
Braithwaite proposes, the less likely such a state of affairs becomes. … There is
no alchemy by which one can become more “just” through ignoring
considerations of justice. .Braithwaite has, in my judgment, failed to make his
case. (Von Hirsh 1982: 1164-1165; 1174-1175)
Yet, all is not lost. Von Hirsch closes that passage with a bon mot, as how could he not?
A criminologist whose goal is to see the guilty go free would not be a professor, but
would, instead, hang out a shingle as a defense attorney, soliciting the wealthiest and
guiltiest of clients. Apparently not in that camp, Von Hirsch doffs his hat. “[Braithwaite] 6 “Professor of Penal Theory and Penal Law at Cambridge University. He is also the Honorary Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge. Andrew von Hirsch has also been Adjunct Professor of Penology in the Law Faculty of the University of Uppsala, Sweden.” Andrew von Hirsch -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_von_Hirsch
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 10
has, however, performed an important service by raising the question of desert and white-
collar criminality.” (1175)
If the most egregious of white collar crimes challenges the assumptions of
reintegrative shaming, how then, do we view crimes against humanity? The Holocaust
has a name. The suffering in Bosnia and Rwanda do not. We say that we cannot live
with such evil. Yet, we do. After the Holocaust, the slogan touted was “Never again!”
But genocides played out again and again. Therefore, criminologist Charles Villa-
Vicencio (1999) wrote: “The sheer weight of such evil, that no atonement, compensation
or any other form of human balm can appease, lends credence and understanding to our
ingrained human desire for revenge. … By institutionalizing feelings of anger,
resentment and even hatred, the state exercises procedural controls over individual and
group anarchy. … These arguments on behalf of revenge bring into sharp relief two
seemingly contradictory models for responding to radical evil. … I will argue that
models of restorative and retributive justice, properly conceived, belong together.” (165-
166).
The extent to which community-based restorative justice operated differently than
retributive international law is nowhere more evident than in South Aftica. Nonetheless,
the experience was not easy or unambiguous. In Villa-Vicencio’s opinion: “The response
of President Thabo Mbeki in questioning the appropriateness of individual reparations
recommended by the TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] in its Report has
further complicated the discussion.” Villa-Vicencio’s theory is that “righteous anger” of
the victim can “immediately transform the perpetrator.”(183) Villa-Vicencio is eloquent
in support of righteous anger, but at one point closes his thought on a problematic note.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 11
It affirms the dignity of the victim and sometimes survivors. It requires the
perpetrator to take responsibility as a moral agent. At the same time, it creates
space for the possibility of mercy and forgiveness-recognising that its telos is
restoration, not punishment per se. This movement toward a reconciliation of
retributive and restorative justice engenders three final observations: First, the
angry spirit that justifies the demand for radical repentance, a willingness to pay
back all that has been unfairly acquired and a commitment to live a radically
transformed life, does make good moral sense. Sometimes, however, it takes time
for the perpetrator to be brought to this point-not least in ideologically laden
situations where the most hideous deeds are done in the name of all that is said to
be decent and worth dying for. (185)
Whether anything is “worth dying for” is another discussion entirely. I point out
that in the archaic and ancient world, the Greeks of Samos, Miletus, Agrigentum, and
other towns slipped into their ships and rowed away in the night, rather than to face
overwhelming odds. The Romans stood their ground as the loins of Italy produced sons
by the tens of thousands to die what the Senate apparently found “decent.” Villa-
Vicencio’s point, however, still remains: ideology provides the words that allow the
offenders to remain unshamed. The matter is complicated. As will be shown, the
overwhelming assumption, even in restorative and reintegrative conclaves, is that the
accused is guilty. In most cases, the offender has been so labeled by a court of law. The
theoretical point may be fundamentally unsolvable; and it may be that the initiative for
restoration and reintegration always resides with the accused.
For others the moral high ground is always the property of the accuser.
“Restorative justice seeks to recover dimensions of justice often lost within the
institutional retributive justice process. It does not necessarily reject all punitive
measures associated with retributive justice.” (Villa-Vicencio in “Transitional justice,
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 12
restoration, and prosecutition,” in The Handbooks of Restorative Justice: A Global
Perspective by Dennis Sullivan, Larry Tifft, Routledge, 2006.)
Ideas take on a life of their own. Richard Dawkins called them “memes”
analogous to genes in that they find carriers to reproduce their message. Therefore, it is
interesting to read ideas very similar to Braithwaite’s in works that do not cite him in the
bibliography or index. Merry and Milner’s The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case
Study of Community Mediation in the United States (1993) is replete with examples.
Although each of the contemporary programs addresses the emotional
dimensions of conflict resolution in slightly different ways, all believe the
expression of emotions is appropriate in mediation. In HNJC [Honolulu
Neighborhood Justice Center] the expression of feelings is understood as a
necessary prelude to the main objective – negotiating agreements. Whereas some
expression of emotions is expected and encouraged, exploration of this
dimension is seen as inappropriate for mediation and is labeled as a “counseling
issue.” … The MCS [Mennonite Conciliation Service] training manual is not
very explicit about the role of emotion in the mediation process, but in a recent
issue of their newsletter devoted to “reconciliation,” emotional expression was
related to forgiveness, emotional healing, and restoring relationships. (255)
As will be shown their reference to the Mennonite Conciliation Service is cogent. While
restorative justice has a long and deep tradition across many cultures, that inheritance is
often discontinuous – as is the habit of authoritative retribution. We call harsh laws
“draconian” after Drakon of Athens (c. 500 BCE), the tyrant who made murder a capital
offense. Previously, such disputes were family matters. While Roman law was state
law7, once the Roman Empire receded in the West, Germanic tribal customs became the
norm for centuries and Roman law had to be rediscovered. Similarly, European colonists
7 The Romans knew the difference between private law and civil law. In the sixth century CE, the Code of Justinian recognized private international law, even though commercial law as we understand it was still 500 years in the future.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 13
in the Americas had Native customs in front of their eyes for 250 years before the present
generation discovered the power and utility of community justice and restorative justice.
Once Braithwaite’s theory was publicized, it was easy to find antecedent support.
COPS, the Community Oriented Policing Services program of the U.S.
Department of Justice (www.usdoj.gov/cops/), supports restorative justice programs
(Umbreit and Coates 2000a; Umbreit and Coates 2000b; Nicholl 2000). The program
does acknowledge that it is important to separate the offense from the offender in order
not to separate the perpetrator from those who can help him avoid further trouble. The
offender must be given the opportunity to develop empathy. “Addressing the offender’s
needs and obligations–with support from the community–is likely to enable the offender
to see that he is someone who is connected to people who care about him.” (Nicholl
2000: 13). In all, there are at least 500 such programs in Europe and 300 in the United
States (Umbreit and Coates 2000b, 5).
Development and Integration of the Theory
Braithwaite came to the theory of reintegrative shaming during his study of the
pharmaceutrical industry in Australia and the United States. He said:
Brent Fisse and I had been doing some writing together for years on The Impact
of Adverse Publicity on Corporate Offenders. That’s where the interest in shame
started. In the business regulation work, we could see counterproductive effects
of stigmatizing forms of shaming. But also we could see that the big problem
was that so many business people did not see corporate crime as anything to be
very ashamed about. So for years we puzzled over how might productive forms
of shame be managed and harnessed. So it was very much from thinking about
the corporate crime literature. And then moving to an attempt at more general
theory that encompassed street offenders. (Braithwaite 2009)
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 14
That businesses were amenable to reintegrative and restorative processes should not be
surprising. Business at a distance, where valuables are delivered and paid for by agents,
depends on deeply embedded habits of trust and responsibility. (Greif 2006). As Deirdre
McCloskey has shown in her long series of essays (and now a book) on “Bourgeois
Virtues”8 reputational gossip the true currency of commerce. As will be shown, the value
in the forms and formats of restorative justice can be measured to two decimal places in
dollars and cents.
In a sophisticated and literate expression recognizable to us, this goes back at least
to the great fairs of the High Middle Ages, but has roots as deep as the first caravans of
the Neolithic era. When problems arise in commerce, traders seek only restoration, not
retribution; and the offender must find reintegration or else suffer isolation – and trade is
as metaphysically impossible in social isolation as is breathing in a vacuum. In seeking
rebalance through the lawe marchaunt (lex mercator), traders of the Middle Ages were,
in fact, attempting to hang on to traditions.
“Restorative justice has been the dominant model of criminal justice throughout
most of human history for all the world's peoples. A decisive move away from it
came with the Norman Conquest of much of Europe at the end of the Dark Ages
… Transforming crime into a matter of fealty to and felony against the king,
instead of a wrong done to another person, was a central part of the monarch's
program of domination of his people.” (Braithwaite 1999, page 2)
The commercial paradigm indicates that every dollar misspent is two dollars lost. This
lesson from Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard is cited in Max Weber’s The Protestant
8 Among many:McCloskey, Donald N. “Bourgeois Virtue” (The American Scholar 63 (2, Spring 1994): 177-191.“Bourgeois Virtues?” by Deirdre McCloskey, May 18, 2006, Cato Institute Online http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n3-1.htmlMcCloskey, Deirdre N., The bourgeois virtues : ethics for an age of commerce University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 15
Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism. It is more than a trick of bookkeeping: entropy exists.
