I thought the general point was also obvious, but I’m not sure about the equivalence Chronos was setting up. Yes, every type of punishment is going to have harms (that’s part of the point and it’s not the entirety of the objection to shaming) and those can always be compared and evaluated. The issues here include the proportionality of the harm to the crime, its justness, and its utility.
Confirmation bias, perhaps?
I can tell you confidently that x people have paid traffic fines this day, x being a pretty damn big number, and some of them surely pretty damn big fines.
How does that speak to your assertion that publicity alone about a crime and punishment is sufficient?
Thumbscrews and public whippings? How about a whirlygig?? The rack? Maybe burn a witch or two…or at least see if they float like a duck?? No? Well, it’s not exactly old school…
I don’t know. There, I said it! Tear me a new one!
I’ve long been of he opinion that stocks or pillories should be set up in malls for shoplifters who are caught stealing there.
Nail on the head. The “shaming” punishment is usually offered as an alternative to the traditional punishment. As in, “Your punishment is set at a fine of $500, $80 court costs, and 24 hours in jail. Alternatively, you can wear this sign and stand on a street corner eight hours a day for three days.” They all chose to wear the signs.
For crimes against an individual or business (e.g. assault, shoplifting), I say no. For crimes against the safety of the general public (Driving on the sidewalk to get around a schoolbus :rolleyes: , public drunkeness, etc), I think it’s a great idea.
As opposed to other punishment? Can we take the risk that grounding and forfeiting allowance might also cause emotional damage?
The IMHO thread Why do/did you steal stuff? makes an interesting counterpart to this one. Would some sort of public shaming (the threat of or the experience of) have worked to cure the people in that thread of stealing?
I am a little disappointed in this thread. It seems that there are two minds of thought:
“I think this is horrible because that’s just horrible!” or
“I think it’s great because isn’t that great?”
I honestly am on the fence with this. When I watched the video of the Cleveland woman not answering questions and having people laugh at her and taking pictures, I audibly was thrilled she was going through this.
This woman in her impatience drove on the sidewalk around a school bus! As a parent of a 10-year old who is sometimes on a school bus, I wanted to throttle her. The video of the judge explaining her punishment shows footage from the bus of the woman who clearly put her own expedience ahead of the lives of children.
Yeah, some of my reaction was of the Nelson from The Simpsons “Haha!” variety. While this may not rehabilitate and may not be justice as much as a show for the public and myself to point and laugh… The fact is that the people pointing and laughing might just think twice before doing something stupid, lest they wind up on the other side of the cameras and barbs.
Is it demeaning to the person? Yes, but not unnecessarily so. Paying a fine either hurts only because you cannot afford it or doesn’t if you can. The fact that most people would rather hold a sign for a day or two than be strip-searched and have to sleep in jail for a day or two tells me that among adults, I’m cool with it.
Now, since I based my treatment of adult criminals in part because I have a 10-year old, I can also apply my real life situation as well for kids:
My kid is a thief. My kid is a liar. My kid is sometimes completely out of control - has been suspended from school countless times because he verbally harasses and threatens teachers. And as he gets older, it’s getting worse.
(Please, let’s not comment on my specific situation: My son is in weekly therapy and on meds and has been for several years. We don’t need an intervention. All of the numerous people at school and in therapy he has seen have no questions we are doing the best we can for our child and his issues. IOW: We’re fine.)
So a part of me wants to put a sign around his neck and embarrass the hell out of him because we have tried everything else! Maybe this will be the punishment that finally helps turn him around when nothing else would!
Of course, another part of me realizes that it might be bad for our son to be publicly shamed and embarrassed. He’s got a lot of problems. Many of them will not go away even as he gets older and all we can hope to do is manage them so he can be a functional adult. The thought of making his burden greater paralyzes me with fear.
So I started this thread looking for answers. I’m not getting any, or at least anything with substantive reasoning behind it besides conjectures based on personal biases.
Is there any evidence that public shaming actually does rehabilitate or deter others from doing bad things? Is there any evidence that public shaming has long-term psychological effects which outweigh any benefit that might exist?
I see lots of arguments from emotion, and that’s fine. That’s important. But I see precious little science. And to me anyway, that’s more important. Especially when we are trying to figure out the best ways to protect a 10-year old from an asshole driver, or to prevent a 10-year old from growing up to be an asshole.
Well, we have mostly decided (on this board at least) that spanking does.
The problem I have with it is that, when people are given permission to shame, they almost always take it to the nth degree. Shame in and of itself is a good thing, but what happens when people are told shaming is necessary is that they become absolute assholes. Even if the punishment works, you have to balance it with the damage encouraging such assholishness does to society.
Sure, these people did choose this punishment. They clearly thought it was worth it not to pay the fine or do the jail time. But should they get to decide?
Well then, people who overdo it should be shamed!
Meta-shaming!
I think there’s some truth to the idea of using social pressure. Think of normal people who, say, drive at a speed or in a way they know is dangerous. That’s probably because, even if they get a big fine or points on their license, they expect that to be accepted as normal middle class behaviour. If there was a ritual humiliation, even quite a mild one, people would probably not. In a way, social pressure (from your genuine peers) can be stronger than quite serious threats.
But I think it should be systematic and fair. I think asking random Joe Parent or Susan Judge to judge what’s an effective deterrent is likely to lead to them more taking out their frustration on the perpetrator because they can, even if they don’t mean to.
I also think that standing with a pig and a sign saying “this is not a police officer” is likely to lead to you getting arrested 
Thank you so much for this thread. I was going to post a similar one, but with regard to the Gawker (?) outing of the Reddit (?) upskirter and anti Obama “nigger” tweets teens.
Personally I feel that freedom of speech means that objection to speech should remain proportional to and within the original context of the offending speech.
Major blogs should not be outing the personal information of trollers on specific websites unless they breach the context if that site, and should never out the personal information of underage trollers, except to their parents or guardians.
There are only a limited number of behavioral “handles” that can be used to alter antisocial behavior.
This one is cheap, and does no measurable harm.
Sounds good.
It’s a good idea and we need more of it.
For one thing, it keeps petty criminals out of the justice system. Ted Poe used to hand out sentences like that when he was a judge here in Houston and he had a very low recidivism rate.
For parents to do it, it can keep their kid out of the justice system altogether by teaching them a basic principle: actions have consequences.