Restorative justice interventions, which focus upon repairing the harm caused by an offence, are consistent with the approach advocated by reintegrative shaming theory. However, some have argued that remorse and empathy play a more important role in restoration, and that a focus upon disapproval and the emotion of shame may be misguided. This article analyses theoretical distinctions between shame and guilt before discussing their role in restorative interventions. It is argued that emotions like empathy, remorse and guilt will spill over into feelings of shame, and that it is the resolution of these emotions that is critical for successful justice interventions.More than a decade ago, one of us, John Braithwaite (1989), proposed a theory of reintegrative shaming. Reintegrative shaming was presented as an effective practice in preventing crime before the event, as well as in responding to crime after the event. It was distinguished from disintegrative shaming (stigmatization) which risks making crime problems worse. Reintegrative shaming communicates disapproval of an act while conferring 191 Theoretical Criminology

Despite the popularity of reintegrative shaming theory in the fi eld of criminology, only a small number of studies purporting to test it have been published to date. The aim of the present study, therefore, is to provide an empirical test of Braithwaite's (1989 ;Braithwaite and Braithwaite 2001) theory of reintegrative shaming in the white-collar crime context. The data on which the study is based came from survey data collected from a group of 652 tax offenders. Consistent with predictions, it was found that feelings of reintegration/stigmatization experienced during an enforcement event were related to reoffending behaviour. Those taxpayers who felt that their enforcement experience had been reintegrative in nature were less likely to report having evaded their taxes two years later. Consistent with Braithwaite and Braithwaite's (2001) hypotheses, shame-related emotions were also found to partially mediate the effect of reintegration on subsequent offending behaviour. Implications for the effective regulation of white-collar offenders are discussed.

A qualitative study explored the private realities of forty-five Australian Indigenous parents and carers who had experiences with child protection authorities. Interviews focused on the nature of the relationship between parents and authorities, how these regulatory encounters served to enlist or dissolve cooperation, and how child-focused outcomes could be delivered. The descriptions of encounters with authorities challenged the public hope for reconciliation between government and Indigenous Australians through reports of procedural injustice, failure by the authority to communicate and demonstrate soundness of purpose, and through lack of interest in identity affirmation and relationship building. In spite of these perceptions of integrity failings in how child protection authorities have operated, a positive role was acknowledged for authorities' future involvement, albeit with different strategies from those currently experienced. How this progression might be facilitated by principles of restorative justice and responsive regulation is discussed.l apo_354 80..103

The dimensionality of the moral emotions was tested to examine whether theoretical distinctions between specific emotions were empirically supported. A total of 720 drink-driving offenders indicated the degree to which they experienced feelings associated with the moral emotions, in an interview conducted after attending court or a restorative justice conference. Expected distinctions between shame and guilt were not found. Instead the principal components analysis identified three factors: shame-guilt, embarrassment-exposure, and unresolved shame. The results also show that shame-guilt was related to higher feelings of empathy and lower feelings of anger/hostility. It is concluded that differences between shame and guilt may be overstated. Furthermore, it is suggested that the relationship between situational experiences of shame and the disposition to feel it may be more complicated than initially thought.

It is widely acknowledged that there are significant benefits when statutory child protection agencies and parents are able to engage cooperatively with one another to ensure the well‐being of children. Despite promising innovations there are ongoing concerns that the current child protection model alienates and confuses many parents. It is hypothesized that a significant reason for this is that statutory agencies have become reliant on formalistic assessment, and as a consequence interactions with parents have become dominated by a focus on assessment‐compliance. A qualitative study of 40 parents who had recently been investigated in Australia is reported. The analysis suggests that many parents find characteristics of assessment processes intrusive and that this undermines engagement. It is concluded that there should be greater debate about the role that assessment plays in child protection practice.