Is it time to bring out the "stocks"/bring back public shaming?

[s_stabeler]

as for domestic abuse, the cause is usually a combination of entitlement ( you'll find that most people that beat their spouse do it because they believe their spouse isn't treating them as they should- and that violence is the answer) and bigotry (they usually see their spouse as lesser than them) address the bigotry( and the reliance on violence, and preferably the entitlement) and you should be able to prevent them re-offending. NOTE- I am NOT saying it justifies punching your spouse. I am merely explaining how these people think.

as for curing someone of taking something that isn't theirs, I suspect their mentality is "I want that, so it's mine"- address that ( I don't personally know how) and it should stop.

Also, my point is that caning- and corporal punishment in general- is not the right response.


In fact, the case cited in this thread ( Michael Fay) is actually an example of one of the issues with corporal punishment- Originally, the law was for caning when it's graffiti by an INDELIBLE substance. Fay keyed cars. Not the same thing. ( indeed, the law in question is an example- it was brought in to combat political graffiti) And the judge extended it, presumably because the judge thought that Fay "needed a good thrashing"- Note how the motivation is actually similar to that of a wife beater? The simple fact is that punishments like caning tend to be extended to cover more and more offences- to the point that with situations like this, you risk getting more serious crime, because it isn't actually punished much worse.

Not to mention, in Fay's case, he pled guilty because it was promised he wouldn't be caned- apparently they lied.

Oh, I'm not saying he wasn't screwed up- he apparently became a drug addict when he returned to the US, and has been in and out of trouble with the law- but caning him was overly harsh.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, I'm not saying he wasn't screwed up- he apparently became a drug addict when he returned to the US, and has been in and out of trouble with the law- but caning him was overly harsh.

One has to wonder how much being coerced into copping to something he claims he didn't do to avoid the corporal punishment and then having the authorities do that very thing to him contributed to his decline.

Also, the fact that you can get people to admit to things they didn't do to get out of harsh punishment is a mark against it as well.

[mjr]

as for domestic abuse, the cause is usually a combination of entitlement ( you'll find that most people that beat their spouse do it because they believe their spouse isn't treating them as they should- and that violence is the answer) and bigotry (they usually see their spouse as lesser than them) address the bigotry( and the reliance on violence, and preferably the entitlement) and you should be able to prevent them re-offending. NOTE- I am NOT saying it justifies punching your spouse. I am merely explaining how these people think.

as for curing someone of taking something that isn't theirs, I suspect their mentality is "I want that, so it's mine"- address that ( I don't personally know how) and it should stop.

You make valid points here. But don't you think that the "shaming" (as it were) of maybe wearing a sandwich board for a few days (maybe on a busy street corner) could also teach a very valuable lesson, and possibly act as a deterrent?

I mean, in a domestic dispute where a guy beats the crap out of his girlfriend/wife, do you think making him stand on a busy corner wearing a sandwich board that reads "I beat up my girlfriend/wife" (or something along those lines), might make the guy think twice next time?

It's not corporal punishment.

Same with the thief with the stealing of presents. Do you think they'd steal again if they had to wear a sign (before their jail term) that read: "I stole people's Christmas presents" on it for a week or so?

[Gravekeeper]

No, but you can make it very undesirable to partake in that activity.

But here is the problem: We have thousands of years of human history that prove without a shadow of a doubt that regardless of how creative or horrific a punishment is it has never actually resulted in the elimination of the crime.

The mistake you continue to make here is applying the deterrent to the standard of a moral person without any problems ( be they mental, physical, social, emotional or economic ). But for that type of person the existing deterrents are already sufficient.

For the type of person who commits the sort of crimes we're talking about public shaming is no more of a deterrent than prison is. If not less than one. Making someone who beat the crap out of his partner stand on a corner with a sign accomplishes nothing. Why? Because if he is beating the crap out of his partner he has far more deep rooted problems that are not going to be fixed by a cardboard sign.

If thinking about how his actions would be perceived in public was part of his thought process he would likely wouldn't be beating the crap out of his partner to begin with. He's beating the crap out of his partner because he has anger or control issues, because he's mentally or emotionally disturbed, because he's a sociopath, etc etc etc. None of these issues is going to be fixed by putting him on a street corner with a sign.

The entire basis of public shaming relies on the person actually having shame in the first place. And if they DO have shame to exploit chances are the motives for their crimes ( and indeed most crimes ) are related to mental, physical or socioeconomic factors. All of which are much deeper issues that they need serious help for. Not just another method of satisfying the public's need for punishment or vengeance.

Which is all, ultimately, that corporeal punishment, shaming, etc do. They are satisfying you the general public, not addressing the problems behind the crime.

And that is why we still have wide spread crime. We are not interested in the factors that created it. Only punishing the end result to satisfy our own need for retribution. We lock people up without asking how they ended up here to begin with so all that results is once we let them go they fall back into whatever got them there in the first place. Then we lock them back up again. We're not actually accomplishing our stated goal: Crime prevention. We are only reacting to it.

We have decades if not over a century of research telling us the factors that lead to increased crime rates. But little increased in addressing those factors. Addressing those factors would require us to take an even higher moral standard and understanding that most of us don't seem too interested in. This is especially and painfully true in the US where the prison complex is actually for profit instead of punishment or rehabilitation.

