CRIMINAL SANCTIONSand formal criminal sanctions is limited. Con-
versely, in societies where intermediate institu-
tions are less dominant informal social control is
less effective, thereby necessitating the expansion
of formal social control that typically takes the
form of criminal law and punitive sanctions. The
quantity of criminal law increases as the quantity
of informal social control decreases (Black 1976).
The primary measurement of the quantity of crimi-
nal law is the frequency and severity of criminal
sanctions.
The relative quantity of criminal law and other
forms of social control have been linked to the
relative presence or absence of the other aspects of
social life. At the extremes, societies characterized
by significant stratification, morphological diversi-
ty, bureaucratic interaction, and cultural multi-
plicity will employ a more penal style of social
control while societies characterized by general
equality, homogeneity, face-to-face interaction, and
cultural consensus will employ a more conciliatory
style of social control. The therapeutic, educative,
and compensatory styles of social control are to be
found in societies somewhere between the ex-
tremes. In Western societies the increase in strati-
fication, morphology, bureaucracy, and cultural
multiplicity have combined to lower the level of
willing conformity and diminish the effectiveness
of informal mechanisms of social control (Garland
1990). The decline of informal social control has
been traced to the less efficient use of shaming.
Literature on the effectiveness of various norma-
tive sanctions has suggested that shame can be
either reintegrative or disintegrative in nature de-
pending on the strength of intermediate institu-
tions and the level of willing conformity (Braithwaite
1994). Although the phenomenon of shame is
found in both formal and informal systems of
social control it is a more central feature of infor-
mal social control.
FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL SANCTIONSShaming is the central deterrent element of most
informal mechanisms of social control. Its use in
formal mechanisms of social control has until the
1990s been limited due to the concerns related to
labeling (Becker 1963; Braithwaite 1994). Deter-
rence research has shown a much stronger shaming
effect for informal sanctions than for formal legal
sanctions (Paternoster and Iovanni 1986). It has
been suggested that sanctions imposed by groups
with emotional and social ties to the transgressor
are more effective in deterring criminal behavior
than sanctions that are imposed by a bureaucratic
legal authority (Christie 1977). Although the em-
pirical evidence comparing the deterrent effect of
informal versus formal sanctions is limited, it has
consistently shown that there is a greater concern
among transgressors for the social impact of their
arrest than for the punishment they may receive
(Sherman and Berk 1984). Perceptions of the
certainty and severity of formal criminal sanctions
appear to have little effect on the considerations
that lead to criminal behavior. Whatever effect
formal criminal sanctions do have on deterring
future criminal behavior is primarily dependent
on the transgressor’s perception of informal sanc-
tions (Tittle 1980).
Deterrence theory is predicated on the assump-
tion of fear (Zimring and Hawkes 1973). It has
been assumed that deviants and especially crimi-
nal offenders fear the loss directly related to for-
mal sanctions (e.g. loss of liberty, loss of material
possessions, etc.). Research on formal sanctions
that are coupled with informal sanctions suggests
to the contrary that to the extent transgressors
would be deterred by fear, the fear that is most
relevant is that their transgression will result in a
loss of respect or status among their family, friends,
or associates (Tittle 1980). In the cost-benefit analy-
sis that is central to the ‘‘rational actor’’ model of
crime causation, loss of respect and status weighs
much more heavily for most individuals than the
direct loss of liberty or material.
Deterrence is considered to be irrelevant to
the majority of the populace, therefore, most peo-
ple are believed to comply with the law because of
their internalization of the norms and values of
society (Toby 1964). For the majority of the popu-
lace failure to abide by the norms and values would
call into question their commitment to that socie-
ty. For the well-socialized individual, moral con-
science serves as the primary deterrent. The con-
science delivers an anxiety response each time an
individual transgresses the moral boundaries of
society. The anxiety response fulfills the three
requirements of deterrence: it is immediate, it is
certain, and it is severe. Formal criminal sanctions
on the other hand may be severe but they are not
always certain nor swift (Braithwaite 1994).