Community payback jackets

[Lace Neil Singer]

Revolt over "community payback" jackets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/30/community-payback-jackets)

An offender's point of view (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/jan/12/community-payback-vests)

Basically, the idea behind these is that if you do community service, you have to wear a bright orange jacket labeling you as an offender. Some people are against them cuz they think that it's like putting offenders in the pillory; others think they'll be worn as a badge of honour.

[Flyndaran]

Revolt over "community payback" jackets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/30/community-payback-jackets)

An offender's point of view (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/jan/12/community-payback-vests)
...

Its point is to humiliate. I simply do not like that form of punishment.

[Greenday]

Its point is to humuliate. I simply do not like that form of punishment.

Quote for truth. Nothing needs to be added.

[BroomJockey]

From the article, they only need to wear them while they're doing the work. I think it's appropriate that they're marked as serving punishment, rather than being humanitarian.

[Flyndaran]

From the article, they only need to wear them while they're doing the work. I think it's appropriate that they're marked as serving punishment, rather than being humanitarian.

It's really important to you what passersby think? What on earth does that have to do with punishment?

[BroomJockey]

It's really important to you what passersby think? What on earth does that have to do with punishment?

Your brain works in odd ways, making many unwarranted assumptions. Did I mention passersby? No. These people need to remember that they fucked up, and that what they're doing is part of the reparations of that act. They are not doing it because they are good people. In fact, they are doing it because society told them they are NOT good people. They need to remember that their actions have consequences, and a visible reminder is often the best way of doing that. Forcing them to acknowledge that they're helping society not through their own choice is fair. With any luck, the smarter ones might take some pride in their accomplishments during their community service, and then become ashamed that they had to do damage to the community before they realized they are a part of that community. Ideally, that's what rehabilitation does - causes someone to realize their past actions were wrong, and not in line with society's expectations. Wearing the jacket reinforces that society is expecting them to contribute. It's psychology and reform. Nothing to do with punishment.

[Flyndaran]

Your brain works in odd ways, making many unwarranted assumptions. Did I mention passersby? No. ...
Um, I would imagine that the workers themselves would already know why they were there. I just assumed that the only people that would need signs to tell them would be the completely ignorant passersby.

Besides, I already know my brain works in odd ways. :)

[Greenday]

Wearing the jacket reinforces that society is expecting them to contribute. It's psychology and reform. Nothing to do with punishment.

So, by going through with public humiliation, they'll suddenly love this system that went above and beyond punishing them?

[BroomJockey]

Um, I would imagine that the workers themselves would already know why they were there.

You underestimate the capacity of a person to either ignore a situation, or self-delude in to thinking they've chosen their situation. Someone doing volunteer work and someone doing community service are identical to outward appearances. They show up on a set schedule, they do specifically assigned tasks, etc. Someone who's doing this can quite easily delude themselves in to thinking they've simply chosen to do this, or at least to go along with it, and therefore it isn't a big deal for them. After all, eventually, outward appearance can change how a person views themselves. Even in short term. It's the source of the phrase "dress for success." It's a lot harder to say to yourself "I'm only doing this because I want to" when you've got a nice orange jacket with "Community service" embroidered on the front.

[Flyndaran]

I just don't agree. I don't think judges should be punishing with some form of psychological warfare. It's humliation, pure and simple.

[BroomJockey]

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

It's not psychological, any more than prison uniforms for people currently in jail are. Those serve simply as a reminder of where a person is and why.

As for humiliation, even if they're working somewhere not visible to the public? Such as maybe repainting a community centre closed for renovations?

I'm sorry, I don't see how this is humiliation. Being forced to walk up and down the street in a sandwich board that reads "I shoplifted from Wal-Mart" is humiliation. Placing stockades on street corners and allowing people to throw refuse would be humiliation. This is a frickin' uniform. You show up, you put on a jacket, you do work, you finish, you turn in the jacket, you leave. If this jacket is humiliation, then any uniform can be humiliation.

[daleduke17]

I just don't agree. I don't think judges should be punishing with some form of psychological warfare. It's humliation, pure and simple.

Do you agree with sex offenders having their name posted on a website for all to know?

[Flyndaran]

...This is a frickin' uniform. You show up, you put on a jacket, you do work, you finish, you turn in the jacket, you leave. If this jacket is humiliation, then any uniform can be humiliation.

I can accept simple functional uniforms. Orange is much safer for workers to wear than street clothes especially when working on roadsides.

Do you agree with sex offenders having their name posted on a website for all to know?