[Andara Bledin]

We have decades if not over a century of research telling us the factors that lead to increased crime rates. But little increased in addressing those factors. Addressing those factors would require us to take an even higher moral standard and understanding that most of us don't seem too interested in. This is especially and painfully true in the US where the prison complex is actually for profit instead of punishment or rehabilitation.

Precisely.

/thread

[Canarr]

I think all three of them should be put in the stocks. With a bucket of rotten tomatoes nearby. A few hours a day, for a couple of weeks ought to do it. Then maybe some jail time after that.

At the very least, they should be made to give in-person, televised public apologies to the people from whom they stole, before given jail time.

Honestly, in cases like these, I'm not against public shaming. But what say you? Is that cruel?

Excellent points have already been made about the uselessness of such an attempt at public shaming; GK basicallly said all that needs to be said about the general aspect of such punishments.

For myself, I have to say I don't get the outrage in these specific cases. I mean, we're not talking about child molesters, or rapists; we're not even talking about the kind of scum cheating senior citizens out of their meager retirement funds - taking money the victims can't really afford to lose.

We're talking about people stealing Christmas presents - a frickin' iPad, for whatever's sakes. Luxuries, and very probably insured by the delivery company. It's a simple theft - someone stole something that the owner doesn't exactly desparately need. There are laws in place for that, and they generally do reflect the fact that the injury to the victim is somewhat limited.

So: why the outrage? Just because it's Christmas, and Little Johnny isn't going to find the iPad he wanted under the tree?

[s_stabeler]

Excellent points have already been made about the uselessness of such an attempt at public shaming; GK basicallly said all that needs to be said about the general aspect of such punishments.

For myself, I have to say I don't get the outrage in these specific cases. I mean, we're not talking about child molesters, or rapists; we're not even talking about the kind of scum cheating senior citizens out of their meager retirement funds - taking money the victims can't really afford to lose.

We're talking about people stealing Christmas presents - a frickin' iPad, for whatever's sakes. Luxuries, and very probably insured by the delivery company. It's a simple theft - someone stole something that the owner doesn't exactly desparately need. There are laws in place for that, and they generally do reflect the fact that the injury to the victim is somewhat limited.

So: why the outrage? Just because it's Christmas, and Little Johnny isn't going to find the iPad he wanted under the tree?

Especially when you can explain what happened to little Johnny- quite frankly, If I was him, I'd care more about the fact I was getting an iPad than exactly when it turned up.

[Andara Bledin]

And, another aspect to consider, particularly in light of the more barbaric punishments:

How do you take that back when it's discovered that the person who's been punished was actually innocent?

[Gravekeeper]

How do you take that back when it's discovered that the person who's been punished was actually innocent?

Even in the case of public shaming. If they turn out innocent all you've done is foster resentment and strife in the community. Plus, as is often the case when someone is found innocent, law enforcement doesn't go out of its way to admit the person was innocent ( but boy do they play it up when someone is arrested/guilty ). So many people will continue to believe and treat the person that was shamed as if they were guilty.

[BlaqueKatt]

if anyone's interested here's a downloadable PDF from cardozo law review that goes into the history of legal systems(and where it turned from atonement and rehabilitation to vengeance and retribution)

Hint:reading old texts in a vacuum, devoid of historical context or input from those who wrote it(it's 64 pages)

[cindybubbles]

I was going to mention why use stocks when social media would do, but that wouldn't help now, would it?

It seems that when it comes to crime prevention, whether the crime is petty theft or murder, we're too lazy to fix the source of the problems. We would rather put a band-aid on the wound and kiss it better than go to the hospital to get it all stitched up, right?

A recent Salvation Army commercial puts it best: We can make better things (like iPods and tablets), so why can't we make things better (like eliminating poverty and crime, etc.)? Answer: Making things better, like preventing crime, is hard work, and we're just too lazy to do anything about it.

[Gravekeeper]

Making things better, like preventing crime, is hard work, and we're just too lazy to do anything about it.

Hell, its not even that its hard work. It's that is isn't profitable.

[Andara Bledin]

Hell, its not even that its hard work. It's that is isn't profitable.

Actually, it is profitable, just not in the short term.

Every experiment with the idea of a mincome has come out with less poverty, less crime, more industry, and the area in question being improved in pretty much every manner. But the effort it would take to establish such a thing on a national level, even for nations smaller in scope than the US, are so daunting that it never gets past the point of small-scale, short-term trials.

Hell, even a tiny study that gave a handful of homeless people a stack of cash found that the majority of them stopped being homeless and became productive citizens without any other help.

Freakishly enough, the issue of poverty and crime actually can be solved to the extent that crime can ever be solved by simply throwing money at it.

[Gravekeeper]

Right, correction: Its not personally and grossly profitable to the people with the power to do something about it. >.>

[s_stabeler]

that, and people seem to have a fear of something like a minimum income. ( the usual arguments about it causing inflation, or otherwise not working- the only legitimate complaint I've actually heard is that people earning more than minimum didn't also get a pay rise, so they now earned minimum- even then, the complaint is more "now i only earn minimum wage!")