Shame by Any Other Name

3. Guilt and Shame in the Development of Moral Character

Understanding the differences between guilt and shame make even ordinary attempts
to apologize and mend relationships damaged by careless, selfish or unkind acts,
easier to understand and manage. Use as an example the revelation that a spouse
has had an affair. The anger, even rage, of the betrayed partner in this scenario is
both understandable and familiar to all of us. A typical shame-suffused unfaithful
spouse would more readily respond with shame-based confessions of powerlessness
and helplessness than a guilt-ridden partner ("I couldn't help myself; I'm bad through
and through; I wouldn't have done it if I were able to stop myself, but I was helpless
against my desire") or aggression ("if you weren't so involved with your work, if you
weren't so cold and distant, [*307] if you satisfied my needs more often, I wouldn't
have had to seek solace in the arms of another"). 49 Not only are these shame-based
confessions unlikely to lead to a change in the unfaithful spouse's behavior, they are
almost certain to further anger the betrayed spouse who likely wishes, at a minimum,
an acknowledgement of wrong-doing, accountability, sincere apology and a promise
not to offend again.

A typical guilt-based confession would have an entirely different focus. The guilty
party, knowing himself to be the "locus of control," is far more apt to hold himself
accountable for wrongdoing once it has been discovered. 50 Guilty expressions of
remorse would include "I'm sorry; I know I could have behaved better but I chose to
ignore my better judgment" or "I have felt you to be distant and cold and I do feel my
needs are not being met, but I understand that is no excuse for this bad behavior."
An individual who feels in control of his actions is more likely to feel accountable for
them, and therefore, more likely to accept responsibility for them, apologizing and
attempting to make amends. 51

These distinctions between guilt and shame, as well as the circumstances encouraging
and discouraging them should be kept in mind when evaluating the claims for and
criticisms of restorative justice theory and practice.

III. CLAIMS FOR AND CRITICIMS OF REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING

Because North American families who condemn wrongdoing while sustaining
relationships of love and respect are more likely to raise law-abiding citizens,
restorative justice theorists hope that VOM practices doing the same thing will
accomplish the task of offender rehabilitation. 52 Although some believe the jury is
still out on the question whether restorative justice practices are capable [*308] of
reducing recidivism, 53 others believe the evidence already in has proven restorative
justice practices unequal to the task. 54

Reports of post-VOM offenders' propensity for recidivism are mixed. Some indicate
that recidivism increased for VOM participants in comparison with those participating
in traditional criminal justice proceedings. 55 Other studies have shown small, but
"insignificant" reductions in recidivism. 56 Where a correlation between restorative
justice practices and rehabilitation has been shown to exist, the connection has been
explained as "only incidental and as a byproduct of its principal objectives of
compensating the victim and avoiding incarceration for the offender." 57

These disappointing results have been attributed to both the failure of a single VOM
conference to work offender transformation and to the lack of strength, love, trust
and respect in the communities to which offenders are returned. 58

Those who focus on the lack of community resources claim that "corrective" shaming
sanctions can convey the moral content its adherents promote only if family and
communal bonds are revitalized and a more robust sense of interdependence and
communal responsibility is developed in the communities to which offenders are
"restored." 59

Those who concentrate on VOM practices suggest that offenders will be unable to
achieve the requisite empathy and accountability unless more attention is paid to the
pre-offense injuries they have suffered. 60 Unless harm to offenders is acknowledged
during VOMs, these critics argue, they will he be unable to accept responsibility for
their actions or assume true accountability for the harm they have caused. 61 These
commentators contend that only if VOM processes include expressions of
understanding for the offender's deviant behavior will the way be opened for him to
acknowledge harm done to others. 62 In the absence of such empathic responses,
they contend, the offender will more readily move [*309] toward resentment than
empathy - simmering from the further insult that the victim's injuries are being
addressed while his own continue to be ignored. 63

Much depends, of course, upon the selection and training of VOM mediators. These
individuals must be capable community-builders, with strong skills in openness and
availability to others, including an ability to affirm the humanity of others regardless of
the nature of their wrongful actions. 64 This paper suggests, however, that no
matter how empathic the mediator, unless VOMS include at least one successfully
"restored" offender, the perpetrator is likely to remain mired in shame and thus
unable to escape the defensiveness, resentment and denial that prevents true
reconciliation. 65 It further suggests that in the absence of a moral post-VOM
offender community, the goals of reducing crime and recidivism will remain elusive.

There is, however, a solution with proven effectiveness. For the past sixty years, the
program of Alcoholics Anonymous has been achieving moral education and community
reconciliation using the "right" kind of shame - which in this author's opinion means
no shame at all.