Hell no! Publically funded ostracism and endangerment is abhorent on an ethical as well as functional level. Our justice system is supposedly set up so that it is possible to return to society and live a normal life after finishing your sentence. I don't agree with such life sentences when even murderers can simply go back to their homes.
That's even if everyone didn't screw up the registers so badly.

[AdminAssistant]

Besides, a lot of this work is roadside cleanup and the like, and they have to wear bright orange anyway.

[DesignFox]

Besides, a lot of this work is roadside cleanup and the like, and they have to wear bright orange anyway.

Personally, if I were going through an area, I'd prefer to know if it was prison inmates hanging out by the side of the road as opposed to people just being charitable.

But then again, I suppose the prison inmates would have some sort of uniformed officer nearby, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

*shrug* I don't know. Humiliation has always been a pretty good deterrent for keeping me out of trouble. :o

[Boozy]

Personally, if I were going through an area, I'd prefer to know if it was prison inmates hanging out by the side of the road as opposed to people just being charitable.

But then again, I suppose the prison inmates would have some sort of uniformed officer nearby, so it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

These are not inmates. These are people doing community service. A court has already determined that they are not a danger to society, but they have to repay their debt somehow. These are mostly folks who have been picked up for possession of marijuana, unpaid parking tickets, public drunkenness, etc.

And I have never heard of a uniformed officer being present at community service litter pickups and the like. It's usually just a representative of the court, like a clerk, there to make sure everyone is accounted for and stays the whole time.

[DesignFox]

Oh ok Boozy. I'd say that's a bit different of a situation then.

I don't think it's really necessary to humiliate those people by writing OFFENDER in big letters on their jackets, then. I mean, really, the only reason to do that would be to let other people know that those people aren't out there out of the goodness of their hearts; they are being punished.

But for minor offenses, I don't see the point. Let them serve their time and leave them be. Maybe after a certain point, they WILL do the work for the sake of doing something nice.

[powerboy]

They should have to wear a uniform. It is no different than work uniform.

[Flyndaran]

It seems like people are arguing about separate issues.
Uniforms vs. "humilation jackets", and dangerous criminals vs. minor offense criminals.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Most of these people know about what's in store for them if they break the law, tho. It would be like breaking the speed limit and then whining about how the fine you have to pay, plus the licience penalty points, is degrading. Or even about the article in the paper after the court case where your antisocial behaviour is described. You did the crime, so just suck it up; and be thankful that you're not wearing prison uniform.

[tabbyblack13]

I have no problem with these people wearing the "offender" vests. Its something they should think about before they behave in a way that might get them arrested. Sometimes humiliation is the perfect punishment for a person. A rich person doesn't care about the extra money a ticket will cost them but if someone sees them with that jacket on they will think twice about doing it again.

[Flyndaran]

Speaking as someone with severe anxiety and social phobia, this kind of punishment would NOT have the effect intended.
It would be so grossly unfair as to make me so humiliated as to want to enact revenge against those that did it. It sure as hell wouldn't make me think about my actions. It would have the same effect that torturing me as suspected terrorist would, ie. the exact opposite.

Well, I'm not normal you might say. Yes, I'm not, but I don't think the normal punishments would need as much scrutiny for unfair persecution. I don't think judges should also be experts at psychology. Right now, they sure as heck aren't. They aren't paid to play mind games.

[BroomJockey]

They aren't paid to play mind games.

Again, you say "mind game," I say "uniform."

[Flyndaran]

Again, you say "mind game," I say "uniform."

A uniform is not required to have offender or specific crime listed to be a uniform. A simple orange colored jumpsuit is sufficient with maybe a property of specific police department in small letters.

[BroomJockey]

A uniform is not required to have offender or specific crime listed to be a uniform.

I double-checked the article to be sure, but it doesn't say anywhere on it what crimes have been committed. As for "offender," uniforms are coded to make status levels apparent at a glance. You can tell manager from register jockey. You even have different departments. It's showing your place in the hierarchy of the organization, emblazoned large over your chest. That's what these jackets do, as well. They show someone's place in the hierarchy of the community. And just like a work uniform, you take it off when you're going home. And there is a hierarchy. Until you've paid your debt as handed down by a judge, you're restricted of certain rights and freedoms. That places you lower than someone currently enjoying unfettered rights and freedoms. It's the basic premise of the criminal justice system, otherwise you'd not be able to imprison someone as punishment.

