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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baumer, E.
(1997). Levels and predictors of recidivism: The Malta experience. Criminology, 35(4), 601-628.
2.
Belenko, S.
(1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 1-42.
3.
Benson, M. L.
(1990). Emotions and adjudication: A study of status degradation among white-collar criminals. Justice Quarterly, 7, 515-528.
4.
Berk, R. A.
, Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57, 698-708.
5.
Binder, A.
, & Geis, G. (1984). Ad populum argumentation in criminology: Juvenile diversion as rhetoric. Crime & Delinquency, 30, 309-333.
6.
Blomberg, T. G.
(1983). Diversion's disparate results and unresolved questions: An integrative evaluation perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 20, 24-38.
7.
Braithwaite, J.
(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Braithwaite, J.
(1993). Shame and modernity. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 1-18.
9.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. (1994). Drugs and crime facts, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
Byrne, C.
(1994). Drug data summary. Rockville, MD: Drugs and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse.
11.
Carter, R. M.
, & Klein, M. W. (1976). Back on the street—the diversion of juvenile offenders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Clark County Drug Court
. (1996). Participant handbook. Las Vegas: Eighth Judicial District Court.
13.
Cooper, C.
(1997). Drug courts: 1997 Overview of operational characteristics and implementation issues. Preliminary report. Washington, DC: American University.
14.
Deschenes, E.
, & Greenwood, P. (1995). Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court. The Justice System Journal, 18, 55-73.
15.
Dickey, W. J.
(1994). Low-level drug offenders: Lessons from the drug courts. Washington, DC: Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy.
16.
Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project
. (1998). Looking at a decade of drug courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
17.
Drug Use Forecasting
. (1995). Annual report on adult and juvenile arrestees. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18.
Elliott, D. S.
, Dunford, F. W., & Knowles, B. (1978). Diversion: A study of alternative processing practices. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.
19.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
. (1998). Crime in the United States. Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
Finn, P.
, & Newlyn, A. K. (1993). Miami's drug court: A different approach. Program focus. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
Garfinkle, H.
(1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420-424.
22.
Goldmakp, J. S.
(1994). Justice and treatment innovation: A working paper of the first national drug conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
23.
Goldkamp, J. S.
, & Weiland, D. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
24.
Granfield, R.
, Eby, C., & Brewster, T. (1998). An examination of the Denver Drug Court: The impact of a treatment-oriented drug-offender system. Law and Policy, 20(20), 183-202.
25.
Klein, M. W.
(1979). Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice (pp. 145-202). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
Lu, H.
(1999). Bang jiao and reintegrative shaming in China's urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 23, 115-125.
27.
Makkai, T.
, & Braithwaite, J. (1994). Reintegrative shaming and compliance with regulatory standards. Criminology, 32, 361-383.
28.
Nimmer, R. T.
(1973). Diversion—the search for alternative forms of prosecution. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
29.
Nugent, W. R.
, & Paddock, J. B. (1995). The effects of victim-offender mediation on severity of reoffense. Mediation Quarterly, 12, 353-367.
30.
Palamara, F.
, Cullen, F. T., & Gersten, J. C. (1986). The effect of police and mental health intervention on juvenile delinquency: Specifying contingencies in the impact of formal reaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 90-105.
31.
Palmer, T.
, & Lewis, R. (1980). A differentiated approach to juvenile diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 209-277.
32.
Pennel, J.
, & Burford, G. (1997). Family group decision making: After the conference—Progress in resolving violence and promoting well-being. St. John's, Canada: Family Group Decision Making Project, School of Social Work, University of Newfoundland.
33.
Quay, H. C.
, & Love, C. T. (1977). The effect of a juvenile diversion program on rearrests. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 377-396.
34.
Ray, M. C.
, & Downs, W. R. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169-194.
35.
Roberts, M.
, Brophy, J., & Cooper, C. (1997). The Juvenile drug court movement. Fact sheet no. 59. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
36.
Smith, B. E.
, Davis, R. C., & Goretsky, S. R. (1991). Strategies for courts to cope with caseload pressures of drug cases. Final report. Chicago: American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section.
37.
Vorenberg, E. W.
, & Vorenberg, J. (1973). Early diversion from the criminal justice system: Practice in search of a theory. In L. E. Ohlin (Ed.), Prisoners in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38.
Zhang, L.
, Zhou, D., Messner, S. D., Liska, A. E., Krohn, M. D., Liu, J., & Zhou, L. (1996). Crime prevention in a communication society: Bang-jiao and tiao-jie in the People's Republic of China. Justice Quarterly, 13, 199-222.
