The Corrective Work Order, introduced in 1992, states that offenders convicted of littering in public could be ordered to clean public premises for a fixed number of hours. The value of the Corrective Work Order is the shame it causes the offender. It is argued that this has been used in a stigmatizing way, in direct contrast to the approach of reintegrative shaming, which is said to be a more powerful weapon towards social control than institutional sanctions. The lack of public agreement on the measure has meant that the Corrective Work Order has not been the success it was hoped to be. Although there is a requirement that the court consider the physical and mental condition of the offender and the suitability for carrying out the requirements, the court does use professional assistance to determine this. If a breach occurs, the court may issue a summons requiring the offender to appear before the court or may issue a warrant for the offender’s arrest. Although the offender may only be ordered to perform work for a maximum of 12 hours under the Corrective Work Order, with or without a fine, the way it has been used is perceived by many as disproportionate to the wrong committed by the offender. The experience of the Work Order shows that the Government’s attempts to exploit shame as a form of punishment may be counterproductive. There is a fine line between the use of shame to publicly humiliate and stigmatize, and reintegrative shaming, where it is the act of the offender that is shamed but the offender is accepted back into society once appropriate redress is made. The Corrective Work Order does not provide support or provide a ritual of forgiveness for the offender from the community after the performance of his/her cleaning duties. The underlying philosophy behind the Corrective Work Order and its use should be re-examined. 63 notes, 8 references