[Flyndaran]

I double-checked the article to be sure, but it doesn't say anywhere on it what crimes have been committed. As for "offender," uniforms are coded to make status levels apparent at a glance. You can tell manager from register jockey. You even have different departments. It's showing your place in the hierarchy of the organization, emblazoned large over your chest. That's what these jackets do, as well. They show someone's place in the hierarchy of the community. And just like a work uniform, you take it off when you're going home. And there is a hierarchy. Until you've paid your debt as handed down by a judge, you're restricted of certain rights and freedoms. That places you lower than someone currently enjoying unfettered rights and freedoms. It's the basic premise of the criminal justice system, otherwise you'd not be able to imprison someone as punishment.

Other than your use of lower which I don't like as sounding too much like a moral judgement, I'm okay with what you wrote.

[BroomJockey]

Other than your use of lower,

Actually, you're right about it being wrong word choice, since I don't think criminals are "less human" or anything like that. It was just the first word that sprang to finger.

[Flyndaran]

Actually, you're right about it being wrong word choice, since I don't think criminals are "less human" or anything like that. It was just the first word that sprang to finger.

I thought as much, but I've been proven wrong so often when assuming..

[Slytovhand]

I'd like to ditto what Lace said... it's another form of punishment, which is put in place as a deterrent. Fines?? Meh, often people don't really care (either, they don't pay them, or they do and whinge and whine and say it's 'wrong'... and don't actually address the behaviour in the first place).

Greenday, I don't see how doing community service is suddenly (or slowly... but let's hope not!) instill in the offender the love of society to the extent that they'll see the light and become all good and recalcitrant.

Some years ago, I did community service (cop reckons I ran a stop sign.. I disagreed, went to court, lost :( note to self: never use the term 'think'... use the term 'know'.. it dispels any possible doubt in the magistrate's mind!) The place I did community service was a volunteer centre which had a lot of service-workers... some even showed up! Bright orange jacket?? Why not? That's what I was there for... so, may as well be honest. Would any there think less of me for it? Probably not... after all, this was a centre for people who were doing it tough.

Not that I read it, but does it anywhere indicate that this is intended as a first time punishment? Or for what sort of 'crimes'? Drunk driving was mentioned... personally - great! They need to be shamed and humiliated!!! (but, that's actually beside the point..).

Flyn, while such a punishment (and let's not forget that this is what it is - a punishment... not a picnic) may not be good for you, the same can be said for virtually any form of judgements... nothing works 100% of the time for 100% of the population.

[Flyndaran]

...
Flyn, while such a punishment (and let's not forget that this is what it is - a punishment... not a picnic) may not be good for you, the same can be said for virtually any form of judgements... nothing works 100% of the time for 100% of the population.

Yeah, I was afraid that my intrerpretation might be too far off the beaten path of viewpoints. My near agoraphobia would also prevent me from breaking such laws in the first place.
Maybe it's also my instinctive distaste for authority that's making me overly critical.

[Peppergirl]

Possibly an 'apples-to-oranges' comparison, but what do you all think of the special plates that DUI offenders have to have in certain states?

Some of us refer to them as 'party plates' here in Ohio. :D

[Flyndaran]

Possibly an 'apples-to-oranges' comparison, but what do you all think of the special plates that DUI offenders have to have in certain states?

Some of us refer to them as 'party plates' here in Ohio. :D

I would rather that they not be allowed to drive at all or at least until they prove that they have successfully stopped drinking.
As a provision of parole I accept some restrictions, but after that, then no, I don't like such labels.

[Boozy]

I asked my husband about the deterrent efect of these jackets. He has a degree in criminology/psychology, so I figured he might have covered this in school to some extent.

Anyway, here's his take: Most criminology studies indicate that public humiliation does not generally have a future deterrent effect on those who are experiencing it. However, it absolutely has a deterrent effect on those who are witnessing it... providing it is done correctly. It's important for witnesses to understand the nature of the person's crime.

For example, let's say I drive by a bunch of people in these community payback jackets picking garbage off the side of the road. I assume that they are there because of drug or prostitution charges, since their jackets don't indicate either way. I think they're a sorry bunch of suckers, then toss my coffee cup out the window and park beside a fire hydrant. However, if their jackets clearly indicated that they were there for littering asnd parking illegally, I probably wouldn't have done those things.

(I'm a real bitch in my example, but I wouldn't really do those things. :))

So there can be a deterrent effect, especially when it comes to the drunk driving plates. Personally I still can't stomach the idea. Deterrence is only one variable when creating a system of justice. Cutting off people's hands for shoplifting would also have a deterrent effect, but it's savage.