Introduction
Restorative justice refers to an aspect of curbing wrongdoings positively. That is, it repairs the harm caused by the crime. The victims, the offenders and the society meet and decide on the solution to minimize crime occurrence. On the other hand, re-integrative shaming is a way of communicating to the wrongdoer in a manner that encourages them to quit what they have been doing.
Restorative justice and re-integrative shaming aspects are very vital to an offender life. According to the theory, communities have witnessed fewer crime rates when attended in a re-integrative shame (Barnes et al., 2015, p.120). The society will experience a high rate of violence if the act is never shamefully participated. For example, high rate of rape may increase if the wrongdoers can go out bragging of the action. Therefore, re-integrative shaming tends to communicate shame in a manner that encourages the offender to quit.
Also, re-integrative communicates condemnation in a respectful way for the offender. The wrongdoer gets treated as an excellent person who has done an evil deed. This aspect makes the offender realize he has done something wrong and probably may quit that lousy behaviour (Barnes et al., 2015, p.120). Therefore, communities that tend to forgive and respect and at the same time severely taking crime have evidenced low cases of crimes.
Restorative justice is another aspect that has helped the wrongdoers within the society. The offended party and the offender meet and agree rather than taking the offender into the state to be charged. This aspect restores the criminal behaviour and cannot indulge in sin anymore (Barnes et al., 2015, p.120). Restorative justice mostly involves healing, a polite conversation, participatory community, apology, and forgiveness. It is also an act that unites the offender, the insulted, and the society and discusses on the way forward on a crime done.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think restorative justice and re-integrative shaming are a very vital aspect in reducing crime occurrence. The offender gets to feel what he/she has been doing is unacceptable, and thus he is forced quits. It is a better way of reformation as compared to stigmatization that displays hatred towards the offender and continues doing evil deeds.
Reference
Barnes, G.C., Hyatt, J.M., Angel, C.M., Strang, H. and Sherman, L.W., 2015. Are restorative justice conferences fairer than criminal courts? Comparing levels of observed procedural justice in the reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE). Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(2), pp.103-130.