people whose lives are often hopeless, and it givesthem an avenue for personal change,” said JimCarlson, a former manager of the program. “It mustbe retained.”

THE DECLINE OF CREATIVEWRITING PROGRAMS ANDHOW UNIVERSITIES INTERVENED

Since the 1980s, growing conservatism across theUnited States has precipitated cuts in funding to anumber of creative writing programs. For example,the National Endowment for the Arts dramaticallycut funds to prison journals in 1982, and by 1984every significant prison writing journal temporarilydissolved. In response, writers who believed in thevalue of teaching creative writing in prisons wereforced to return to volunteering their services orto turn to academic institutions for support. Twogroups that have effectively harnessed the financialsupport of universities are the Prison Creative ArtsProject and SPACE.

The Prison Creative Arts Project, founded byBuzz Alexander at the University of Michigan in1990, offers theater, writing, and visual art work-shops in prisons and juvenile detention centersthroughout Michigan. The project offers Universityof Michigan students the opportunity to teach instate prisons as part of a class. The group offersinstruction, exhibitions, and advocacy.

Space in Prison for the Arts and Creative Expres-sion (SPACE) was founded in 1992 by a group ofwomen from Brown University interested in workingin the Women’s Division of the Rhode Island AdultCorrectional Institution. The program offers theater,creative writing, and visual arts workshops toinmates. The group also produces a journal and trainsothers to respond to the issues of incarcerated women,particularly issues of disrupted families, histories ofabuse, and challenges to feminine identities.

CONCLUSION

There is a mixed future for prison creative writingprograms. Funding is still scarce, yet increasingnumbers of anthologies by and about the lives of

American prisoners are being published. These textsinclude Disguised as a Poem: My Years TeachingPoetry at San Quentin by Judith Tannenbaum,Doing Time: 25 Years of Prison Writing edited byBell Gale Chevigny, Prison Writing in 20th CenturyAmerica edited by H. Bruce Franklin, and Couldn’tKeep It to Myself: Testimonies From Our ImprisonedSisters edited by Wally Lamb. Books such as thesemake accessible the wealth of artistic productionfrom U.S. prisoners and point to the ongoing impor-tance of creative writing programs in prisons. Theyalso offer testimony to the efforts of writers andactivists from the past three decades whose belief inthe power of writing helped influence the lives ofinmates.

—Vince Samarco

See also Adult Basic Education; Art Programs; DramaPrograms; Education; General Educational Develop-ment (GED) Exam and General Equivalency Diploma;Literacy; Prison Pell Grants Literature

Further Reading

Chevigny, B. G. (Ed.). (2002). Doing time: 25 years of prisonwriting—A PEN American Center Prize anthology.New York: Arcade.

Cleveland, W. (2000). Art in other places. Westport, CT: Praeger.Franklin, H. B. (Ed.). (1998). Prison writing in 20th century

America. New York: Penguin.Lamb, W. (Ed.). (2003). Couldn’t keep it to myself:

Testimonies from our imprisoned sisters. New York:Regan.

PEN American Center Archives, Princeton University. (2004).Retrieved from http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/pen.html

Tannenbaum, J. (2000). Disguised as a poem: My years teach-ing poetry at San Quentin. Boston: NortheasternUniversity Press.

CRIME, SHAME,AND REINTEGRATION

In his book Crime, Shame and Reintegration, pub-lished in 1989, Australian criminologist JohnBraithwaite puts forth a theoretical model for deal-ing with crime at the individual and communitylevels. Braithwaite integrates many traditional

200———Crime, Shame, and Reintegration

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 200

sociological theories of crime into a single viewexplaining why some societies have higher crimerates, why certain people are more likely to commitcrime, and how communities can deal effectivelywith crime for the purposes of prevention.

According to Braithwaite, high rates of predatorycrime in a society are indicative of the failure toshame those acts labeled as criminal. Braithwaiteargues that the breakdown of community ties inmodern urban communities has meant that perpe-trators of crime are not made to feel ashamed oftheir actions, and thus continue victimizing otherswithout remorse.

The concept of shame is the linchpin of thistheory. Braithwaite suggests that if perpetratorswere made to feel guilty about their actions, theywould be deterred from committing further crime.He bases this assumption on the belief that thosewho are closely tied to family and communityanticipate a negative reaction to the violation ofcommunity norms. Foreseeing the shame that theywould feel, they are deterred from committingcrime. However, according to this theory, shamingmust be done in such a way as to be reintegrative,bringing the offender back into the community,rather than disintegrative, which would push theindividual even farther out of the community. ForBraithwaite, reintegrative shaming is the key toeffective deterrence and crime prevention.