Therefore, it is not surprising that advocates of restorative justice are able to find
inevitable monetary loss and fundamental injustice in the prison system.
Imprisonment is enormously expensive. This means that a double burden is
placed on the innocent who must suffer the crime and, in addition, pay through
taxation for the support of the offender and his family if they are forced onto
welfare. Also, any benefit of imprisonment is temporary; eventually, most
offenders will be released. If their outlook has not improved-and especially if it
has worsened-the benefits of incarceration are obviously limited. Finally, when
disablement is permanent, as with capital punishment or psychosurgery, it is this
very permanence, in light of the possibility of error, which is frightening.
(Barnett 1977: 281)
Barnett is not alone in cataloging the failure of punishments, either to reform the offender
or to dissuade others, or to restore the victim. (281-283) Yet, restoration in particular and
the process of reintegration in general may be explained as a better form of punishment.
That, at least, is the assertion of philosophy professor Richard K. Dagger in “Restitution,
Punishment, and Debts to Society.”
What Barnett is urging, in short, is a radical departure from the theory of
restitution as well as a radical transformation of our system of criminal justice.
Neither of these moved is warranted. In what follows, I shall argue that
restitution is quite properly regarded as a form of punishment and that criminals
do indeed incur debts to society when they commit their crimes… (Dagger in
Hudson and Galaway 1980: 3)
In that same volume, Sveinn Thorvaldon’s contribution, “Toward the Definition of the
Reparative Aim” (15-27) devotes but a single paragraph to “Reparation as a
Rehabilitative Technique.” Reparation can be viewed as punishment and rehabilitation.
Braithwaite brought both sides of the equation together. The goal of reintegrative
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 16
shaming – which can include restitution to whatever extent possible – is to heal the
victim and the offender, specifically and consciously, not accidentally or tangentially.
The historical development of the modern restorative justice regimen bears this out.
Success has many fathers, but the present tradition of bringing restoration to criminal
proceedings is accepted as beginning with Mark Yantzi and Dave Worth of the
Mennonite Central Committee in Kitchener, Ontario. Their subject perpetrator was a
troubled youth named Russell Kelly.
Russell Kelly is now a restorative justice practitioner in Kitchener, Ontario. In
1974 he was a teenager who, with a friend, both under the influence of alcohol,
committed a number of acts of vandalism one night in Elmira, Ontario. After
being apprehended, they were turned over to Mark Yantzi, a probation officer
and volunteer with the Mennonite Central Committee in Kitchener, and to Dave
Worth, another volunteer. Yantzi and Worth, in coordination with the courts,
arranged for the teenagers to meet with their victims to apologize, to hear their
victims’ statements, to ask forgiveness of their victims, and to determine
restitution. Thus arose the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program in Kitchener
and an oft-repeated story of the emergence of modern day victim-offender
mediation. http://www.restorativejustice.org/
Years after the encounter, Kelly went to work as an industrial laborer. Following an
accident and (physical) rehabilitation, he chose criminal justice as a new career, bringing
with him his highly personalized insight.
Meeting our victims was one of the hardest things I had ever done in my entire
life. Accompanied by Mark Yantzi (our probation officer) and Dave Worth (a
volunteer), we walked up to the victims front door to apologize, hear what the
victims had to say, determine the amount of restitution, ask for forgiveness and
assure the victims that they were not targeted. It was a random act of vandalism.
Some victims offered forgiveness while others wanted to give us a good
whipping. Nonetheless, we survived meeting the victims of our crime spree and
returned a couple of months later with certified cheques to restore the amount of
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 17
out-of-pocket expenses not covered by insurance. The total damage was around
$2,200; my accomplice and myself each had to pay $550 restitution and each
paid a $200 fine. As well, we were placed on 18 months probation. I thought that
was the end of that shameful part of my life. Little did I know what would
become of this judicial experiment. Unknowingly to me the Victim Offender
Reconciliation Program was born. (Kelly http://www.sfu.ca/crj/kelly.html)
The involvement of the Mennonite community proved at once to derive from their own
values, as well to deliver a value to the wider world, perhaps the best proof of the
efficacy of faith-based restoration. That tradition is not isolated. It is known across the
globe, among the Eskimos, Cheyenne, Trobriand Islanders, and Ifugao of Luzon.
(Hoebel 1967) Studying the Cheyenne in particular was somewhat easier as they are still
among us. Delving into their experiences by listening to their oral traditions opened the
door to asking the basic questions of criminology: What is law? What is an offense?
It is easy to identify with the instinctive family-based community rules of the
tribe. The man known as Pawnee was an old and respected member of the tribe who
counseled young boys and looked out closely after their moral behavior. He tells his own
story. When he lived among the southern Cheyenne, he was a wild and hurtful youth,
stealing other people’s horses and other people’s meat. If he stole a horse, he would not
even return it, but would just let it loose. The Bowstring Soldiers caught up with him,
beat him senseless, broke his goods and took his horse. They left him where he lay.
When he recovered sufficiently, he started back. After three days, he was in a bad way.
But he was found by High Backed Wolf, later a great chief, but then a young man. High
Backed Wolf broke into tears when he saw Pawnee, the latter’s condition, bruised, naked,
hungry, was so pitiful. High Backed Wolf gave him food, clothes and tobacco, and
restored him. He also called the Bowstring chiefs to witness. Pawnee confessed his
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 18
wrongfulness. On the word of High Backed Wolf, Pawnee was accepted back into the
tribe, but his shame was such that he did not remain. He went instead to the Fox Soldiers
of the northern Cheyenne. So, he tells the young boys now to be good, lest they suffer
his fate. “You may run away, but your people will always remember. You just obey the
rules of the camp and you’ll be all right.” (Llewellyn and Hoebel 1941: 6-9)
The story is nice. We find in it the simple, effective restorative and reintegrative
justice that we seek.
We must not gloss over the fact that the Bowstring Soldiers caught up with this
young hooligan, beat him senseless, destroyed the tools he would need for survival and
then left him naked on the plains. In short, the community had its fill, and was content to
be rid of the offender – forever. Period.
It may be helpful to place this story in its anthropological context. The Cheyenne
live with a relatively complex constitutional law. Forty-four appointed chiefs serve for
ten years. Only half of them are replaced at one time. Sons rarely succeed fathers. In
addition, as separate councils, each warrior society9 has its own leaders. Their word
counted for much within the tribal councils because these men bore the brunt of action
not only in war but simply in policing the move of a tribe from one place to another
across great distances. (99-101) Yet, all of this served for a people numbering perhaps
never more than 7,000. Therefore, justice, guidance, rule and responsibility were always
personal and close.10
According to their own legends, this “traditional” arrangement was given to them
by a captive girl from the Assinboine tribe. Anthropologists figure that this dates to 9 Accepted as five in number (Fox Soldiers, Bowstring Soldiers, Elk Soldiers, Dog Men and Northern Crazy Dogs), their names changed over time for reasons not clearly understood by ethnographers.10 The Cheyenne split into many small groups for the autumn, winter and spring, coming together in the summer. The great camp would have a ceremonial open space in the center about a mile across.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 19
about 1750 (68). Therefore, as the case of Pawnee demonstrates, it is important not to
romanticize them simply for being “the other.” These institutions were recent
developments to the Cheyenne, only slightly older than the Federal Constitution of the
Whites when the two groups met.
So, too, does it lie with the ancient Visigoths and Vikings. Among the Visigoths
– who readily adopted and adapted to Roman Christian ways – remediation, restoration
and reparation were woven into the fabric of social life. So were amputation, flogging,
blinding and enslavement. (King 1972: 90-91)
Citing Njal’s Saga, Miller (1984: 114) writes:
Despite the shortcomings of arbitrated settlements, they were perceived by a
substantial segment of the community to be more likely than either self-help or
legal judgments to lead to peace, even if that peace were only temporary. Indeed,
so pervasive was the feeling that cases were better concluded in agreement than
judgment or dismissal that we see litigants refusing to put forward absolute
defenses, using them instead as leverage to induce the other side to enter into
some kind of arbitrated settlement. Njal, again acting on Gunnar's behalf, obtains
a favorable clearing verdict from the panel of neighbors and “he said he would
submit the verdict unless the plaintiffs agreed to put the case to arbitration.”
By “self-help” Miller means vengeance. Whether and to what extent blood feuds were
more or less common than other outcomes may be not quantifiable. Qualitatively, there
is no doubt. Miller (1983) even finds echoes of the Viking blood feud in Shakespeare’s
Hamlet. It might be argued that our highly abstracted legal system is only vengeance in
another form, a social structure to meet same sociologic function. (Tarifa 2008: 99-102)
While reintegrative shaming can be found in a wide range of cultural traditions, so
can other modes of conflict resolution.
