NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/31/sign.of.shame.ap/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/31/sign.of.shame.ap/)

I'm just curious what ya'll think... I think public humiliation at the victims location is a good deterrent for some people and an appropriate alternative punishment. I think it also gives the victim(s) what they really want, justice they and everyone else passing by can see, and good potential for them to not be a victim again by others seeing what could happen to them. As a matter of a hypothetical punishment, I think public flogging would go too far. It seems to work in Singapore though. You rarely see a bit of trash intentionally thrown on the gound, no graffiti, and other petty crimes and even lower level felonies are rare because of the tough stance and public floggings in Singapore.

When caught for, and convicted of, petty crimes (petty thefts/vandalism/misdemeanors/etc):

Do you think this is too much, public humiliation goes too far?

Do you think this is a good deterrent to crime in appropriate situations, but it should stop at wearing sandwich boards at the victims location?

Do you think this is a good deterrent to crime in appropriate situations, but they should take it one step further for more heinous petty crimes and have public floggings?

So you had to bump your own worthless thread?

I'm against it because it stands in the way of any possible reintegration.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. It smacks of the "middle-ages".

flog flog flog

Nope.

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 3

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Section 12

Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Article 4
Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I'm not alone on the matter.

Nope.

I'm not alone on the matter.

I wouldn't call asking a woman to hold a sign saying what she did to break the law excessive. And it means that taxpayers don't have to pay for her to do jail-time (and she doesn't have to do jail time), nor does she have to pay a big fine. I'd say she got the good end of the deal.

Well, I'd have to say it is rather Puritanical.

Shall we have unwed mothers wear a scarlet A?
Force students to stand in the corner and wear a dunce cap?
Perhaps we should tattoo "graffitti writer" across one's forehead?


I think that public humiliation, at least in the US, is where it belongs -- in the past. If you feel you need to revisit it, may I suggest Williamsburg, VA -- where they'll let you out of the stocks after you've had your picture taken.

Hmm, well, all those quotes hinge on judicial interpretation as far as I can see.
In Ireland we have a limited system of public shaming.
Serious tax defaulters who fail to avail of amnesties are named by the Revenue Service in the National papers, people prosecuted of littering are named in their local papers and I thin there are a couple of others. Public dumping maybe.
I'd advocate a widening of this system combined with the existing fine system for misdemeanours. Jail term for some crimes is simply too harsh and I dont beleive it helps in most.
The nof course, the majority of criminal elements are not going to be fazed by seeing their name in the paper.
I'd also like to see a public works program, not for profit, I think thats outlawed by one of the Geneva conventions, but on public amenities, parks and the like, maybe building follies in tourist regions and the like. ~(folly isnt neccecarily negative in this sense, I simply mean purposeless things, not quite monuments, eye catchers if you will.....)

As for phsical chastisement, I dont think it would do any good in most cases and thats the only reason Im against it.
Fine a person and he might be annoyed, but beat someone and theyll be pissed big time. Would probably only encourage further crime especially in youths.

Well, while I agree with the idea of public humiliation as a form of punishment (so what if it was used in the middle ages? Just because it was used in an older time period doesn't mean it's not good nowadays as well), it IS in the U.S constitution to forbid "degrading" punishments, and while I would normally agree completely with the punishment, this sort of thing does go against the constitution. I personally think the constitution is wrong in that, but I suppose since I live here I kind of have to accept it, until it is changed (I wish).

To sum it up, she shouldn't have had to do that, but I think public humiliation is a good form of punishment.

I wouldn't call asking a woman to hold a sign saying what she did to break the law excessive. And it means that taxpayers don't have to pay for her to do jail-time (and she doesn't have to do jail time), nor does she have to pay a big fine. I'd say she got the good end of the deal.

Nobody said excessive. They said:

a) cruel
b) unusual
c) degrading

I think it can at least qualify as the last two. Quite frankly, the idea of a woman doing jail time for stealing less than 5 dollars in gas would be ludicrous anyways. Fine her and release her.

Hmm, well, all those quotes hinge on judicial interpretation as far as I can see.

Yes, that's true. Still, I don't really much care for judges using creativity when sentencing, particularly if it skirts the lines of cruel, unusual, or degrading. I'd rather they stick to the plain and simple: fines, community service, probation, or jail time. But that's just me.

We need to give 200 lashes for murder, 150 for rape, 100 for theft, 200 for armed robbery, for mutiple murders 200 plus 100 for every person killed, and just like the stocks for less serious crimes. And it should be carried out right after they are convicted.

