Content area
Full Text
Abstract
Twenty states have adopted balanced and restorative language in definingthe duties of their juvenile courts which has led to the use of restorative justice practices across the country. In order to fully understand the practice of restorative justice, the theory of reintegrative shaming must be examined. This theory is often seen as an integrated theory combining elements of differential association, social bonds, and labeling theories. Usingstigma, reintegration with family and community, and guilt, Braithwaite argues that what results is a social process which builds consciences as well as informal social controls to stop future wrongdoing. Examples of these reintegrative shaming principles are explained using real restorative justice victim-offender mediations from the East Tennessee area. It is hoped that a clearer understanding of reintegrative shaming and its positive effects will be able to combat the distrust of this form of justice that faces resistance in communities with a strong desire for punitive punishment.
Keywords: reintegrative shaming, restorative justice, victim-offender mediation
Introduction
The public response to juvenile crime has shifted over time. Following an era of increasingly punitive responses to juvenile crime, observers note a possible return to a more balanced approach and a return to the rehabilitative mission of the juvenile justice system (Bishop & Feld, 2012). Twenty states define the purpose of their juvenile courts using the language of balanced and restorative justice (OJJDP, 2013). These states, including South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington, are actively shifting their focus from the punitive to the restorative by focusing not only on public safety but accountability and skill building to create productive lives. Despite this growth of support for restorative justice, there has been little legislation regarding it. Restorative justice has historically been a grass roots effort to change the way our justice system responds to crime and conflict (Zehr, 2002). While some states do have legislation about restorative justice in some form, these policies are mainly guidelines for what restorative action may look like and how it will be funded instead of a policy stating that all agencies should participate in restorative programming when appropriate. For example, Tennessee, Delaware, Florida, and Arizona are some of the few states with restorative justice policy (Pavelka, 2008). For these states, the statutes provide for funding of restorative justice...