Also, it is important to guard against the self-satisfying opinion that these peoples
held a higher moral ground merely because they are not us. Marginalized people create
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 20
societies that meet the needs of their physical environment first. Failing that, they do not
survive to have a society. Among the Yup’ik Eskimo of Alaska, community justice was
an import, brought by Americans.11
One of the more promising fields of thought for alternatives to
retributivism, spearheaded by people like John Braithwaite and Howard Zehr,
involves community based systems of justice. … The introduction of village
councils, organized with the support of government and church officials, did
however, grant Yup'iks an outlet for traditional legal practices. Although Eskimo
groups like Yup'iks found it difficult to take individual roles as judges and
bosses, the councils nevertheless espoused non-coercive problem solving.
Council records indicate their function was to remind wrongdoers that although
mitigating circumstances were understood, actions had reached an intolerable
level. The council would oftentimes offer the offender the option to renew his
social contract with his society. The council, for many years, was the dominant
form of Yup'ik social control. On rare occasions, the council had to rely on the
outside world to reinforce its authority. (Ptacin, et al. 2005: 133; 140)
The central problem was that their society previously had no need for the
centralist authority that a court requires. Hoebel (1967) tells of how some Eskimos dealt
with one murderer. Three homicides in your vicinity is bad news for everyone else. So,
the men nearest the events got together on their own and decided that it would be all right
just to shoot the perpetrator in the back at the next opportunity. Less stressful to the
offender is the Navajo court. When two people have a problem, their relatives get
together. Even in modern times, court is “the place where they talk about you.” That
echoes the Yup’ik view that court is “where you are made to speak.” (Hoebel 1967:
passim.)
11 As shown above in the example from the Cheyenne, native cultures overwhelmingly had modes that were recognizable against, cognate to, or congruent with European forms. The human species being what it is, this was required. For more detail see “U.S. Colonization of Indian Justice Systems: A Brief History,” by Carol Chiago Lujan and Gordon Adams in Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, Colonization/Decolonization, I (Autumn, 2004), pp. 9-23
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 21
Humans are social creatures. It is to be expected that widely separated societies
will develop some similar customs, folkways and institutions to meet similar needs. Not
speaking about oneself is common to many peoples, modern as well as traditional.
Conversely, other people accept and ignore passing and ritualized displays of anger. All
of this can make restorative justice programs difficult, even – or especially – in a modern
industrial urban society where African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians
and Causcasians come together. Shaming can be deeply consequential. Japanese parents
are known to have committed suicide when their children’s actions shamed them.
The theory of reintegrative shaming serves the broader goal of restorative justice.
The purpose of shaming is not to punish in the perpetrator by humiliating him – though
some criminal court judges use it that way. Following expressions of contrition and
sorrow (which may include other consequences such as reparations to the victim), the
offender is welcomed back into the community. This, too, works within a broader
context that Braithwaite calls “dominion,” a central concept to his call for “republican
justice.”
[Dominion is not ] the absence of interference- however broadly interference is
understood-which is hailed in classical 19th-century liberal thought; it is not
negative liberty in the established sense of that term… But neither does dominion
involve the presence of self-mastery, the presence of power over self-however
that power is articulated-[as] positive liberty. Dominion is something in between.
… Dominion is negative to the extent that it requires the absence of an evil
perpetrated by others-the absence of an arbitrary power of interference.
Dominion is positive to the extent that it requires not just that others not actually
interfere but that they do not have-and be seen not to have-the arbitrary power of
interfering… One important feature of this comprehensiveness is that the theory
requires us always to think not just about the effects of crime in diminishing the
dominion that people enjoy but also about the effects on people's dominion of
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 22
investing authorities like the police, the courts, and the prison officers with high
levels of power. (Braithwaite and Petit 1994: 765-767)
Practical Applications and Critical Dialectics
Like all justice systems, this one operates on the past. It seeks to redress grievances, to
restore losses, to reintegrate offenders. Except as it prevents re-offending and recividism,
it does nothing for the causes of crime (Lin 2007a; Lin 2007b). This is an essential
distinguishing characteristic differentiating modes of power from modes of market.
Governments exist to change the past, at the very least by correcting injustices
and repelling invaders. Even new laws are made in response to a perceived inequity of
some kind that has already occurred at least once. Businesses, on the other hand, survive
and thrive by predicting and planning for the future: tomorrow’s sales; next quarter’s
inventory; next year’s research and development. Moreover, government traditionally
assumes that everyone is equal – even a class-based society accords rights and privileges
on the theory that all member of the same class are interchangeable. Despite the illusion
of “mass marketing” businesses, on the other hand, assume and accept the validity of
subjective values. No court has carved over its doors: “The customer is always right.”
For all of those reasons, as an action of government, any viable theory of criminal
behavior is predictive only on a statistical basis. No sociological theory predicts
individual choices. Accepting this premise, the situation is far from hopeless. It is
certainly better to fix a problem than not. Reintegrative shaming and restorative justice
remain socially powerful modes of community cohesion.
That said, not all progressive or critical theorists are pre-sold. While evidence
does come from a wide range of initiatives across the landscape of cultures and peoples
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 23
of our own times and places, from the Eskimo to the Germans, the fact is that in America
today, much of this effort is directed at middle class suburbs and minor offenses in any
community.
Restorative justice is based on values that promote repairing harm, healing, and
rebuilding relations among victims, the offenders, and the communities.
Community justice views crime as a social problem that affects life in
communities and suggests that prevention is an essential part of all criminal
justice agencies' work. … Without a systemwide shift, restorative programs will
probably continue to handle mostly minor offenses. … Experience with
community policing has shown that benefits tend to go to white and middle-class
communities. Community policing in Houston favored the interests of whites and
homeowners, while African Americans, Hispanics, and renters were excluded. …
In Chicago, neighborhood groups that represented white and middle- class
constituencies were much more likely to use opportunities for involvement than
groups representing lower-class minorities ... ((Kurki 2000: 235; 288-290)
Just as reintegration and restoration have been perceived as barriers against, rather
than paths to, justice in human rights tribunals, so, too, do they seem wan to some
advocates for the victims of sexual violence and racial violence. Given that we have a
harshly penalized society, “to forego penalization in a punitive society would look like
tolerance of intolerable behaviour.” (Hudson 1998: 254)
Whilst it is correct to argue that racial and sexual violence will only be
diminished by reducing the economic, racial, and sexual inequalities in power
that exist in present societies, we cannot ask women, children, and victims of
racial violence and abuse to wait for protection and compensation until the
achievement of wholesale social transformation. We cannot, furthermore,
reasonably expect them to give up such protection, remedy, and condemnation of
violence as is afforded by criminal law, in present society with its systems of
criminal rather than restorative justice. (254)
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 24
As Lisa Rieger points out in “Applying Urban Models to Rural Alaska” in McEvoy and
Newburn (2003), the only way to know whether and to what extent these outcomes have
validity in a positivist sense is to create control groups and experimental groups. The
experimental groups would get the best-known treatment and the controls would get “just
deserts” or whatever it is that the courts mete out. Clearly, this creates ethical dilemmas.
It is one thing to pay people $10 to take a placebo that might not curb their appetite. It is
quite another to randomly select one person for perdition and another for salvation.
Widely applicable and widely founded as Braithwaites’s theory may be, the fact
remains that he and his colleagues came to it by considering government regulation of
complex corporations. If the advantages of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice
are clear in the case of the juvenile delinquent, do they make sense for a multinational
corporation? Indications are that they do. Independent of Braithwaite’s own arguments,
indications of clear economic incentives exist. It is far cheaper to set out ahead of
problems, to engage forums for settling disputes without going to court. In particular,
Shavell (1995) offers the (hypothetical) case of a neighborhood concerned that the
increased traffic from a factory will increase traffic accidents. The model has several
problems. How wide is the community? How responsible is the plant for the actions of
its visitors? Nonetheless, Shavell argues on strictly economic terms – via arithmetic and
algebra – that the monetary advantage for the corporation is to be found in establishing
procedures for alternative dispute resolution ahead of any problem, rather than going to
court later, as the outcomes of trials are uncertain and not predicted by prior arbitration.
(Shavell 1995: 1-28)
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 25
Rosenberg and Folberg (1994) found strong statistical evidence of satisfaction
among attorneys and their clients with “early neutral evaluator” (ENE) alternative dispute
resolution in federal courts for the Northern District of California.
During the 4-year period studied, the district used an ADR process called early
neutral evaluation (ENE), to which half of the cases in certain types of suits were
assigned. Two- thirds of those assigned to ENE were satisfied with the process
and believed it was worth the resources devoted to it; half of those assigned to
ENE saved money, with average savings exceeding ten times the cost of an ENE
session… (1487)
[The] vast majority of all participants (90 percent of attorneys and 80
percent of parties) reported that the evaluator listened carefully to them. This
willing- ness to listen bore a strong relationship to attorney satisfaction (r=.44,
p=.01). Fortunately, nearly all of those who thought the evaluator listened
carefully also thought she understood their perspectives, such that 80 percent of
the attorneys and 73 percent of the parties reported that the evaluator understood
their perspectives. Not surprisingly, the correlation between attorneys'
impressions that the evaluator understood their perspectives and their satisfaction
with the process was also relatively high (r=.47, p=.01). Another important
attribute for an evaluator is her ability to facilitate communication between the
sides (75 percent of the attorneys and 78 percent of the parties found this skill
important). The evaluator's ability to facilitate bore a stronger relationship to
attorney satisfaction than did any other measurable factor (r=.55, p=.01).97 Even
evaluators who sought primarily to ensure a shared understanding of the parties'
perspectives also often offered their opinions on both the substance of the case
and procedure, and most ENE participants believed that the evaluator's judgment
was reliable. Eighty percent of the attorneys and 79 percent of the parties said the
evaluator accurately analyzed the legal issues, and this skill was an important
factor in ensuring attorney satisfaction (r=.55, p=.01). In addition, 71 percent of
the attorneys and 77 percent of the parties believed the evaluator was an expert in
the subject matter of their case, and this perceived expertise also corresponded to
attorney satisfaction (r=.41, p=.01). Although the judges and the ENE program.