BACKGROUND TO THE THEORY

Braithwaite integrates the major tenets of five dif-ferent theoretical traditions in 20th-century crimi-nology into his theory of reintegrative shaming. Heexplains how labeling, subcultural, control, oppor-tunity, and learning theories fit into his work.Crime, shame, and reintegration is not then anattempt to rewrite criminology, but to synthesizeseveral seemingly disparate theories into a singularexplanatory system.

Crime

Braithwaite begins with the notion, taken fromcontrol theory, that individuals are naturally drawn

to commit criminal acts for personal gain andhedonistic pleasure. Proponents of control theoryassume that it is more important to look at why cer-tain people do not commit crime, rather than whysome do. It is assumed that, without a particular setof restraints, the average person would commitcriminal or immoral acts.

Criminological research has established that var-ious personal and circumstantial characteristics arepositively correlated to criminality. Being male,between the ages of 15 and 25 years, unmarried,unemployed or without steady employment, oflower socioeconomic status, living in a city, andhaving low educational attainment are all indicativeof a statistically higher propensity for crime. Theopposite is also true. Individuals who are female,younger than 15 or older than 25, married, of ahigher socioeconomic status, living in a rural area,and having greater than secondary school educationwould be found to be at a significantly lower risk ofcommitting a criminal act.

According to Braithwaite, the very characteris-tics that lead one person to have a higher propensityfor criminality also lessen his or her relationshipwith family and community and leave a person lesssusceptible to the deterring power of shame. Thosecharacteristics associated with a lower risk of crim-inality correlate to increased contact with familyand community, which in turn increases a person’ssusceptibility to shame. For example, an individualwho is married with children has responsibilities tohis or her family that may constrain him or her frommaking risky or poor choices, whereas a single indi-vidual does not necessarily have such ties to familyand responsibilities. Those who are more integratedinto the community and involved in relationshipswith others are less likely to commit crime becausethey appreciate the shame and embarrassment thatwould result from violating community norms andvalues. Furthermore, those who are firmly inte-grated into a community feel personal responsibil-ity for the safety and well-being of those aroundthem. In contrast, those who are not integrated intoa community or involved in meaningful relation-ships with others are more likely to commit crimebecause they do not feel a sense of responsibility

Crime, Shame, and Reintegration———201

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 201

to those around them, and they are not constrainedby feelings of shame.

Briathwaite uses these beliefs to argue that cohe-sive, communitarian societies, such as Japan, whichare characterized by networks of interdependentrelationships, are likely to have lower rates of crimethan more individualistic, fragmented societies,such as the United States. In Japan, he claims,honor and responsibility to family and communityare emphasized. The Japanese place their commu-nity and family above themselves. In contrast,people in the United States and other Westernnations are socialized to value individuality andpersonal accomplishment and fulfillment over theneeds of family and community. According toBraithwaite, it is this distinction of values thataccounts for Japan’s much lower rates of violentand predatory crime.

Shame

For Braithwaite, shame is the ultimate deterrentagainst the violation of societal norms, for thosewho have a stake in a particular community. Asalready stated, he differentiates between shamingthat is stigmatizing and shaming that is followed byreintegration. Reintegrative shaming is character-ized by a ceremony in which the criminal act com-mitted is denounced and community membersexpress their disapproval of it. The shaming cere-mony is then followed by efforts to “reintegrate theoffender back into the community of law-abiding orrespectable citizens through words or gestures offorgiveness or ceremonies to decertify the offenderas deviant” (Braithwaite, 1989, pp. 100–101). Anexample of reintegrative shaming in practice can befound in New Zealand family group conferencing,which is frequently used to deal with cases of juve-nile delinquency. In this strategy, the victim andoffender meet in the presence of family and con-cerned community members to work out an appro-priate restitution and consequence for the crime. InCanada, a similar process of circle sentencing issometimes used by Aboriginal communities.

Shame that is stigmatizing, or disintegrative,occurs when the act and the actor are denounced as

unworthy of the community. There are no efforts toreintegrate the offender, and he or she is rejected bythe community. Disintegrative shaming is exempli-fied in the traditional criminal justice system by thecourt and sentencing process. Here, the offender isstigmatized by his or her conviction and literally, aswell as symbolically, sent away from the commu-nity to prison.

