Restorative justice interventions, which focus upon repairing the harm caused by an offence, are consistent with the approach advocated by reintegrative shaming theory. However, some have argued that remorse and empathy play a more important role in restoration, and that a focus upon disapproval and the emotion of shame may be misguided. This article analyses theoretical distinctions between shame and guilt before discussing their role in restorative interventions. It is argued that emotions like empathy, remorse and guilt will spill over into feelings of shame, and that it is the resolution of these emotions that is critical for successful justice interventions.More than a decade ago, one of us, John Braithwaite (1989), proposed a theory of reintegrative shaming. Reintegrative shaming was presented as an effective practice in preventing crime before the event, as well as in responding to crime after the event. It was distinguished from disintegrative shaming (stigmatization) which risks making crime problems worse. Reintegrative shaming communicates disapproval of an act while conferring 191 Theoretical Criminology

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract