Robert Teitelman has a great post on Delaware Chancellor Leo Strine's use of shaming as a sanction in corporate law cases. I don't agree with everything in it, but it's very thoughtful and provocative.
It's a long post, with lots of depth, so I strongly encourage you to go read the whole thing. In short, however, he's exactly right that "shaming is a tricky matter."
At the end of the post, Teitelman makes a very interesting claim; namely, that the underlying premises of successful shaming are the same as those driving the creeping federalization of corporate law;
Tactical shaming, after all, is both popular and populist. It taps the same democratic id that shapes (and reshapes) reputations and that fuels the mania for teetering towers of narrowly based rules for every imaginable behavior.
That's a tremendously insightful point, whose implications I'm clearly going to have to spend some time pondering.