(1532)
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 26
It is radically important to understand that nothing about that necessarily involved
“reintegrative shaming.” As Hudson’s criticism underscores, these litigants were
relatively privileged. They were engaged in property squabbles far less consequential
than domestic battering and marital rape or even burglary. Furthermore, their feelings of
“satisfaction” are easy to explain via Festinger’s theory cognitive dissonance. Perhaps all
that can be said is that we know to two decimal places that almost anything is preferable
to going to court – even for those who nominally own the courts.
A more optimistic appraisal comes from considering alternative dispute
resolution, including restorative justice programs, to be a voluntary engagement. As
such, it validates Braithwaite’s expectations for “republican justice” that grants
“dominion” to all parties rather than leaving them as isolated objects in the mechanized
production of legalistic routines.
In a 27-page monograph that can do little more than describe the tip of the
iceberg, Umbreit and Coates (2000) caution the mediator on the “pitfalls and dangers”
working with individuals from diverse cultural groups. African-Americans, Asians,
Native Americans, … The gross descriptions do not even differentiate the suburbanite
from the city-dweller. In a society that is accustomed to mechanisms, the highly
personalized atmosphere of reintegration and restoration can only be admittedly
unpredictable. As Olson (2004) argues, the need for professionals is real and important.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal
justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating
many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize
professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state.
The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play
crucial roles in increasing. (Olson 2004:139)
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 27
A restorative justice “true believer” may agree that such involvement is
needed at the outset of restorative justice programs, but once that stage has
passed, the community will take back what is deservedly theirs. We see it
differently. Generating sufficient citizen involvement in most communities is
something that may involve considerable long-term social change to accomplish,
even with the concerted efforts of democratic professionals. At a time when it is
hard for even the most devoted local party activist to get 50% of a neighborhood
to turn out to vote in a presidential election year-even given a stable party
system, with established political networks at the national, state, and local levels-
we wonder whether "giving back" the criminal justice system is as easy as it
sounds. Another questionable assumption is that all the tasks to be done can be
done by volunteers. Even beyond a possible transition stage to restorative justice,
we see evidence that restorative justice programs usher in new tasks and new
burdens for some particular group to master. Because tasks such as mediation
and facilitation of community involvement are different but no less complex and
burdensome than traditional criminal justice tasks, it seems sociologically sound
to suppose that some professional involvement will likely be a long-term and not
temporary phenomenon. The role of facilitator also includes finding political
support for community involvement in hitherto professionally dominated
institutions. (170)
As noted, the case of South Africa is a paradigmatic challenge to notions of restoration
and reintegration. “The danger is that gestures toward healing will be confused with
moral consensus, or that history will be told mainly in a way that reflects and legitimates
political compromises.” (Leebaw 2003: 51) South Africa is not alone. Admission of
guilt is more than an essential component of reintegrative shaming. One can be said to be
identical to the other. This can be impossible in a context where the perpetrator has
strong beliefs. The case of Israel and Palestine is an easy example. This brings us back
to the highly personalized reintegrative shaming and restorative justice meetings of
families and neighbors. These sessions assume that the offender has accepted the status
given to him.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 28
As cited above, Harris and Maruna (2006) accept the premise of restorative
justice, but question its mode of application. The distinctions between grossly
humiliating shaming – wearing a sign, for example – and reintgrative shaming in a family
structure may be clear to us. They may be lost on the offender.
Forcing offenders to publicly humiliate themselves by means such as holding
placards which announce their crimes is directly opposite to what RST
[Reintegrative Shaming Theory] advocates. While completely rejecting the use of
this type of shaming, RST suggests that disapproval which is reintegrative is
constructive in reducing re-offending.
While it is easy to see the difference between these overtly stigmatizing
forms of shaming and what Braithwaite proposes … direct expressions of
disapproval are not a common feature of family group conferences, which focus
more clearly on emphasizing the consequences that an offence had on its victims.
[E]ven if direct disapproval is intended to reintegrate it may not be interpreted as
such by the offender. The degree to which disapproval can be expressed directly
and yet also be perceived as reintegrative (or nonstigmatizing) is an empirical
question that is yet to be fully explored. … Braithwaite argues that shaming
includes all social processes which express disapproval. Simply convening a
family group conference expresses the communities concern or disapproval of an
offence, as does discussion of the consequences of an offence. Indeed
Braithwaite and Braithwaite (2002, 33) argue that it is these indirect forms of
shaming that are most likely to be reintegrative. … Braithwaite and Braithwaite
(2001) acknowledge that additional shaming in contexts that are already highly
shaming is unnecessary and may even be interpreted as stigmatizing.
http://demgov.anu.edu.au/papers/HarrisMaruna2006rjhandbook.pdf
On that broad reservation, it is important to note that Braithwaite himself (1989: 60) cites
the instances of pubs in Queensland forced to display signs that they were guilty of
selling watered beer. How that is not stigmatizing, especially as such businesses are
family-owned and neighborhood-based, is hard to understand.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 29
“Reintegration into what?” ask Sullivan and Tifft (2001: 85-87) “Dave: a Case
Study” tells of a boy who is reintegrated into “physically and structurally violent
circumstances.” Dave says, “Nothing’s going to change when I go home except me.”
Sullivan and Tifft ask: “Can we expect a meeting of perhaps an hour’s duration to
counteract or neutralize in any long-lasting way the harmful structural conditions and
moral values that young people have been exposed to, perhaps since birth?” (88)
The nicest thing about the ivory tower of academe is that you can stay far away
from the hurt and pain even while you study it. This paper has not bathed in the sorrow
of loss. We call them “perpetrators” and “offenders.” Even if you call them rapists or
killers, no word is strong enough. We refer to “victims.” Legalism and criminalistics
have no specific words for the robbed, the raped, the beaten … cheated, deprived, looted,
denied, stripped.
Howard Zehr is Professor of Restorative Justice and Co-Director of the Center for
Justice and Peacebuilding, Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. He is
also a photographer. Transcending: Reflections of Crime Victims provides verbal and
visual images of loss. You can read the book, and see their faces, and experience some
fraction of their actual loss. But you can never get inside and you can never take it away.
Zehr offers these cases of people who found at least partial (sometimes nearly complete; I
will claim never truly complete) peace and restoration, in many cases through religion.
Some did not. One cold case (Mary Baratta-Lorton) remains open, the putative killer, her
husband, still profiting from their join work and her four life insurance policies. In some
cases, the perpetrators, the killers, the rapists express the deep sorrow that was born in
their own victimization. In other cases, that is not true: no remorse … no perpetrator…
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 30
What we want from justice is a mechanistic response, like starting a car, every time. And
if the car does not start, you replace the coil or the battery or the car. Often, that does not
happen. These cases were selected by the author. Other criteria could have produced a
book of unsolved crimes, senseless acts of random violence. It might not make much
difference. As it is impossible to undo the past, every harm remains a harm. Forever.
David R. Karp and Todd R. Clear (2002) find happier outcomes in six community
justice programs serving Ventura County, Maricopa County, Bend, Oregon, Tallahassee,
Boston, and the state of Vermont. The cases sited involve reparable harms to property
and surprisingly little attention is given to the victims. Central to their thesis is the
position of “the community” as one of three “parties” to a mediation, along with the
victim and the offender. One of the Vermont cases involved a simple DWI. After being
stopped, and during the initial interview, the offender let his car roll into a utility pole.
The authors make no mention of reparation to the power company, though the offender
pays reparation to “the community.” Basically, it is just another kind of fine, court costs
to cover the expense of holding court.
Braithwaite points out that often when the government becomes involved in
restorative justice, the outcome is different than that intended by the theorists. “The
suspending of the two- year custodial sentence was quashed in favor of a sentence of four
years and a $5,000 compensation order (which had already been lodged with the court);
the community service and payment of the remaining compensation were also quashed.
The victim got neither his act of grace nor the money for the cosmetic surgery.”
(Braithwaite 1999: 88) If nothing else, authoritative shaming is less effective than
community shaming (Braithwaite 1989: 84 and 96).
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 31
Braitwaite acknowledges early on (1989: 12) that done wrongly, shaming can lead
to thought-control. Yet, Ayres and Braithwaite (1992: 158-162) propose private
guardians to monitor businesses. Obviously, the cost of government regulation is high.
