Read the news articles below, then post a response to the discussion prompt.
• Justice as a Morality Play That Ends With Shame (New York Times)
• Shame on You (Washington Post)
What is your position on the role of public humiliation as punishment in the criminal justice system today? Is it appropriate? Is it effective? Support your view with appropriate evidence.
The deadline for posting is 11:59p on Wednesday, April 9th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
In cases of safety, such with the sex offenders in Corpus Christi and Megan’s Law, humiliation is a small price to pay when attempting to keep the public aware of dangerous criminals. This does not mean that humiliation is the most effective way to punish a criminal, especially when it is the only sentence being applied. It is said that public shaming is often offered as an alternative to a more severe punishment, leading one to wonder if more harm than good will come out of keeping a criminal out of jail, or sending an addict to church instead of counseling. Or, in cases like that of Shawn Gementera, humiliation for a petty crime becomes not remorse for the action but anger towards the system. Also, as shown with Hester in The Scarlet Letter, the offender may not even see themselves as guilty after the ridicule.
-Henrietta
I agree with Henrietta in her observation that humiliation is acceptable in the name of public safety and that shame cannot act as a punishment on its own. The court cases described in the two articles show that when judges are given too much freedom in their rulings, they can easily apply their personal beliefs in the name of justice. For example, Judge Michael Caperton allowed drug and alcohol abusers to go to 10 church services in replace of drug and alcohol counseling. These people are being subjugated to the judge’s religious beliefs and in the end they are not helped in their real problem—the alcohol and drug problems were never resolved. Soon, the people will probably return to the alcohol and drugs and nothing was accomplished. -Susannah
I completely agree with Susannah's point that the crime should fit the punishment - not be tailored to the judge's religious beliefs. I have never associated this unusual punishment with the dispute between religion and state. These forms of punishment are an example of something that seems like a great idea in principle but is filled with flaws that are nearly impossible to monitor. Take Judge Joe Brown for instance; his unorthodox approach towards burglars may leave them with malice towards the judicial system, and may even leave their victims with remorse for their actions
I am most dissuaded from these unorthodox punishments when I hear of judges offering criminals the opportunity to go to church in lieu of serving prison or jail time – some people may just shrug it off and ignore the preacher’s sermon. To me, this is a prime example of why religion and state should be separated – the justice delivered is not agreed upon by everyone. For now, the justice department should settle for allowing prisons to serve as the dreaded underworld of society.
-Aaron
I think Henrietta has a strong point in saying that the humiliation of the punishment may turn the perpetrator’s focus away from his/her own wrongdoing and instead cause them to resent the judicial system. Public humiliation is a powerful tool, but must be used very carefully. For many people the public’s opinion is important, making humiliation an effective punishment. However, like Susannah points out, the vagueness of type of punishment allows judge’s biases and whims to rule the courtroom. The perpetrator is now subject not only to the law but to the mood swings of the judge.
For public humiliation to become an acceptable form of punishment, regulations must be imposed. Sign-displaying seems an acceptable punishment, but church-attendance and donations are not. Also, Turley points out that if humiliation sentences are widespread, the punishment becomes less humiliating. Thus, perhaps there should be a limit on the number of such sentences allowed. Finally, more typical punishments must be preserved, especially in cases where it would be ineffective due to the severity of the crime (ex. murder) or the personality of the perpetrator (for instance people with antisocial personality disorder do not care what others think).
-Jule
I agree with Jule’s point above the regulations for these punishments by humiliation should be regulated to some extent. Megan’s Law provides an online database that gives the address and basic information on sex offenders. Before accessing the database users must agree to not ‘misuse’ the information. However, people have used the information to harass and drive people out of neighborhoods, which raises the question at what point has the person been humiliated enough and can be allowed to continue on with their life if at all? The crime itself should be examined before these punishments are imposed. In the book Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo, the main character Jean Valjean, must carry papers with him at all times to mark him as a thief and inform the local police of his presence in town causing people to ostracize him. However, his crime was committed in desperation, to feed his starving family. Not to say that every criminal has a good and just excuse for committing a crime, quite the opposite in fact, but sometimes it may be necessary to examine the person’s situation and fix the root of the problem instead of breeding resentment with over the top punishments.
-Stephanie
I believe Stephanie makes an excellent point when she says that, “sometimes it may be necessary to examine the person’s situation and fix the root of the problem instead of breeding resentment.” I am sure that many of the judges mentioned in the two articles feel that simple confinement cannot serve as a panacea for every case and that a closer examination of the roots will lead to a better, sometimes novel, cure. No two crimes are the same, and, as Stephanie also points out, in some cases the culprit is not as guilty as it appears at first glance. As a result no two punishments should be the same. Everyone reaps the benefits when judges remove their blindfolds, so they may better examine the crime, the culprit, and the cause, and choose the best way to prevent such an occurrence from ever happening again, even if it means straying beyond the normal limits of our legal system.
