The first of the four theories considered is Reintegrative Shaming Theory, which has three main tenets: (1) that tolerance of crime will increase crime; (2) that outcast shaming of crime, which occurs under a traditional criminal justice response, will increase crime; and (3) that reintegrative shaming, which occurs within a restorative justice model, prevents crime. Reintegrative shaming involves disapproval of the crime while still extending respect to the offender, which allows forgiveness to take place and restores the offenders’ dignity. The second theory, Procedural Justice Theory, also involves reintegrative shaming and empowers citizens, rather than the State, to control the process of justice. The Theory of Unacknowledged Shame, the third theory to be considered, holds that shame can be destructive and lead to increased levels of crime. Thus, a restorative justice process that enables offenders to deal with their shame in a constructive manner should reduce further criminal offending. The final theory, Defiance Theory, holds that sanctions that are considered illegitimate by offenders, which is often the case with traditional criminal justice approaches, will increase crime while sanctions considered legitimate will deter further offending. The author argues that restorative justice processes are likely to meet the conditions of a legitimate sanction for offenders and victims alike. Finally, the author considers four main critiques of restorative justice processes: (1) that restorative justice processes can increase victim fears; (2) they can be a “shaming machine” that increases the stigmatization of offenders; (3) they are vulnerable to being hijacked by the dominant group within society; and (4) they may trample individual rights because of a lack of articulated procedural safeguards. Three civic republican remedies to these concerns are enumerated. Footnotes