Reliability of Observed Reintegrative Shaming, Shame, Defiance and Other Key Concepts in Diversionary Conferences

• NCJ Number: 173180
• Author(s): N Harris; J B Burton
• Date Published: 1998
• Length: 122 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Australian Research Council; Australian National Drug Crime Prevention Fund
• Sale Source: Australian Research Council
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

This study determined the inter-rater agreement of the instruments used in the evaluation of Diversionary Conferencing in the Australian Capital Territory, which uses a technique called reintegrative shaming.

Abstract

The Reintegrative Shaming Experiment, which began in the Australian Capital Territory in July 1995, compares the impact on recidivism between the court system and Diversionary Conferencing. The centerpiece of Diversionary Conferencing is "reintegrative shaming," which involves disapproval of the offense while sustaining a relationship of respect, ceremonies to certify deviance terminated by ceremonies to decertify deviance, disapproval of the evil of the deed without labeling the person as evil, and not allowing deviance to become a master status trait. In addition to measuring shaming behavior and the extent to which they were reintegrative or stigmatizing, the evaluation also intended to measure whether offenders displayed the emotion of shame during proceedings. A second concept important for understanding the success of both conferencing and court was the offender's level of defiance. Of significance was how offenders reacted to the process. Other factors in the conferencing process that the evaluation sought to measure were whether the offender was remorseful, whether the consequences of the act were explored meaningfully, how much discussion of a resolution occurred, whether the case was procedurally just, and the manner in which the offender was treated. In an attempt to measures these concepts through observation, two separate approaches were developed. The first was a Global Ratings Questionnaire, which was completed by the observer at the end of each case. The second instrument used was the Systematic Observation Instrument, which measured respect for the offender, disapproval of the act, disapproval of the offender, offender apology, offender forgiven, offender defiant, consequences of the act, and outcome. Study results suggest that a number of the concepts central to Diversionary Conferences can be measured reliably on both the Global Ratings Questionnaire and the Systematic Observation Instrument. Particularly encouraging was the reliable measurement of reintegrative shaming, shame, consequences of the act, and the outcome. The results also highlighted the need for a number of improvements in the instruments. 7 appendixes include the two instruments and their codebooks