Naming Theory

0
0
1603 days ago, 485 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

´╗┐Marking Theory Review of "Great" Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

Slide 2

The Classic Labeling Process Formal Sanctions Degradation service Stigmatizing Change in Self-Concept mirror self difficult to oppose formal name Primary Deviance Most participate in this Typically sporadic, not genuine Secondary Deviance Caused by new mental self portrait as criminal or freak

Slide 3

Criticisms of Labeling 1. Ordinarily history of introverted conduct before formal marking Society doesn't "recognize, tag, and endorse people as freak in a vacuum." 2. Controlling introductory levels of abnormality, formal authorizations have pretty much nothing (no?) impact. 3. No "transaction," fixation on "formal" assents...

Slide 4

John Braithwaite Austrailian Criminologist Crime, Shame, and Reintegration Pretty complex hypothesis (Not stingy) BUT, Central ideas are not that mind boggling Reintegrative Shaming versus Defamation Interdependency Communitarianism

Slide 5

What is "disgracing?" Behaviors (from others) that incite blame, disgrace inconsiderate remark, verbal showdowns stocks/pillory, the "red letter" Naval custom of "commanders cover" In Western culture, disgracing has ended up uncoupled from formal discipline Offenders secretly sent away to distribution centers by rectifications or court "authorities"

Slide 6

Braithwaite II Interdependency "connection" with social others (circuitous control at small scale level) Communitarianism like "aggregate viability" (control at large scale) In people group that need aggregate adequacy, and among individuals who are less fortified, deriding discipline is likely.

Slide 7

Types of "Disgracing" Reintegrative Love the heathen, despise the wrongdoing Spank the youngster, yet let them know that despite everything you cherish them Stigmatizing no exertion made to accommodate the wrongdoer with the group guilty party as pariah, "criminal" as ace status corruption functions not took after by services to "decertify" abnormality

Slide 8

Examples of Shaming Stigmatizing United States Court, jail, and so forth (expel and evade from group) Reintegrative Japan Ceremonies to disgrace and welcome back

Slide 9

The Model Interdependency (MICRO) Communitarianism (MACRO) Type of Punishment Reintegrative Shaming Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime

Slide 10

Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming? Japan versus U.S. wrongdoing rates Since WWII, Japan U.S.(others) Why? High Interdependency and Communitarianism Reintegrative Shaming underlined Community has obligation to disgrace and welcome back transgressors

Slide 11

Implications of Braithwaite? Helpful Justice Emphasis on "repairing hurt" Punishment alone is not successful in changing conduct and is problematic to group congruity and great connections Restitution as a method for reestablishing both sides; objective of compromise and reclamation Community inclusion Crime control the space of the group Community as facilitator in therapeutic process Crime has social measurements of duty Victims are fundamental to the way toward determining a wrongdoing

Slide 12

Lawrence Sherman "Rebellion Theory" Defiance "the net increment in the predominance, frequency, or earnestness without bounds insulting against an authorizing group created by a pleased, improper response to the organization of a criminal endorse."

Slide 13

What causes resistance? Authorizations are characterized as "out of line" Sanctioning specialist carries on with lack of respect for the wrongdoer or his/her gathering The endorse is really out of line (biased, intemperate, undeserved) Offender is ineffectively attached to endorsing operator or group Offenders characterizes endorsing as disparaging (reject the individual) Offenders denies or declines to

SPONSORS