Pros And Cons Of Shaming

Furthermore, the shaming concept should be such that it provides a foundation for an inclusive debate rather than one aimed at shaming individuals. A customized adaptive response is relevant such that individual culprits develop a recovery formula for the negative behavior. Shaming can only happen when the resultant effect is bound to have a positive impact. In contrast, the best way to run a justice system should focus on behavioral changes at the top and punitive behaviors at the bottom. The state has a responsibility to maintain security for its citizens. Punitive measures are found to be an ineffective deterrent tool. Contrariwise, the punishment increases the chances of an individual engaging in other pejorative behaviors, thereby increasing

The punitive approach, highly-elevated by the law enforcement agencies, remains dysfunctional to the extent that it produces disastrous outcomes. To understand the reason for the adverse factors, one must first understand the causative factors and the effects of driving under the influence. Investigations show that some people engage in drunk driving because it is a norm for them to consume alcohol from work and they have to go home afterwards. In other instances, the consumption of liquor alongside other meals makes it hard to know the toxic levels reached. Some individuals blatantly assert that they drive under the influence deliberately or because other people do so. The effect of drunk driving includes possible accidents involving other motorists and pedestrians. A wide range of theoretical frameworks applies to the criminal justice system. However, these theoretical models are inadequate to the extent that they have a limited scope. The General Systems Theory emphasizes on the justice system alone while the Social-Control Theory focuses on imposing absolute control over a community. The downfall of these models is that they both offer an integrative aspect that incorporates both sides of the punishment and advocacy. The Re-integrative Shaming Theory provides a multifaceted approach to problem resolution. The model recognizes that structural integrity is paramount to the resolve of the drunken driving menace. The model also permeates an ideology in which the community becomes an integral part of the solution. Importantly, previous shaming approaches have proven ineffective for lack of inclusivity and objectivity. Shaming has been found to have an adverse outcome. However, the proposed model instills a model in which the solution reduces shaming by promoting constructive dialogues within a neutral and respectful environment as a deterrence factor. The