You can’t have a cop on every corner and when it comes to complex corporations, the
problem assumes manifold complexity. As private “watchdog” groups exist, Ayres and
Braithwaite suggest empowering them to monitor businesses. The problem with that is
known from the McCarthy Era. Red Channels, published by American Business
Consultants and Counterattack published by Aware, Inc. were blacklisting newsletters
answerable to no one. The American Security Council12 and the Church League of
America, both from Chicago, began as information clearinghouses for the security
departments of businesses seeking to avoid unionization by their employees. The open
exchange of information for whatever motive is one price of an open society. However,
when such groups receive a mandate from the state without a concomitant constitutional
responsibility, the very dangers that Braithwaite fears become very real.
The underlying problem is that communitarian apologies slide past the limitations
of the common mind. In the Muslim Middle East women are flogged for talking to
strangers – and for being raped. Homosexuals are hanged in Iran. In China, the People’s
Courts of the Cultural Revolution ultimately served no objective purpose whatsoever as
the Culture Revolution spun out of control and consumed itself, leaving behind the shards
of person, personhood and personal life.
Is government regulation always to be accepted as the social standard? How do
we not see the government as the violator? What is the distinction between government
12 Now known as the American Security Council Foundation. http://www.ascfusa.org/
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 32
regulation and a shakedown? Who sets the community standards? And who defines the
community? Braithwaite has company when he thinks that it is wrong for businesses to
resist regulation. Here in America, many others are in good company for resisting
government intrusion. The theory of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice
assumes that those questions have been answered – and that their own answer is the
correct one.
Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming is powerful. The vagaries of social
history being as they may, the fact remains that for many peoples – including ourselves –
this was the way that offenders were handled, certainly at best.
That still leaves the rambling litany of rhetorical questions in the paragraph
above. In The Impact of Publicity on Corporate Offenders Fisse and Braithwaite offer a
chapter on “Antitrust at IBM.” IBM’s competitors complained to the Federal Trade
Commission and the Justice Department that the giant was engaged in predatory pricing
and other unfair tactics. I can personally attest that this was common knowledge. I
learned to program computers in 1976 and 1977 on IBM 360 and 370 mainframes. I also
gained experience on the first Hewlett Packard 8-bit desktop computers. At this time, the
computer industry was called “IBM and the Seven Dwarves.” All of that was about to
change. Tracy Kidder’s book, The Soul of a New Machine tells of how Data General
created the first 32-bit supermini computer to compete against IBM’s mainframes. When
the anti-trust agitations began, Data General did not even exist. DG’s real competitor
was never IBM, but DEC: the Digital Equipment Corporation of Ken Olsen from which
DG chief Edson de Castro had come to found his own company. Meanwhile, a little mail
order electronics firm in Albuquerque, MITS, was selling kits to build a home computer,
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 33
the Altair. Steven Levy’s Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution provides many of
the details for that side of the story. Two decades after IBM fended off anti-trust charges,
Microsoft survived similar attempts. In both cases, innovation made the matter moot.
Reintegrative shaming and restorative justice are means for redressing wrongs.
Wrongs are the result of violated rights. A right is something for which you do not need
to ask permission. Those are axiomatic. As we move farther from them, we need to
exercise greater care and restraint, lest hubris bring unintended consequences.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 34
Appendix A: Convenience Sample of College Textbooks
This list was compiled by taking in alphabetical order by author the general survey
textbooks suitable for an introductory class in criminology, published after 1990.
The purpose was to establish the extent to which John Braithwaite’s theory of
reintegrative shaming has been incorporated into the body of knowledge that the average
college-eductated police patrol officer (public or private) would be expected to know.
The process began with an examination of the index for the keyword “reintegrative
shaming.” Failing that, “shaming” was sought, then “Braithwaite” in both the general
index and name index. Producing the Index is not necessarily the job of the author.
Those who do this work may not know the subject matter from the viewpoint of a
practitioner.
Outcomes: RS= “Reintegrative Shaming” listed in the Index.Author Publisher Edition/Year Outcome
1 Beirne, Piers.Messerschmidt, James
Boulder, Colo. Westview Press
3rd ed. 2000 RS
2 Brown, Stephen EugeneEsbensen, Finn-Aage. Geis, Gilbert.
Cincinnati, OH Anderson Pub. Co
1st. 1998 No listings.No mention.
3 Conklin, John E. Boston, MA : Allyn and Bacon .
8th ed. 2004 RS
4 DeKeseredy, Walter S., Schwartz, Martin D.
Belmont, Calif. : Wadsworth Pub.,
1st 1996 “Shaming” in index. Proper discussion in text.
5 Ellis, LeeWalsh, Anthony
Boston : Allyn and Bacon,
1st 2000 RS
6 Hirschi, Travis.Laub, John H.
New Brunswick, U.S.A. : Transaction Publishers,
1st 2003 No listings in topic index. No discussions.Braithwaite listed in Bibliography
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 35
7 Maguire, Brendan, Radosh, Polly F.
Belmont, CA : West/Wadsworth
Instructor's ed. 1999
RS
8 Reid, Sue Titus. Madison, WI Brown & Benchmark
8th ed. 1997 Braithwaite mentioned under Labeling Theory. Braithwaite cited in six end of chapter notes. No listings
9 Schmalleger, Frank. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall
2nd ed 1999. RS
10 Shelley, Louise I. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press
1st 1981 Braithwaite listed in Index, but not key concepts.
11 Siegel, Larry J.(“The Core”)
Australia ; Belmont, CA : Wadsworth/Thomson Learning,
1st 2002 RS
12 Siegel, Larry J.(“Theories, Patterns, and Types”)
Australia ; Belmont, CA : Wadsworth/Thomson Learning,
7th 2001 RS
13 Siegel, Larry J. Australia ; Belmont, CA : Wadsworth/Thomson Learning,
7th 2000 RS
14 Williams, Katherine S. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press
5th ed. No index listings for key words. 12 citations to Braithwaite in the Name Index
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 36
Appendix B: Search of Academic Journal Articles
Full articles – not reviews or letters, but including exchanges Full text citations of the full phrase “Reintegrative shaming” but not “restorative
justice” (a related but different term not specifically identified with John Braithwaite; unless appearing with the previous)
Eliminating John Braithwaite and his primary co-researchers, Valerie Braithwaite, Eliza Ahmed , Ian Ayres, Brent Fisse, and Philip Petit.
In journals of Economics, Finance, Health Policy, Law, Political Science and Sociology
Sorted by date (Oldest to Newest)
1. Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law Shame, Culture, and American Criminal Law Toni M. Massaro Michigan Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 7 (Jun., 1991), pp. 1880-1944
2. Legal Cultures and Punishment Repertoires in Japan, Russia, and the United States, Joseph Sanders, V. Lee Hamilton Law & Society Review, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1992), pp. 117-138
3. The Benevolent Paternalism of Japanese Criminal Justice, Daniel H. Foote California Law Review, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Mar., 1992), pp. 317-390
4. Criminality, Social Control, and the Early Modern State: Evidence and Interpretations in Scandinavian Historiography, Eva Österberg Social Science History, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 67-98
5. Beyond Calvin and Hobbes: Rationality and Exchange in a Theory of Moralizing Shaming: [Rejoinder] Christopher Uggen Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 513-516
6. Sexual Violence, Victim Advocacy, and Republican Criminology: Washington State's Community Protection Act, Stuart A. Scheingold, Toska Olson, Jana Pershing Law & Society Review, Vol. 28, No. 4 (1994), pp. 729-763
7. Urban Poverty and the Family Context of Delinquency: A New Look at Structure and Process in a Classic Study, Robert J. Sampson, John H. Laub Child Development, Vol. 65, No. 2, Children and Poverty (Apr., 1994), pp. 523-540
8. The Labeling Perspective Is Far from Abandoned in Modern Criminology: Comment on Wright, Hugh D. Barlow Teaching Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 55-57
9. State Crimes of Previous Regimes: Knowledge, Accountability, and the Policing of the Past, Stanley Cohen Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter, 1995), pp. 7-50
10. One Story, Two Readings: A Response to Harold Tanner: [Response], Michael Dutton Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter, 1995), pp. 305-316
11. The Empirical Limitation of Theoretical Insight: [Rejoinder], Harold Tanner Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Winter, 1995), pp. 317-324
12. Interdependence and Reintegrative Social Control: Labeling and Reforming "Inappropriate" Parents in Neonatal Intensive Care Units, Carol A. Heimer, Lisa
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 37
R. Staffen American Sociological Review, Vol. 60, No. 5 (Oct., 1995), pp. 635-654
13. Penal Communications: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Punishment, R. A. Duff Crime and Justice, Vol. 20, (1996), pp. 1-97
14. Theoretical Integration in Criminology, Thomas J. Bernard, Jeffrey B. Snipes Crime and Justice, Vol. 20, (1996), pp. 301-348
15. What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean? Dan M. Kahan The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 591-653
16. Risk Preferences and Patriarchy: Extending Power-Control Theory, Harold G. Grasmick, John Hagan, Brenda Sims Blackwell, Bruce J. Arneklev Social Forces, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Sep., 1996), pp. 177-199
17. Labeling Mental Illness: The Effects of Received Services and Perceived Stigma on Life Satisfaction, Sarah Rosenfield American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Aug., 1997), pp. 660-672
18. Developments in the Law: Alternatives to Incarceration, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 111, No. 7 (May, 1998), pp. 1863-1990
19. Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence, Barbara Hudson Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 237-256
20. Rush to Closure: Lessons of the Tadić Judgment, Jose E. Alvarez Michigan Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 7 (Jun., 1998), pp. 2031-2112
21. Can Shaming Punishments Educate? Stephen P. Garvey The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Summer, 1998), pp. 733-794