Shaming that is reintegrative is not “soft” or“easy” on the offender. Although it can be done inlove and with caring, reintegrative shaming can alsobe degrading, cruel, and punishing. The differencebetween reintegrative and disintegrative shaming isnot in the quality of the shaming, but in its aim andin the processes that follow. Disintegrative shamingemphasizes the evil of the actor, while reintegrativeshaming acknowledges the act as an evil thing,done by a person who is not inherently evil. Reinte-grative shaming is followed immediately by ges-tures of reconciliation and inclusion, before thedeviant identity is established as a master status.

Reintegration

As a follow-up to his theory of crime and reinte-gration, Braithwaite wrote an article with StephenMugford in 1994 titled “Conditions of SuccessfulReintegration Ceremonies,” which identified 14 char-acteristics that must be present for a reintegrationceremony to be successful. They noted that struc-turally successful reintegration ceremonies usuallyinclude two aspects: confrontation with the victim,which leads to effective shaming, and inclusion ofthe people who respect and care most about theoffender. Reintegrative shaming is most effectivewhen those who are closest to the offender and/or tothe situation participate.

Braithwaite believes that offenders must be ableto view their act outside of their own perspectiveto see the harm that it has caused. The victim’sperspective is invaluable in breaking down theoffender’s justification of the act, to enable him orher to see it as a crime. The victim may have themost impact on an offender in a face-to-faceencounter, but those who do not wish to meet theperson who harmed them may also communicate

202———Crime, Shame, and Reintegration

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 202

through letters, video conferencing, or a writtenstatement. Shaming and reintegration are found tobe most effective when those who support and carefor the offender take part. This is because offendersare more likely to give regard to family and com-munity members who have been involved in theirlives than to people whom they do not know.

An individual’s community may not be geo-graphic, but instead composed of various individualswho have a common concern for the individual. Forexample, in New Zealand and Australia, Maori andAboriginal people often bring relatives or friends ofan offender from far away, so that those people cansupport the offender in his or her reintegration. Mostimportant, those involved in the shaming and reinte-gration process must be able to impart to theoffender the idea that they are denouncing the actthat he or she committed, but restoring him or her tothe community as a full member.

CRIME, SHAME, ANDREINTEGRATION IN PRACTICE

Community measures and reintegrative shaming donot form an extensive part of the U.S. criminal jus-tice system. They remain far more popular in NewZealand and Australia. However, in recent years,alternative measures that use the theoretical princi-ples presented here have sprung up in the UnitedStates and Canada. Community conferencing,victim-offender mediation, and sentencing circlesare examples of these new measures. Such mea-sures are often referred to as restorative justice.

Community conferencing is one alternative tothe traditional justice system in cases of juvenileoffending. The victim and his or her supporters, theoffender and his or her supporters, and other con-cerned community members gather in the presenceof a community facilitator to discuss the incidentand what should be done about it. The communityconference is usually resolved when all partiesagree on an acceptable restitution or punishment, atwhich point the reintegration can begin.

Victim-offender mediation is similar to a com-munity conference, but it is usually not openedto concerned citizens. The victim and one or two

supporters meet with the offender and one or twosupporters in the presence of a trained mediator.The mediation is usually ended with the signingof a contract for restitution or community service.Victim-offender mediation may be used as a diver-sion from the traditional criminal justice system, orfollowing the imposition of a custody sentence fora juvenile or adult offender.

Sentencing circles originated among CanadianAboriginal peoples. The sentencing circle, availableto juvenile and adult offenders, is similar to a com-munity conference, in that it is opened to concernedcommunity members, but it differs in that a judgepresides over the circle and it is conducted in lieu ofa formal trial. The sentencing circle differs fromcommunity conferencing and victim-offendermediation in that it may result in a custodial sen-tence, fine, or any option that would be available ina criminal sentencing hearing. A common threadamong these alternative measures is that theoffender has to first acknowledge his or her guilt inorder to be eligible for these processes.

