The Place of Shame in Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour
| Author | Ian Edwards |
| Pages | 50-66 |
Ian Edwards
50
The Place Of Shame In Responses To Anti-Social Behaviour
51
to rebalance criminal justice in favour of victims and communities (Home Office, 2002).
The centrality of the community and victims in the Government’s policy priorities was
reflected in the Respect and Responsibility White Paper’s emphasis on community
involvement in preventing, and responding to, such behaviour:
Anti-social behaviour is a problem experienced at local level and therefore
requires effective action locally. This includes individuals, families,
residents' associations, community groups and also the public services. It is
vital that the right people have the power, the authority and the support to
tackle anti-social behaviour”
(Home Office, 2003 p51).
Two Government strategies in responding to “anti-social behaviour” appear similar in
employing "shame" as a guiding concept. The first, "naming and shaming" of individuals
subject to anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), focuses on drawing community attention
to the identity of offenders ostensibly to inform and reassure the community as well as
deter offenders. The second, restorative justice, seeks to confront offenders with the harm
caused by their offences, encouraging or requiring them to repair that harm either to
victims or the wider community.
This article explores the similarities and differences between these two strategies. First, I
consider ways in which the Government is employing them. Second, I highlight their
common heritage, both being rooted in a form of expressive justice: both involve shaming
processes. Third, I evaluate the possible effects of each process. Finally, I analyse the
implications of pursuing both strategies simultaneously.
The Government's Uses of Shame in Responses
to Anti-Social Behaviour
Publicising ASBOs: Using “Naming And Shaming”
A civil order, an ASBO prohibits a specified person (aged 10 or over) from doing anything
described in it (s. 1(4) Crime and Disorder Act 1998). ASBOs have effect for not less
than 2 years (s. 1(7)) and breach of an ASBO is an offence punishable with up to 5 years
imprisonment if tried on indictment, six months if tried summarily. They can be applied
for by local authorities, police forces (including the British Transport Police), registered
social landlords and housing action trusts, but not by members of the public. Court
statistics reveal that between 1st April 1999 and 31st December 2005 9853 ASBOs were
issued (www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos2.htm) and the rate at which ASBOs have been
imposed has grown steeply year-on-year.
The Government considers publicity central to the success of ASBOs. The Home Office
stated in the 2003 White Paper Respect and Responsibility that for too long a “culture of
resignation” has prevailed, with communities lacking the powers and support to respond
THE PLACE OF SHAME IN
RESPONSES TO ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
Ian Edwards, Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice,
University of East Anglia
Abstract
Government responses to ‘anti-social behaviour’ have included, amongst others, two
trends that employ shame in pursuit of crime prevention: "naming and shaming" of those
subject to anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) on one hand and restorative justice on
the other. This article considers how the Government has made use of each, the
dynamics of each shaming process, and the compatibility of these approaches. It argues
that they are mutually exclusive, and that restorative justice should be preferred as a
potentially more constructive shaming process.
Keywords: ASBO; Restorative Justice; Shaming; Anti-Social Behaviour
Introduction
‘Anti-social behaviour’ dominates contemporary British political discourse on law and
order. The Government’s 2003 White Paper Respect and Responsibility: Taking a Stand
Against Anti-Social Behaviour stated:
As a society, our rights as individuals are based on the sense of responsibility
we have towards others and to our families and communities. This means
respecting each other’s property, respecting the streets and public places we
share and respecting our neighbours’ right to live free from harassment and
distress. It is the foundation of a civic society…Our aim is a “something for
something” society where we treat one another with respect and where we
all share responsibility for taking a stand against what is unacceptable
(Home Office, 2003: Ministerial Foreword).
The Government’s focus on anti-social behaviour is laudable as part of a broader aim to
create a “decent, civil society in which people can shape their own lives and participate
fully in their local community.” (Home Office, 2003: Ministerial Foreword). The
Government's overriding priority, announced in the 2002 Justice for All White Paper, is
To continue reading
Request your trial