22. Informal Social Control and Crime Management in Belfast, John D. Brewer, Bill Lockhart, Paula Rodgers The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 570-585
23. Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment for Children, Communities, and Prisoners, John Hagan, Ronit Dinovitzer Crime and Justice, Vol. 26, Prisons (1999), pp. 121-162
24. Institutions for Restorative Justice: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Jennifer J. Llewellyn, Robert Howse The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 355-388
25. Volunteerism and Arrest in the Transition to Adulthood, Christopher Uggen, Jennifer Janikula Social Forces, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Sep., 1999), pp. 331-362
26. Employee Discharge and Reinstatement: Moral Hazards and the Mixed Consequences of Last Chance Agreements, Peter A. Bamberger, Linda H. Donahue Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Oct., 1999), pp. 3-20
27. Public Opinion about Punishment and Corrections, Francis T. Cullen, Bonnie S. Fisher, Brandon K. Applegate Crime and Justice, Vol. 27, (2000), pp. 1-79
28. Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System, Donna M. Bishop Crime and Justice, Vol. 27, (2000), pp. 81-167
29. Restorative and Community Justice in the United States, Leena Kurki Crime and Justice, Vol. 27, (2000), pp. 235-303
30. Organizational Approaches to Shame: Avowal, Management, and Contestationm Daniel D. Martin The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Winter, 2000), pp. 125-150
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 38
31. The Conditional Effect of Peer Groups on the Relationship between Parental Labeling and Youth Delinquency, Xiaoru Liu Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 499-514
32. Do Good Laws Make Good Citizens? An Economic Analysis of Internalized Norms Robert Cooter Virginia Law Review, Vol. 86, No. 8, Symposium: The Legal Construction of Norms (Nov., 2000), pp. 1577-1601
33. Does the Diplomacy of Shame Promote Human Rights in China? Alan M. Wachman Third World Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 257-281
34. Shaming in Corporate Law David A. Skeel, Jr. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 149, No. 6 (Jun., 2001), pp. 1811-1868
35. States Monitoring States: The United States, Australia, and China's Human Rights, 1990-2001 Ann Kent Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Aug., 2001), pp. 583-624
36. Reducing School Violence: Strengthening Student Programs and Addressing the Role of School Organizations R. Matthew Gladden Review of Research in Education, Vol. 26, (2002), pp. 263-299
37. Community Prosecutors Anthony V. Alfieri California Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 5 (Oct., 2002), pp. 1465-1511
38. Shame, Stigma, and Crime: Evaluating the Efficacy of Shaming Sanctions in Criminal Law Harvard Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 7 (May, 2003), pp. 2186-2207
39. The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing Jason Sunshine, Tom R. Tyler Law & Society Review, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 513-548
40. Confessions and Criminal Case Disposition in China Hong Lu, Terance D. Miethe Law & Society Review, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 549-578
41. Double Jeopardy: The Modern Dilemma for Juvenile Justice Christina L. Anderson University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 152, No. 3 (Jan., 2004), pp. 1181-1219
42. Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism Susan M. Olson, Albert W. Dzur Law & Society Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 139-176
43. Enhancing Police Legitimacy Tom R. Tyler Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 593, To Better Serve and Protect: Improving Police Practices (May, 2004), pp. 84-99
44. Integrating Remorse and Apology into Criminal Procedure Stephanos Bibas, Richard A. Bierschbach The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 114, No. 1 (Oct., 2004), pp. 85-148
45. Criminal Law. Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Ninth Circuit Holds That Shaming Punishment Does Not Violate the Sentencing Reform Act. United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004) Harvard Law Review, Vol. 118, No. 2 (Dec., 2004), pp. 825-832
46. The Bethel Therapeutic Court: A Study of How Therapeutic Courts Align with Yup'ik and Community Based Notions of Justice John M. Ptacin, Jeremy Worley, Keith Richotte American Indian Law Review , Vol. 30, No. 1 (2005/2006), pp. 133-150
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 39
47. Applying the Death Penalty to Crimes of Genocide Jens David Ohlin The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 4 (Oct., 2005), pp. 747-777
48. The Banality of Good: Aligning Incentives against Mass Atrocity Mark Osiel Columbia Law Review, Vol. 105, No. 6 (Oct., 2005), pp. 1751-1862
49. Structural Influences on Activism and Crime: Identifying the Social Structure of Discontent Rory McVeigh The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 112, No. 2 (Sep., 2006), pp. 510-566
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 40
Appendix C: Reviews of Books by John Braithwaite
1. Review: Playing the Opposites Game: On Mirjan Damaška's "The Faces of Justice and State Authority" Review: Playing the Opposites Game: On Mirjan Damaška's "The Faces of Justice and State Authority" Inga Markovits Reviewed work(s): The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process by Mirjan R. Damaška Stanford Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 5 (May, 1989), pp. 1313-1341
2. Review: [untitled] Joel Best Reviewed work(s): Crime, Shame and Reintegration. by John Braithwaite Social Forces, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Sep., 1990), pp. 318-319
3. Review: Reintegrative Shaming: A New General Theory of Crime? Review: Reintegrative Shaming: A New General Theory of Crime? Ronald L. Akers Reviewed work(s): Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. by John Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 5 (Sep., 1990), pp. 722-723
4. Review: A New Durkheim Review: A New Durkheim Thomas J. Scheff Reviewed work(s): Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. by John Braithwaite The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, No. 3 (Nov., 1990), pp. 741-746
5. Review: [untitled] Wojciech Sadurski Reviewed work(s): Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice by John Braithwaite; Philip Pettit Law and Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 221-234
6. Review: [untitled] Robert J. Bursik, Jr. Reviewed work(s): Advances in Criminological Theory: Vol. 2. by William S. Laufer; Freda Adler Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Jul., 1991), pp. 594-596
7. Review: Not Not Just Deserts: A Response to Braithwaite and Pettit Review: Not Not Just Deserts: A Response to Braithwaite and Pettit Andrew Von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth Reviewed work(s): Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice by John Braithwaite; Phillip Pettit Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 83-98
8. Review: [untitled] Suzanne Retzinger Reviewed work(s): Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. by Nicholas Tavuchis The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 97, No. 6 (May, 1992), pp. 1754-1756
9. Review: White Collar Crime and the Poverty of the Criminal Law Review: White Collar Crime and the Poverty of the Criminal Law Kenneth Mann Reviewed work(s): Regulating Fraud: White-Collar Crime and the Criminal Process by Michael Levi Just Deserts for Corporate Criminals by Kip Schlegel Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer, 1992), pp. 561-571
10. Review: The Yale White-Collar Crime Project: A Review and Critique Review: The Yale White-Collar Crime Project: A Review and Critique David T. Johnson, Richard A. Leo Reviewed work(s): Wayward Capitalists: Target of the Securities and Exchange Commission by Susan Shapiro Defending White-Collar Crime: A Portrait of Attorneys at Work by Kenneth Mann Sitting in Judgment: The Sentencing of White-Collar Criminals by Stanton Wheeler; Kenneth Mann; Austin Sarat Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts by David Weisburd; Stanton Wheeler; Elin Waring; Nancy Bode Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Winter, 1993), pp. 63-99
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 41
11. Review: Crime and the Average American Review: Crime and the Average American John Braithwaite Reviewed work(s): Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts by David Weisburd; Stanton Wheeler; Elin Waring; Nancy Bode Law & Society Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1993), pp. 215-231
12. Review: [untitled] Anne M. Khademian Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, No. 5 (Mar., 1993), pp. 1187-1189
13. Review: [untitled] Joel Rogers Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May, 1993), pp. 338-339
14. Review: The Bureaucrats of Rules and Standards Review: The Bureaucrats of Rules and Standards Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite Harvard Law Review, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1993), pp. 1685-1690
15. Review: Reintegrating Braithwaite: Shame and Consensus in Criminological Theory Review: Reintegrating Braithwaite: Shame and Consensus in Criminological Theory Christopher Uggen Reviewed work(s): Crime, Shame and Reintegration by John Braithwaite Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 481-499
16. Review: [untitled] Frank Gallo Reviewed work(s): Self Employment: A Labor Market Perspective by Robert L. Aronson The Japanese Labor Market in a Comparative Labor Market Perspective with the United States by Masanori Hashimoto Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 528, Citizens, Protest, and Democracy (Jul., 1993), pp. 202-203
17. Review: [untitled] Floyd B. McFarland Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 528, Citizens, Protest, and Democracy (Jul., 1993), pp. 203-204
18. Review: [untitled] Kenneth Nowotny Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 974-976
19. Review: [untitled] Lyle A. Downing Reviewed work(s): What's the Matter with Liberalism? by Ronald Beiner True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment by J. Budziszewski The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 753-760
20. Review: [untitled] John T. Scholz Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 782-783
21. Review: Overcoming Barriers to Better Regulation Review: Overcoming Barriers to Better Regulation John Mendeloff Reviewed work(s): Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate by Ian Ayres; John Braithwaite Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 711-729
22. Review: Two Faces of Justice: A Milestone in Quantitative Cross-Cultural Research Review: Two Faces of Justice: A Milestone in Quantitative Cross-
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 42
Cultural Research David T. Johnson, Setsuo Miyazawa Reviewed work(s): Everyday Justice: Responsibility and the Individual in Japan and the United States by V. Lee Hamilton; Joseph Sanders Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer, 1994), pp. 667-685
