Reintegrative shaming and restorative justice

Conclusion

Shaming can be a powerful aspect in the informal process that brings the victim and the offender together in their search for a just restorative solution to their conflict. If, however, it is judged that an offence has to give rise to coercive judicial action, then the role of the justice system must be clearly defined. As far as we can see, it cannot and should not be expected that the judiciary will engage in shaming, nor that the reintegration of the offender should be the principal aim of intervention. Justice should neither shame nor reintegrate, it should simply establish responsibilities and contribute towards the conditions that promote restoration. Besides that, one can only hope that the cultural climate in society as a whole, and in social institutions in particular, will evolve in the direction of more communitarianism, leading to the emergence of a climate that allows for the inducement of shame because harm has been caused, the creation of a willingness for restoration and, if necessary, an obligation to restore as an opportunity of reintegration. This cannot, however, be established through formal public rules, but only through the human and relational ways in which they are applied.

Reintegrative shaming is about the positive power of human relationships to deal with offenses and other types of behaviour that jeopardize harmonious community living. Restorative justice concerns the way in which the formal social response to offenses should contribute towards a context in which a constructive response can be made to these offenses. These are complementary coucepts, but they should not be fused together to form a single concept of ‘restorative shaming’. This area is complicated and confused enough as it is.