be very sound on values like mutual respect and civility". (Moore, n. d.) It is quite impossible to remove the "moral content out of the social control and imagine social control to work. The difficulty has been that the focus of modern legal system on technical matters of guilt has practically tended to take the moral content out of social control. Thus, shame is considered as the affect which is able to revive and maintain this moral content". (Moore, n. d.)
             Braithwaite mentions about "re-integrative shaming, on the one hand, and of stigmatization, on the other. Re-integrative shaming as the term indicates, seeks the social reintegration of a person who has committed an act which is shameful. It does this by way of making a clear distinction between a deplorable act and the person who has committed that act. Strong social disapproval is intended towards the act in the absence of degrading or stigmatizing the actor, without actually removing the person and ostracizing him or her from the community". (Moore, n. d.) On the other hand, stigmatization does not "separate a person who has committed an unacceptable act from the community against which that particular person has offended. Interestingly, modern criminal justice systems achieve this separation representatively, through successful degradation ceremonies. They also achieve practically through incarceration and, in extreme cases through the death penalty. The shame that people relate with modern criminal justice system and with the application of state power for social control, is really, a socially destructive shame". (Moore, n. d.)
             It is a shame which is an outcome of linking of the offender with the offense. Hence, it is more exacting to label it as stigmatization. Criminological theorists have chosen the expression of 'labeling'. It is important to note that the "reintroduction of shame into criminological debate is viewed...