Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Crime & Delinquency
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miethe, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Reese, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reintegrative Shaming and Recidivism Risks in Drug Court: Explanations for Some Unexpected Findings

Terance D. Miethe

Hong Lu

Erin Reese

Braithwaite's (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming has been increasingly used to explain how social control efforts may result in both conformity and deviance. Using this theory as an interpretive framework, this study examines the relative effectiveness of a specialized drug court in reducing recidivism risks. Contrary to expectations based on its structural similarity to the principles of reintegrative shaming, the authors find that risks of recidivism for drug court participants are significantly higher than comparable offenders processed outside drug court. Field observations and a more detailed examination of daily practices explain these unexpected findings by revealing that the drug court is actually more stigmatizing than conventional courts and is not reintegrative enough in its orientation toward punishment. The results of this study are then discussed in terms of their implications for further research.

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 46, No. 4, 522-541 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128700046004006


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Crime DelinquencyHome page
S. J. Listwan, D. K. Shaffer, and J. L. Hartman
Combating Methamphetamine Use in the Community: The Efficacy of the Drug Court Model
Crime Delinquency, October 1, 2009; 55(4): 627 - 644.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Crime DelinquencyHome page
N. Rodriguez and V. J. Webb
Multiple Measures of Juvenile Drug Court Effectiveness: Results of a Quasi-Experimental Design
Crime Delinquency, April 1, 2004; 50(2): 292 - 314.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Crime DelinquencyHome page
S. J. Listwan, J. L. Sundt, A. M. Holsinger, and E. J. Latessa
The Effect of Drug Court Programming on Recidivism: the Cincinnati Experience
Crime Delinquency, July 1, 2003; 49(3): 389 - 411.
[Abstract] [PDF]