CONCLUSION

Braithwaite’s theory has been criticized for itsunquestioning assumption that Western societiesare built on a consensus about what is right andwhat is wrong. His theory places little value on thebeliefs and morals of subcultures while assumingthat there is an overarching societal consensus onthe laws of the land. Often, his theory obscures thefact that there are subcultures within the dominantculture that may or may not support the “dominant”consensus. For example, although violence againstwomen is defined as criminal by the law and bymany in society, prevailing patriarchal norms leadothers to feel that there is nothing wrong with theabuse of a female partner or spouse. Similarly, thosewho grew up prior to the age of anti-drinking anddriving sentiment often feel that it is perfectlyacceptable and sociable to “take one for the road.”They do not feel shame for their actions and areunlikely to respond well to a shaming ceremony. Insuch cases, reintegrative shaming may not work,since the crimes are not universally abhorred.

Crime, Shame, and Reintegration———203

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 203

The use of prison, for Braithwaite, is inherentlydisintegrative and counterproductive, especiallygiven the fact that most offenders return to thecommunity. He thus supports the use of communityalternatives to imprisonment or, at the very least, theuse of proactive community reintegration followinga term of incarceration.

—Stacey Hannem-Kish

See also Australia; Canada; Community CorrectionsCenters; Deterrence Theory; Faith-Based Initiatives;Intermediate Sanctions; New Zealand; PrisonerReentry; Rehabilitation Theory; Restorative Justice

Further Reading

Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, shame and reintegration.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Braithwaite, J. (2000). Shame and criminal justice. CanadianJournal of Criminology, 42(3), 281–298.

Braithwaite, J., & Mugford, S. (1994). Conditions of success-ful reintegration ceremonies. British Journal of Crimino-logy, 34(2), 139–171.

Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice: The real story.Punishment and Society, 4(1), 55–79.

Immarigeon, R. (1992). Prison-based victim-offender recon-ciliation programs. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.),Restorative justice: International perspectives. Monsey,NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Presser, L., & Gaarder, E. (2000). Can restorative justicereduce battering? Some preliminary considerations.Social Justice, 27(1), 175–195.

Umbreit, M. (1994). Victim meets offender: The impact ofrestorative justice and mediation. Monsey, NY: CriminalJustice Press.

Watts, R. (1996). John Braithwaite and “Crime, Shame andReintegration”: Some reflections on theory and criminol-ogy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,29(2), 121–141.

CRIPSThe Crips are among the best-known gangs inthe United States. Along with their rival group theBloods, Crip sets exist in cities throughout the UnitedStates, and thus have attained status as a supergang.Due to their involvement in the drug trade, and as aresult of increased policing of gang-related activity,many Crip members are currently imprisoned.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

The Crips began in Los Angeles in the late 1960s.Raymond Washington and Stanley “Tookie”Williams are generally cited as the initial organizersof the group. The first name taken by the Crips wasthe “Baby Avenues” for the street on whichWashington lived. There is some dispute about theorigins of the name “Crip” itself. Some suggest thatthe initial name was Cribs and it evolved into Crips.Others suggest that the initial name was “Crypts”taken from the Vincent Price movie, Tales Fromthe Crypt. Other reports suggest that one of themembers was a cripple and walked with a cane.

Whatever its origins, Crip gangs spread quicklythroughout South Central Los Angeles into otherparts of the city and Los Angeles County, composedprimarily of young, male African American resi-dents of these neighborhoods. These groups tookthe color blue as their primary symbol, and similarto the longer-standing Hispanic gangs in southernCalifornia, wore bandanas that identified theirmembership.

Members of the Crips fought against otheryouths in neighborhoods in and around where theylived. It did not take long for youths in other neigh-borhoods to form groups for protection; thesegroups soon took a name. The groups opposedto the Crips came to be known as the Bloods, andearly gangs were known as Piru Bloods, for thestreet near which many of the youths lived. Thesegangs chose red as their color. Wearing this colorsymbolized both membership in the Bloods andopposition to the Crips.

The development of the Crips reveals the impor-tance of oppositional groups in gang activity. AsMalcolm Klein (1995) has observed, gangs cannotexist in a vacuum. Thus, because of the role thatexternal rivals play in both increasing solidarityinternally and spreading the growth of the group,the Crips could not exist long without a rival. Therivalry between the Bloods and Crips has beenimportant in fueling the growth of both groups.

Equally important to that growth, however, hasbeen the impressive movement of Crip and Bloodgangs into popular culture. Even though black

204———Crips

C-Bosworth.qxd 11/16/2004 4:43 PM Page 204