23. Review: [untitled] Robert Eli Rosen Reviewed work(s): Corporations, Crime and Accountability. by Brent Fisse; John Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 93-94
24. Review: Putting Women First Review: Putting Women First Mary Coombs Reviewed work(s): Gender, Crime, and Punishment by Kathleen Daly Michigan Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 6, 1995 Survey of Books Relating to the Law (May, 1995), pp. 1686-1712
25. Review: [untitled] Katherine M. Jamieson Reviewed work(s): Beyond the Law: Crime in Complex Organizations. by Michael Tonry; Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (May, 1995), pp. 377-378
26. Review: Donald Black's Positivism in Law and Social Control Review: Donald Black's Positivism in Law and Social Control David Sciulli Reviewed work(s): The Social Structure of Right and Wrong by Donald Black Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 805-828
27. Review: The Future of Criminologies Review: The Future of Criminologies David Downes Reviewed work(s): The Futures of Criminology by David Nelken The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 360-365
28. Review: What's Criminology Got to Do with It? Review: What's Criminology Got to Do with It? David Cole Reviewed work(s): Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment in America by Michael Tonry Crime and Inequality by John Hagan; Ruth D. Peterson Stanford Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Jul., 1996), pp. 1605-1624
29. Review: [untitled] Darnell F. Hawkins Reviewed work(s): Crime and Inequality. by John Hagan; Ruth Peterson Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Jul., 1996), pp. 537-538
30. Review: [untitled] Daniel Krislov Reviewed work(s): Crime and Public Policy: Putting Theory to Work. by Hugh D. Barlow Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 89-90
31. Review: [untitled] Frank Henry Reviewed work(s): Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates by Frank Pearce; Laureen Snider Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring, 1997), pp. 274-277
32. Review: Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Review: Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Harold Hongju Koh Reviewed work(s): The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements by Abram Chayes; Antonia Handler Chayes Fairness in International Law and Institutions by Thomas M. Franck The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 8, Symposium: Group Conflict and the Constitution: Race, Sexuality, and Religion (Jun., 1997), pp. 2599-2659
33. Review: Discrediting the Free Market Review: Discrediting the Free Market Ian Ayres Reviewed work(s): The Progressive Assault on Laissez Faire: Robert Hale
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 43
and the First Law and Economics Movement by Barbara Fried The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter, 1999), pp. 273-296
34. Review: Putting the Regulated Back into Regulation Review: Putting the Regulated Back into Regulation Richard Johnstone Reviewed work(s): Corporate Regulation: Beyond 'Punish or Persuade' by Fiona Haines Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 378-390
35. Review: [untitled] Samantha Luks Reviewed work(s): Trust and Governance by Valerie Braithwaite; Margaret Levi The Journal of Politics, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 1207-1208
36. Review: [untitled] Christopher T. Marsden Reviewed work(s): Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace by Lawrence Lessig The Modern Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Jul., 2000), pp. 624-628
37. Review: [untitled] Ronald Weitzer Reviewed work(s): The Handbook of Crime and Punishment by Michael Tonry Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Jul., 2000), pp. 665-666
38. Review: [untitled] Lance Davis Reviewed work(s): The London Stock Exchange: A History by Ranald C. Michie The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), pp. 1141-1142
39. Review: [untitled] Ngaire Naffine Reviewed work(s): Criminology at the Crossroads: Feminist Readings in Crime and Justice by Kathleen Daly; Lisa Maher Crime Control and Women: Feminist Implications of Criminal Justice Policy by Susan L. Miller Nothing Bad Happens to Good Girls: Fear of Crime in Women's Lives by Esther Madriz Policing Women: The Sexual Politics of Law Enforcement and the LAPD by Janis Appier Signs, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 2001), pp. 572-577
40. Review: [untitled] Kathryn J. Fox Reviewed work(s): Doing Time: An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment by Roger Matthews Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 3 (May, 2001), pp. 292-294
41. Review: [untitled] John F. Camobreco Reviewed work(s): American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy by Mark A. Smith The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 740-741
42. Review: [untitled] Thomas W. Church Reviewed work(s): The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems, and Managing Compliance by Malcolm K. Sparrow The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 741-742
43. Review: [untitled] Michael Woolcock Reviewed work(s): Global Business Regulation by John Braithwaite; Peter Drahos Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 6 (Nov., 2001), pp. 626-627
44. Review: [untitled] Sidney A. Shapiro Reviewed work(s): Regulatory Encounters: Multinational Corporations and American Legal Adversarialism by Robert A. Kagan; Lee Axelrad The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter, 2002), pp. 229-240
45. Review: Casting New Light on an Old Subject: Death Penalty Abolitionism for a New Millennium Review: Casting New Light on an Old Subject: Death Penalty Abolitionism for a New Millennium Wayne A. Logan Reviewed work(s): When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition by Austin Sarat
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 44
Michigan Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 6, 2002 Survey of Books Relating to the Law (May, 2002), pp. 1336-1379
46. Review: Is Republican Regulatory Law the Answer to Globalization? Review: Is Republican Regulatory Law the Answer to Globalization? William E. Scheuerman Reviewed work(s): Global Business Regulation by John Braithwaite; Peter Drahos The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Summer, 2002), pp. 301-311
47. Review: Dangers of Dystopias in Penal Theory Review: Dangers of Dystopias in Penal Theory Lucia Zedner Reviewed work(s): The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society by D. Garland Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer, 2002), pp. 341-366
48. Review: [untitled] Roger Brownsword Reviewed work(s): Genetic Privacy: A Challenge to Medico-Legal Norms by Graeme Laurie The Modern Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 156-160
49. Review: [untitled] Andrew Sanders Reviewed work(s): Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation by John Braithwaite Regulation, Crime, Freedom by John Braithwaite The Modern Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 160-167
50. Review: [untitled] Kathleen E. Hull Reviewed work(s): Regulating Intimacy: A New Legal Paradigm by Jean L. Cohen Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 5 (Sep., 2003), pp. 637-638
51. Review: [untitled] Mary C. Ingram Reviewed work(s): Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? by Peter Drahos; John Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 5 (Sep., 2003), pp. 638-639
52. Review: [untitled] Anne M. Nurse Reviewed work(s): Convicted Survivors: The Imprisonment of Battered Women Who Kill by Elizabeth Dermody Leonard Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 762-763
53. Review: [untitled] M. R. Bodapati, Paul Knepper Reviewed work(s): Shame Management through Reintegration by Eliza Ahmed; Nathan Harris; John Braithwaite; Valerie Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 763-765
54. Review: [untitled] Jerry Van Hoy Reviewed work(s): Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, Vol. 26 by Austin Sarat; Patricia Ewick Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 95-96
55. Review: [untitled] Michael P. Johnson Reviewed work(s): Restorative Justice and Family Violence by Heather Strang; John Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 96-98
56. Review: [untitled] Giuseppe Eusepi Reviewed work(s): Australia Reshaped. 200 Years of Institutional Transformation by Geoffrey Brennan; Francis G. Castles Public Choice, Vol. 121, No. 3/4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 517-520
57. Review: The Rise of the British Regulatory State: Transcending the Privatization Debate Review: The Rise of the British Regulatory State: Transcending the Privatization Debate David Levi-Faur, Sharon Gilad Reviewed work(s): Regulation inside Government: Waste-Watchers, Quality Police and Sleaze-Busters by Christopher Hood; Colin Scott; Oliver James; George Jones; Tony Travers. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification by Michael Power The
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 45
British Regulatory State: High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation by Michael Moran Comparative Politics, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Oct., 2004), pp. 105-124
58. Review: Globalizing Regulatory Capitalism Review: Globalizing Regulatory Capitalism Jacint Jordana Reviewed work(s): A New World Order by Anne-Marie Slaughter Learning from Foreign Models in Latin American Policy Reform by Kurt Weyland Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 598, The Rise of Regulatory Capitalism: The Global Diffusion of a New Order (Mar., 2005), pp. 184-190
59. Review: Is There a Future for Leniency in the U.S. Criminal Justice System? Review: Is There a Future for Leniency in the U.S. Criminal Justice System? Nora V. Demleitner Reviewed work(s): Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe by James Q. Whitman Michigan Law Review, Vol. 103, No. 6, 2005 Survey of Books Relating to the Law (May, 2005), pp. 1231-1272
60. Review: Making Happy Punishers Review: Making Happy Punishers James Q. Whitman Reviewed work(s): Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law by Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard Law Review, Vol. 118, No. 8 (Jun., 2005), pp. 2698-2724
61. Review: [untitled] Bill Martin Reviewed work(s): Markets in Vice, Markets in Virtue by John Braithwaite Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 6 (Nov., 2006), pp. 614-615
62. Review: [untitled] Michacl E. Bucrger Reviewed work(s): Third Party Policing by Lorraine Mazerolle; Janet Ransley The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 113, No. 2 (Sep., 2007), pp. 593-595
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 46
References
Ayres, Ian and John Braithwaite. 1992. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, Randy. 1977. “Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice,” Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 4 (Jul., 1977), pp. 279-301
Beale, Joseph H., “Social Justice and Business Costs: A Study in the Legal History of Today,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Feb., 1936), pp. 593-609.