I think that public humiliation, at least in the US, is where it belongs -- in the past. If you feel you need to revisit it, may I suggest Williamsburg, VA -- where they'll let you out of the stocks after you've had your picture taken.
Haha, I did that as a little kid. I'm sure my mom has the photos around here somewhere.

I regret not living in the era of tarring and feathering. What a great punishment that was! I think we should bring back tarring and feathering!

Nobody said excessive. They said:

a) cruel
b) unusual
c) degrading

I think it can at least qualify as the last two. Quite frankly, the idea of a woman doing jail time for stealing less than 5 dollars in gas would be ludicrous anyways. Fine her and release her.

I think that the first is the most important, and the courts as a whole have agreed. This punishment was most certainly not cruel. Unusual? Maybe, but generally, if it fits the crime, it holds up to any appeals. Degrading? Only if she feels bad about it. I mean, kids call each other gay in an attempt to degrade each other, but if you call a homosexual gay, they'll probably say "Yup."

The punishment should fit the crime.

The punishment should fit the crime.

Agreed. =)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/07/31/sign.of.shame.ap/vert.sign.ap.jpg

She doesn't look too embarrassed ...

Personally, I find it silly.

For those who say "the punishment should fit the crime" (eye for an eye and all that rot), she stole a small amount of gasoline. She did not publicly humiliate anyone, hence, her punishment does not fit her crime.

I think that the first is the most important, and the courts as a whole have agreed. This punishment was most certainly not cruel. Unusual? Maybe, but generally, if it fits the crime, it holds up to any appeals. Degrading? Only if she feels bad about it. I mean, kids call each other gay in an attempt to degrade each other, but if you call a homosexual gay, they'll probably say "Yup."

I'll address the last part first, just to be confusing. There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay. Hence, you should never be offended by it. The logic of using gay as an insult is only works against those who dislike/hate homosexuals.

Being forced to wear a sign that tells everyone you are a thief should be considered humiliating for anyone. Unlike being gay, there is something inherently wrong with being a thief.

Cruel is in no way more important than unusual or degrading, regardless of what a court may or may not feel on the matter. And even if one accepts that cruel is more important, the other two are still just as unacceptable. Murder may be viewed as worse than assault, but that doesn't mean assault should be disregarded because of it.

The fact remains, the sole purpose of the punishment was humiliation - which is a type of degradation. It was in fact unusual, as I'm sure you'd find by looking at legal records. Compare how many thieves are forced to wear signs versus how many paid a fine or went to jail. Unusual is just "Not usual or common or ordinary" and "Being definitely out of the ordinary and unexpected; slightly odd or even a bit weird". I think we can safely say this punishment falls under those terms.

I'll address the last part first, just to be confusing. There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay. Hence, you should never be offended by it. The logic of using gay as an insult is only works against those who dislike/hate homosexuals.

Being forced to wear a sign that tells everyone you are a thief should be considered humiliating for anyone. Unlike being gay, there is something inherently wrong with being a thief.

Cruel is in no way more important than unusual or degrading, regardless of what a court may or may not feel on the matter. And even if one accepts that cruel is more important, the other two are still just as unacceptable. Murder may be viewed as worse than assault, but that doesn't mean assault should be disregarded because of it.

The fact remains, the sole purpose of the punishment was humiliation - which is a type of degradation. It was in fact unusual, as I'm sure you'd find by looking at legal records. Compare how many thieves are forced to wear signs versus how many paid a fine or went to jail. Unusual is just "Not usual or common or ordinary" and "Being definitely out of the ordinary and unexpected; slightly odd or even a bit weird". I think we can safely say this punishment falls under those terms.

Out of curiosity, do you also have a problem with listing the names and pictures of dead-beat dads in newspapers? Or the fact that sex offenders are legally required to go around their neighboorhood and tell each neighboor that they are a registered sex offender?

On the unusual debate, anything is unusual the first time it is tried - that doesn't make it bad. For that reason, I think something must also be cruel to be ruled as a bad punishment.

As for degrading, I would argue that she degraded herself when she stole the gas, but wearing the sign is not, in itself, degrading. It is public announcement of what she did. Anyone who wanted to go digging through public records could find it out. If it turns out to be an effective deterrent, I'm all for it.

But all of this is just opinion of course.