-Galen
Aaron raises an excellent point in his discussion of the religious beliefs underlying public humiliation sentences. Judges who decide sentences based upon personal religious beliefs are violating the separation of church and state. Because humiliation is such a dubious sentence that has come under attack from so many angles, I believe it should not be used as a court sentence except in the most minor cases. One point that the articles do not even raise is the effectiveness of publicly humiliating people: for instance, do more people who have been sentenced to public shaming return to crime than people who are fined or jailed? Shame-based punishment is probably not used widely enough in order for a study of its effectiveness to be conducted, so it remains difficult to justify the use of humiliation instead of a more traditional sentence.
-Dan N.
I also agree with Aaron's point that by making sentences based on religious belief, some judges are going against the constitution. I also agree with Stephanie, however, that some of the judges sentences could be more constructive than simple jail time. I was also confused about the argument that the articles made that sentences need to be universal otherwise they are being unfair. While I agree that it makes practical sense to have a universal punishment system, I don't believe that it would be a horrible infringement upon American rights. In terms of using shame-based punishments, I agree with Daniel, that they have not proven to be effective at all, let alone more effective than jail time. It appears to me that many of these sentences represent judges almost childlike annoyance with people who refuse to respect the court, or the law it upholds.
- Jeremy
I agree with Galen and Stephanie’s points that there is value in examining individual crimes; administering a jail sentence for any crime done would be over-simplified. However, I also believe that there should be limits to the way in which a judge forms an individualized punishment. Turley points out that inconsistency in the law system breeds the risk that “citizens will be increasingly uncertain about the consequences of their actions.” This uncertainty could mean that criminals would feel less threatened by the law. I was especially convinced with Turley’s example of the judge that excused a seven year sentence for a cocaine dealer, and instead made him buy a casket to keep in his house. If cocaine dealers thought that their punishment would merely be to buy a casket, I doubt the punishment of the law would have much effect on them. Thus, perhaps judges could combine the severity of jail sentences with more individualized punishments so that consistency could remain in the law system.
-Emily
(To clarify and to respond more directly to the prompt given: by saying "individualized punishments," I mean that to include public humiliation as a punishment)
-Emily
Not to sound too contrary, but I'm going to go ahead and disagree with pretty much everyone in that I don't think it is justifiable to use public humiliation and shame as punishments for criminals for any instance. I fully agree with the point Turley made, that humiliation punishments simply reflect the judge's own personal beliefs, with little regard to established legal practice. Though Stephanie and Galen make an interesting point about the uniqueness of every crime, personalized justice is impossible, because there is no way to ensure an objective, consistent assessment. What some judges find less drastic, other judges may think is the sign of a hardened criminal, and such a situation could quickly lead to potential racism and prejudiced decisions far more easily than standard punishments for a given crime.
To actually agree with someone, I would agree with Aaron that the example about attending church was the most offensive. To me, at least, it seems a blatant denial of the separation of church and state, and, in that sense, rather offensive to me democratic principles.
I, along with Galen, strongly agree with Stephanie's point that it is necessary to look at a criminal's personal situation to fix his or her problem; otherwise, all that results is a "breeding [of] resentment." In general, I feel that using public humiliation as means of punishment is completely wrong and serves no purpose other than the obvious shame placed upon the criminal receiving the punishment. The basic purpose of punishment in the justice system is to "scold" whomever committed the crime but also to integrate them back into society by showing him or her the benefits of living by the law. To make the children who broke into the school wear signs stating "I AM A JUVENILE CRIMINAL," as described in Turley's article, only isolates these children further from society and does not show them why or how to live crime-free. Criminals deserve to be punished and taught a lesson for the crimes they commit, but public humiliation only fuels more feelings of resentment from the criminal to society and does not teach them how to be better citizens.
-Dan F.
I agree with Ben that using public humiliation as a punishment is unjustifiable because the question of using this punishment lies on the line of morality. Not only is this system arbitrary because the question of one’s action is based on the judges’ view of morality, but it is also against the Constitution, as Turley pointed out. Even though people seem to think that the punishment is unusual but not cruel, it might seem cruel to the person carrying out the punishment. The law definite for each crime, and if the judges sentence the convicted based on their moral views, it would not be fair for the convicted; it would also would corrupt the judicial system because the judges would not be able to stay consistent to each other’s view on the punishments. In addition to breaking the Constitution, using public humiliation and shame would encourage people to commit crimes because some people would not be affected by such punishments, like Jule stated.