Braithwaite, John. 1982. “Challenging Just Deserts: Punishing White-Collar Criminals,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 723-763.
Braithwaite, John. 1982. “Comment on "The Criminal Law as a Threat System,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982),pp. 786-789.
Braithwaite, John. 1982. “Reply to Dr. Ernest van den Haag,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982),pp. 790-793
Braithwaite, John. 1984. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. London, Boston, Melbourne, and Henly: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, John. 1999. “Restorative Justice: Assessing Optimistic and Pessimistic Accounts,” Crime and Justice, Vol. 25 (1999), pp. 1-127.
Braithwaite, John. 2001. “Crime in a Convict Republic,” The Modern Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 11-50.
Braitwaite, John. 2009. Private communication to the author. Subject: Re: Genesis of Reintegrative Shaming? Sent By: john <[email protected]> On: March 31, 2009 1:29 AM To: [email protected]
Braitwaite, John and Philip Petit. 1990. Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Braithwaite, John and Philip Petit. 1994. “Republican Criminology and Victim Advocacy: Comment,” Law & Society Review, Vol. 28, No. 4 (1994), pp. 765-776.
Braithwaite, John and Valerie Braithwaite and Eliza Ahmed, “Reintegrative Shaming,” in Lanier, Mark M. and Stuart Henry, Editors.2006. The Essential Criminology Reader. Boulder: Westview Press.
Braithwaite, Valerie. 2004. “The Hope Process and Social Inclusion,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 592. pp. 128-151.
Cao, Liqun. 2004. Major Criminological Theories: Concepts and Measurements. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Group.
Cochran, Robert F., Jr. 2000. “The Criminal Defense Attorney: Roadblock or Bridge to Restorative Justice,” Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1999 - 2000), pp. 211-228.
Delgado Richard. 2000. “Goodbye to Hammurabi: Analyzing the Atavistic Appeal of Restorative Justice,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Apr., 2000), pp. 751-775.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 47
Dietz, Jorg and Sandra L. Robinson, Robert Folger, Robert A. Baron, Martin Schulz. 2003. “The Impact of Community Violence and an Organization's Procedural Justice Climate onWorkplace Aggression,” The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Jun., 2003), pp. 317-326.
Dzur, Albert, 2003. “Civic Implications of Restorative Justice Theory: Citizen Participation and Criminal Justice,” Policy Sciences, Vol. 36, No. 3/4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 279-306.
Fisse, Brent and John Braithwaite. 1983. The Impact of Publicity on Corporate Offenders. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Greif, Avner. 2006. “History Lessons: The Birth of Impersonal Exchange: The Community Responsibility System and Impartial Justice,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), pp. 221-236
Harris, Nathan and Shadd Maruna. “Shame, Shaming and Restorative justice: A critical appraisal,” Published in: Sullivan, D. &Tiff, L. (2006). Handbook of Restorative Justice. New York: Routledge.
Hoebel, E. Adamson. 1967. The Law of Primitive Man: A Study in Comparative Legal Dynamics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hudson, Barbara. “Restorative Justice: The Challenge of Sexual and Racial Violence,” Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 237-256.
Hudson, Joe and Burt Galaway. 1980. Victims, Offenders, and Alternative Sanctions. Lexington: Lexington Books D. C. Heath.
Karp, David R. and Todd R. Clear, Editors. 2002. What is Community Justice? Case Studies of Restorative Justice and Community Supervision. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.
Kelly, Russell (2003). Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program – In the Beginning. Included in “Restorative Justice Week 2004: Engaging Us All in the Dialogue.” Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. http://www.restorativejustice.org/
King, P. D. 1972. Law and Society in the Visigothic Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kurki, Leena. 2000. “Restorative and Community Justice in the United States,” Crime and Justice, Vol. 27 (2000), pp. 235-303.
Lanier, Mark M. and Stuart Henry. 1998. Essential Criminology. Boulder: Westview Press.
Leebaw, Bronwyn. 2003. “Legitimation or Judgment? South Africa's Restorative Approach to Transitional Justice,” Polity, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Oct., 2003), pp. 23-51.
Lilly, J. Robert and Francis T. Cullen and Richard Ball. 2007. Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.
Lin, Ming-Jen. 2007a. “Does democracy increase crime? The evidence from international data.” National Taiwan University, No. 21, Hsu-Chow Road, Taipei, Taiwan. Received 17 January 2007; revised 12 June 2007.
Lin, Ming-Jen. 2007b. “Does Unemployment Increase Crime? Evidence from U.S. Data 1974–2000. Submitted May 2006; accepted June 2007.
Llewellyn, Jennifer J. and Robert Howse. 1999. Institutions for Restorative Justice: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 355-388.
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 48
Llewellyn, Jennifer J. 2002. “Dealing with the Legacy of Native Residential School Abuse in Canada: Litigation, ADR, and Restorative Justice,” The University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Summer, 2002), pp. 253-300.
Llewellyn, K. N. and E. Adamson Hoebel. 1941. The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in Primitive Jurisprudence. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Lujan, Carol Chiago and Gordon Adams. “U.S. Colonization of Indian Justice Systems: A Brief History,” Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, Colonization / Decolonization, I (Autumn, 2004), pp. 9-23.
McEvoy, Kieran and Tim Newburn, editors. 2003. Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Merry, Sally Engle and Neal Milner. 1993. The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Miller, William Ian. 1983. “ Choosing the Avenger: Some Aspects of the Bloodfeud in Medieval Iceland and England,” Law and History Review, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 159-204.
Miller, William Ian. 1984. “Avoiding Legal Judgment: The Submission of Disputes to Arbitration in Medieval Iceland,” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 95-134.
Nicholl, Caroline G. 2000. Toolbox of Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policing: A Guidebook Prepared for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department of Justice. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Olsen, Susan M. and Albert W. Dzur. 2004. “Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism,” Law & Society Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 139-176.
Ptacin, John M. and Jeremy Worley and Keith Richotte. 2005. “The Bethel Therapeutic Court: A Study of How Therapeutic Courts Align with Yup'ik and Community Based Notions of Justice,” American Indian Law Review , Vol. 30, No. 1 (2005/2006), pp. 133-150.
Rosenberg, Joshua D. and H. Jay Folberg. “Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Empirical Analysis,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 46, No. 6 (Jul., 1994), pp. 1487-1551.
Shevell, Steven. 1995. “Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Economic Analysis,” The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-28.
Sullivan, Dennis and Larry Tifft. 2001. Restorative Justice: Healing the Foundations of Our Everyday Lives. Monsey, New York: Willow Tree Press.
Sullivan, Dennis and Larry Tifft. 2006. The Handbooks of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. New York. Routledge.
Tarifa, Fatos. 2008. Vengeance is Mine: Justice Albanian Style. Chapel Hill: Globic Press.
Umbreit, Mark S. and Robert B. Coates. 2000. Multicultural Implications of Restorative Justice: Potential Pitfalls and Dangers. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Office for Victims of Crime.
Umbreit, Mark S. and Jean Greenwood. 2000. Guidelines for Victim-Sensitive Victim-Offender Mediation: Restorative Justice Through Dialogue. Washington D.C.:
Marotta Restorative Shaming Page 49
U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Office for Victims of Crime.
Van den Haag, Ernest. 1982a. “Reply to Dr. John Braithwaite,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 794-796.
Van den Haag. Ernest. 1982b. “Comment on "Challenging Just Deserts: Punishing White-Collar Criminals,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 764-768.
Van den Haag, Ernest. 1982c. “The Criminal Law as a Threat System,.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 769 785.
Van den Haag, Ernest. 1982d. “Reply to Dr. John Braithwaite.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973), Vol. 73, No. 2 (Summer, 1982), pp. 794-796.
Villa-Vicencio, Charles. “The Reek of Cruelty and the Quest for Healing: Where Retributive and Restorative Justice Meet,” Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1999 - 2000), pp. 165-187.
Von Hirsh, Andrew. “Desert and White-Collar Criminality: A Response to Dr. Braithwaite,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 73, No. 3 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 1164-1175.
Zehr, Howard. 1990. A New Focus for Crime and Justice: Changing Lenses. Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press.
Zehr, Howard. 2001. Transcending: Reflections of Crime Victims. Intercourse, Pennsylvania: Good Books.
------. Student Handbook and Catalog 2008-2009. International Institute for Restorative Practices. REV. 3/3/09, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.