Question

How would you evaluate John Braithwaite's call for relying upon reintegrative shaming? What are some benefits and limitations of both positive sanctions and negative sanctions in response to white collar crime?

Answer 1

John Braithwaite has given theory of reintegrative shaming theory in “Crime, Shame and Reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989). This theory have a lot of to thing to agree and disagree depending upon people to people thinking. We have observed that some crime are done intentionally while some happen accidentally. Reintegrative shaming theory must be apply on accidental crime so that the criminal can shameful for any next event and he can live a normal life. If we give them a chance to live normal life, they can feel guilty doing same thing again and it can became a tool of crime reduction. This theory is less effective for professional criminal but not totally ineffective, they can also came in mainstream by leaving their world by treating crime a shameful. However it is not easy to give such a criminal a chance when they make your life worst earlier by such an insane hateful crime.

Some benefits and limitations of both positive and negative sanction in response to white collar crime:

The different treatment of white collar criminals by the legal system: (a) an organizational advantages arguments in which offenders in organizationally shielded positions more lenient treatment, (b) an alternative sanction argument in which civil sanctions replaces criminal sanctions in the response to white collar crime, and (c) a system capacity argument in which the legal response to white collar crime driven primarily by resources and caseload pressure. For some socialization does not ensure that all people will conform. So for this reason social control has to be based on social sanctions. Positive sanctions can include an increase in allowance, a promotion or a smile. Negative sanctions can include criticism, fines or imprisonment.