Out of curiosity, do you also have a problem with listing the names and pictures of dead-beat dads in newspapers? Or the fact that sex offenders are legally required to go around their neighboorhood and tell each neighboor that they are a registered sex offender?

Yes, and yes. I believe for the latter that a legal record should be kept, which is accessible by anyone. For example, when renting a home, the landlord should be able to check my name and see if I'm a sex offender. Likewise, an employer or even just someone I'm dating should have the same right.

However, publicly broadcasting the matter to complete strangers goes beyond what is needed (in my opinion). It only serves to prevent any rehabilitation.

Yes, and yes. I believe for the latter that a legal record should be kept, which is accessible by anyone. For example, when renting a home, the landlord should be able to check my name and see if I'm a sex offender. Likewise, an employer or even just someone I'm dating should have the same right.

However, publicly broadcasting the matter to complete strangers goes beyond what is needed (in my opinion). It only serves to prevent any rehabilitation.

Well, at least you are consistent. That's more than I can say for most of the people on this forum I disagree with. I will have to, though, respectfully disagree. I think punishments like this are more likely to rehabilitative, especially if the person in question is young.

Deadbeat parents are more likely to pay up if the community is pressing them, rather than just the ex-spouse they probably hate.

To me, the issue of sex offenders goes beyond whether or not the landlord knows. A parent with a child who lives next door and doesn't even know the offender's name has a right to know that this might be a person they should keep their kids away from.

And if someone commits a petty crime and gets a simple slap on the wrist and a fine, they are much more likely to try it again than if they think others already know what they did.


As a side note: I only know one person who has to go around and tell his neighboors that he's a sex offender. He actually gets a kick out of it because he never tells people why he is registered and lets them wonder. He also says it keeps his property taxes down. ((Before people start screaming, he's not a *real* sex offender. He got labeled as such for selling legal comics that were ruled as not being lewd to a person who was not under 18))

Well, at least you are consistent. That's more than I can say for most of the people on this forum I disagree with. I will have to, though, respectfully disagree. I think punishments like this are more likely to rehabilitative, especially if the person in question is young.

I don't know how you are defining rehabilitive, but there are two parts as I see it:

1) Learning from the mistake of [crime here], and reaching the point of longer doing so in the future

2) Reintegrating in to society as a normal and functional member

If you are required to broadcast your crimes, the second is impossible with the bias shown by society. Many people will never forgive, it's simply not in their nature. Others will forgive, but only after such a long point that rehabilitation just isn't worth the bother.

Let's be realistic - if people are going to treat you like a criminal even after you've reformed, why bother reforming at all? It's just as easy to become a criminal permanently, since that's how people some people will always label you regardless.

Deadbeat parents are more likely to pay up if the community is pressing them, rather than just the ex-spouse they probably hate.

I don't see it as societies business to be tracking down and harassing dead beat fathers. It sounds more like a call for a public lynching than anything else. It's not to difficult to track a dead beat father, if they ever use a credit car, driver's license, try to rent a house, try to buy a car, and countless other examples - they're instantly giving away who they are, and where they are.

To me, the issue of sex offenders goes beyond whether or not the landlord knows. A parent with a child who lives next door and doesn't even know the offender's name has a right to know that this might be a person they should keep their kids away from.

You're basically saying they (possibly) haven't reformed, and in the event of any doubt they should never have been released. If they are reformed, they are no different than anyone else, and should be treated as such. If they aren't reformed, or if there is doubt, they have no business being released.

And if someone commits a petty crime and gets a simple slap on the wrist and a fine, they are much more likely to try it again than if they think others already know what they did.

This comes back mainly to the first point - as long as the public is aware of their crime, they'll always be treated differently. They'll never truly reintegrate, and it defeats any point in trying.

Beyond that, it's no business of anyone other than the victim. If a person steals a candy bar from a store, that is the sole problem of the store and the thief. The guy down the street, the local bus driver, the waitress at the coffee house, none of them have any inherent involvement in the matter. Broadcasting it causes more harm than good.

As a side note: I only know one person who has to go around and tell his neighboors that he's a sex offender. He actually gets a kick out of it because he never tells people why he is registered and lets them wonder. He also says it keeps his property taxes down. ((Before people start screaming, he's not a *real* sex offender. He got labeled as such for selling legal comics that were ruled as not being lewd to a person who was not under 18))

I'm thrilled that your friend finds being a sex offender amusing, but I doubt the people he is telling do. I'd be surprised if any of them would let them near their children, want him living near them, or would employ him.

