Parent-Child Dynamics in Community Conferences — Some Questions for Reintegrative Shaming, Practice and Restorative Justice
| Author | Jeremy Prichard |
| Published date | 01 December 2002 |
| Date | 01 December 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1375/acri.35.3.330 |
330 THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME 35 NUMBER 3 2002 PP.330–346
Parent–Child Dynamics in Community
Conferences — Some Questions
for Reintegrative Shaming,
Practice and Restorative Justice
Jeremy Prichard
University of Tasmania, Australia
This paper discusses two aspects of Crime, Shame and Reintegration
(Braithwaite, 1989) concerning the parents of young offenders
in reintegrative shaming ceremonies. First, the paper tackles Braithwaite’s
assumption that parents of young offenders are substantively similar
to any other participants in the ceremony.Two sources of evidence are
drawn upon: psychology literature regarding parental self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1989; Coleman & Karraker, 1997) and qualitative observations
of 34 community conferences in Tasmania, to suggest that in community
conferences parents are likely to feel personally judged by other adult
participants and even “on trial”. Second, the paper considers the dangers
inherent in Braithwaite’s assertion that directing shame at parents
of young offenders can be conducive to reintegrative shaming.The
dangers discussed include the stigmatisation of parents, in some cases
critical damage to the confidence of parents in their parenting abilities,
and the disruption of parent–child relationships. Ultimately, shaming
parents may worsen the environment of the young offender concerned.
In 1989 New Zealand began diverting youths who had admitted to a crime, other
than murder or manslaughter, away from court into a community based forum
called family group conferences, now generically know as conferences. Conferences
usually involve an independent facilitator, a police officer, the youth and his or her
parents, guardians or significant others, the victim and the victim’s supporters.
The group discusses the impact of the crime and then agrees upon a pragmatic
solution for the youth to repair the damage they have caused the victim and the
community. Conferences were developed in the international backdrop of the
formation of “restorative justice”, a new perspective on criminal justice which seeks
amongst other things the emotional and material reparation of victims, offenders
and communities (see Braithwaite, 1999; White & Haines, 2000; von Hirsch
& Ashworth, 1998; Daly & Immarigeon, 1998; Bazemore, 1997; Walgrave, 1995).
Address for correspondence: Jeremy Prichard, Law School, University of Tasmania,
GPO Box 252–89, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia.
A dominant feature of Australia’s emerging restorative ideology is John
Braithwaite’s (1989) theory, “reintegrative shaming”. This theory, which sparked
the nation’s largest sociological experiment to date1, undoubtedly contributed to
the spread of community conferencing into every Australian jurisdiction, although
only some jurisdictions explicitly utilise reintegrative shaming.2
Braithwaite’s (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration, now a classic text, took
the threads of dominant criminological traditions and particular sociological
observations and wove a new theory which explained how informal social controls
can be used to curb criminality. The theory suggests that shame can be used
constructively to discourage criminality when elicited in ceremonies attended by
the offender’s “community of concern”, or significant others, and in the backdrop
of an overarching affirmation of the offender. However, the use of shame without
socially embedded forgiveness may lead to stigmatisation and, ultimately,
increased criminal behaviour.
Notwithstanding the enormously powerful contribution that this book has
made to our understanding of crime and productive responses to it, we want to
develop some critical reflections on one aspect of this text: the portrayal of the
biological3parents of young offenders. It is recognised that Braithwaite’s own
position on this matter has changed since the publication of Crime, Shame and
Reintegration (see, e.g., Braithwaite & Braithwaite, 2001; Harris, 2001); however,
precisely because of the weight and importance given to his 1989 text, we feel it is
important to pursue what we see as a significant weakness in it.
Braithwaite (1989) appreciates that especially for young offenders, parents are
often the most important members of the community of concern. However,
Braithwaite’s depiction of parents within ceremonies is one dimensional and simplis-
tic: loving onlookers innately similar to any other member of the community
of concern other than for the degree of attachment they feel towards the youth.
He makes no distinction between the parents of a young offender and any other type
of supporter, such as the professional colleagues of an adult white-collar offender.
The first half of this paper argues that the especial depth of parent–child relation-
ships differentiates parents from all other supporters. Parents often feel responsible
for the actions of their child and hence “on trial” during a reintegrative shaming
ceremony. This argument is drawn from the rapidly expanding4psychology literature
that describes some of the unique aspects of parenting and its impact on self percep-
tion (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1989; Coleman & Karraker, 1997) and the observations
of community conferences made during a study under way in Tasmania.
Braithwaite (1989) acknowledges that supporters of an offender may experience
shame during a reintegrative shaming ceremony without developing his theory
to account for different magnitudes of shame. Far from recognising that people who
are intimately bound with an offender, such as the parents of a young offender, may
experience a great deal of shame, Braithwaite concentrates on the benefits of delib-
erately directing shame at “collectivities” (p. 83) — including families
and companies. He asserts that the shame directed at collectivities is “often”
(p. 83) transmitted to the offender “in a manner which is as reintegrative as possi-
ble” (p. 83). It is beyond the bounds of this discussion to consider whether this is
true in the white collar setting. However, the second half of this paper argues
that
331
PARENT–CHILD DYNAMICS IN COMMUNITY CONFERENCES
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
To continue reading
Request your trial