~Mary
I agree with Dan F in that with many cases, public humiliation will defeat the purpose the judicial system and further isolate criminals from society. When the two teens were sentenced to carry a sign saying “Sorry for the Jackass Offence” as they marched through town with a donkey, the intention seemed more for the town’s amusement. Our goal should be to help convicts recognize and acknowledge their crimes, find a way to give back to the community, and then assimilate back into society. I believe that people use public humiliation because of the ineffectiveness of jail time. As Susannah and others have stated, the punishment should be molded to fit the crime. In some cases, certain forms of public humiliation may be appropriate. When the abusive father slept in the doghouse, it forced him to be in the position that he put his son in. The problem is that it is nearly impossible to create punishments that fit the crime because opinions will vary, and judges can easily abuse their power. Therefore, we should find a way to modify our current system and base sentences on solid foundations without relying on morals.
-ALisha
I agree with Jule’s idea that regulations must be imposed if public humiliation is going to be used as a type of punishment. I also think that public humiliation can vary so radically from case to case that it is too unstable and therefore unfit to be used in the judicial system. Public humiliation can sometimes be seen as more terrifying than a jail sentence in the sense that the unknown (random punishment) is more unfamiliar and would be more preventative, but it seems that many adults and teenagers especially could perhaps thrive on the attention they receive from public humiliation, rather than suffer. For example, the case where two teenagers had to walk a donkey through town could emit the idea that the court system is easing up and in turn make teens less scared of the law and more likely to commit crimes. On the other hand, I do believe that making sex offenders post notices that aware people of their offense is completely fair. This may humiliate the offender but it is more important to keep the public aware and safe.
-Michelle
I, also, do not think it is right to punish criminals with public humiliation. As Dan F. said the main point should be to get the criminals back into society. Michelle points out a good exception for this rule, though, in the case of protecting the public (such as posting lists of sex offenders). The people who are forced to undergo public humiliation have already shown a disregard for what society thinks of them by committing a crime. Crimes are actions that are strongly discouraged in our society and often hurt others. They have already shown a rejection of societal rules so I would question how much effect the judges have in teaching the criminals a lesson by encouraging them to go against societal rules once again. As Jonathan Turley also points out, this type of punishment would be better used by a parent on a young child who is quick to embarrass.
-Zoe
I agree with Emily's point that the uncertainty of punishment might lead to criminals believing that they would get a light sentence for a serious crime. When a judge is sentencing criminals, the punishment is always supposed to be fit to the crime. I disagreed completely with the judge that had the cocaine possessor buy a casket instead of serving time. I do not think that this punishment, or many other of the "creative punishment" examples given, were harsh enough for the crimes committed. One article pointed out that trials themselves are meant to be humiliating. Although a more public humiliation may change the attitudes of the criminals, so can jail time. Punishments with public humiliation may be effective, but they have also led to suicides of sexual predators that may have not been still active and are inappropriate in our government.
-Eliza
I think Ben makes a great point by saying that if judges are allowed to come up with their own “creative” punishments, cases will inevitably contain prejudices and therefore potentially create questionable sentences which may cause further unnecessary conflicts and debates. According to Judge Poe, public humility is an effective way of punishment since “most [people]…care about what people think of [them].” However, like Dan F. said, humiliation “only isolates [people]… further from society and does not show them why or how to live crime-free.” I believe that we should try to solve the problem through positive therapeutic activities rather than to humiliate just for the purpose of punishment.
I have to disagree with those who believe that even a petty crime committed by a younger child can be subjected to public humiliation since humiliation would only teach the child that what he/she did was wrong and therefore he should suffer the consequences. However, the main idea should be to teach the child why it was wrong and again there are definitely better ways of punishment that doesn’t damage a person’s ego and self-esteem.
Also, I’m not quite sure if making sex offenders’ identities known to their whole community like in Corpus Christi was fair or effective; especially since the direct result of the publicity of their crimes was an attempted suicide and eviction from homes as well as vandalized property. Nevertheless, I do agree with Michelle that people should be knowledgeable about the people they interact with; particularly if that person has a dangerously tainted past—for safety’s sake. Then again, I would not consider warning the public about sex offenders or murderers as purposeful public humiliation, but rather cautionary advice.
Whoops, I kind of lost track of how much I wrote...sorry about that.
-Alice
(LD)
Like Jule said earlier, I think the real key here is that the punishments have no legal regulation at this time. Inconsistency in punishment is the real danger, if judges can stray from accepted practices this easily, even stranger punishments could easily develop. Because of the strange punishments judges have been handing out-- Judge Joe Brown’s burglary punishment for example—I think it is time for a stricter look at the way judges are allowed to hand out sentences.
However, back on the topic, I do not believe that public humiliation is an appropriate punishment for almost any crime, simply because I believe it isolates people just like it did to Hester Prynne. By ridiculing one in front of their peers, it destroys their relationships and reputation. This can only breed unhappy social rejects, and this is the type which is likely to commit more crimes. Our justice system is supposed to be about both punishment and rehabilitation; one is useless without the other. As one article mentions, public humiliation is supposed to destroy self esteem, something else that will certainly encourage more crimes. Hester Prynne is a shocking example herself simply because she did not descend farther into sin like most would.
-Tim
Post a Comment