But, it's largely a matter of opinion, as I'm sure everyone is aware of. In this case we can only agree to disagree.

Yeah, well, we're not talking about stocks and dunking witches here. Wearing the "Scarlet A" and the like is not necessarily a bad thing, the reasons for it could be though. Punishment fitting the crime has a very broad analogy to it. What would we have the justice system do... steal the gas back from the petty thief who stole it in the first place? Make her bring it back? Perhaps sentencing her to cleaning the gas station bathrooms and toilets (*yuck*) would be appropriate. I bet the minimum wage earning clerk would love that.

I think the motive of using Public Shaming as an alternative to other traditional punishments for petty crimes (ie: picking up trash on the freeway, public service, etc), is to appeal to the conscience of the convicted, and potential would be petty criminals passing-by. Too many people who commit crimes have no conscience though, and they could see it as just a day out in the sun, garnering lots of attention, which in some cases is all they really wanted. Sometimes, making an example of one for the benefit of the many is what punishment is all about, aside from the obvious of making the convicted pay for their indiscretions and making sure the victim gets some sort of satisfaction. After all, the victim is truly the one who should be left feeling justice has been done, not the court or the general public, unless the crime is against the public (graffiti vandalism, etc). Unfortunately, not all victims are rational human beings and their form of justice for something as small as a petty theft could include cutting off the convicted criminals hands, or some such thing (sound familiar?).

Personally, I think sentencing someone to Publice Service of some sort is a far better punishment than anything used, under the right circumstances. Sentencing to some reasonable amount of hours performing public service gets some work done, and hopefully helps the convicted see the error of their ways. Perhaps, if the convicted criminal has a conscience to begin with, Public Service sentencing to non-profit charities would be the ideal sentencing. They could feel good about themselves and maybe see that what they have could be far more than what many others don't have. But, too many charities are religion oriented or affiliated, and we have to maintain separation of church and state... and all that jazz.

Inflicting pain, such as in Public Flogging, is just too much. As a child, corporal punishment is allowed and has it's usefulness, and it should be used, when used sparingly and appropriately (i'm kind of a "spare the rod, spoil the child" kind of person... except for literal "spoiling" of a child). Corporal Punishment of an adult in a free society, would be counter-productive in a free society. I could see it driving people to demonstrate and rail against the government to a degree that would make the whole current anti-Bush/ anti-America fad look like a grocery store clerk union strike.

But then again, who'd have to worry about any potential for Public Shaming or Public Flogging, but those that are criminals or would be criminals?

I'm thrilled that your friend finds being a sex offender amusing, but I doubt the people he is telling do. I'd be surprised if any of them would let them near their children, want him living near them, or would employ him.

It's not that he "finds being a sex offender amusing." It's that he is actually *not* a sex offender and figures that if the state is going to give him a false title, he may as well laugh at it. Not much else he can do, really, so he looks for whatever good there may be in it.

But, it's largely a matter of opinion, as I'm sure everyone is aware of. In this case we can only agree to disagree.

Yes, it is (the whether or not wearing a sign is an appropriate punishment thing) and I appreciate you being a polite debater.

I don't know what I did to piss you off in the other thread, or if you are just sick of the conversation in general, though. You kind of came in there yelling and screaming and completely ignored both what you said and what I said. Perhaps sometime we should try again?

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/07/31/sign.of.shame.ap/vert.sign.ap.jpg
she stole a small amount of gasoline...... her punishment does not fit her crime.What punishement fits the crime of stealing Gasoline???

What punishement fits the crime of stealing Gasoline???

If this was a Muslim country in a Muslim region of the world, perhaps her hand or hands would be cut off. Maybe they'd douse her in 5 bucks worth of gasoline and light her up.

Here, in America, the usual punishment is/was, "Okay, plead guilty and pay a fine. You'll be on summary probation for a couple of years but you won't have to report to anybody. We'd rather save the time and the money of an already clogged court system... so take the sweetheart deal. Oh yeah, don't do that again *slap wrist*".

Seriously, she should be sentenced to cleaning the service station toilets and the rest of the victim's place of business for a whole weekend. And she should have to do an acceptable job too, letting the victim decide what is 'acceptable'. Otherwise, shaming her isn't going to matter. She could care less, obviously, look at her. Hell, she showed up an hour and a half late. She should have received an extra day.

Seriously, she should be sentenced to cleaning the service station toilets and the rest of the victim's place of business for a whole weekend. And she should have to do an acceptable job too.I agree...100%