I’m watching “Taboo” on the “Nat Geo” channel* and the “Taboo Justice” episode just highlighted a practice in Texas called Shame punishment.
The basic concept is that, in lue of jail time or fines, (or maybe along with, they weren’t clear on that point), the convicted criminal is required to carry a sign or sandwich board which details their crimes, in public areas. Public enough areas that an officer is assigned to them to protect them from being assaulted. According to the show, the recidivism rate of criminals punished this way is 11%, compared to 30% who went through the traditional incarceration system.
Shame is an important mechanism in our society. The threat of shame helps to combat that part of our psyche that seeks to rationalize behavior we know to be immoral. But is deliberately inflicting shame just?
And, I do wonder if this violates the 8th. Doesn’t seem cruel or unusual, but I don’t know the specific legal standards that govern those terms.
Another question might be, is this punishment enough? One man featured on the program killed two people while drunk driving, yet his punishment consisted of carrying a sign advertising it, as well as being forced to carry a picture of the two people killed in his wallet. The family of the two people killed in the accident felt that this was an outrage, which does not seem unreasonable on their part in the slightest.
I look forward to similar progressive innovations in justice, like putting thieves in the stocks and putting the scarlet A on the clothes of adulterers.
That’s kind of how I see it, I just didn’t know if there were any legal precedents regarding the criteria for “cruel and unusual.” They aren’t permanently debilitated by it, and the early numbers show promise.
One issue though, obviously, would be what if the person isn’t ashamed of what they did?
Usually, that won’t be an issue. Usually when these types of punishments are imposed, they’re a requirement of the court in approving a plea agreement, generally as a condition of probation. The fact that the defendent agreed to the punishment to avoid prison severely undercuts the argument that it’s a cruel and unusual punishment, and may act as a bar to his appealing the matter altogether, at least as regards state courts of appeal. In Texas, you waive your right to appeal when you accept a plea agreement.
Completely understandable on their part, but given the choice between the defendent getting probation with or without the condition, I’d bet they’d choose with. Most of the time when someone gets a punishment like this, they’re a likely canditate for probation. They’re sympathtic and even pitiful, and it’s quite likely a jury will take pity on them and probate them. “Creative punishment” allows a court and prosecutor to make sure the defendent doesn’t walk out of court feeling “lucky that they got a break.”
There’s also an argument for a deterrence factor. I’ve seen signs of this nature ranging from “I GOT CAUGHT DRINKING UNDERAGE” to “I KILLED TWO PEOPLE DRIVING DRUNK ON WESTHEIMER.” They certainly catch one’s attention and create an impression.
In World War Z, which is an oral history of the zombie apocalypse, America decides to go back to public punishment - wearing a sign for a day that says “I stole my neighbor’s tomatoes” or whatever. The reason being, it works, and who is helped by putting people in jail where we have to feed them and they don’t have to work?
Ah, thank you I should have mentioned that. This was part of a probation deal.
(I really should have said that at first, sorry. I should have been in bed hours before I wrote the OP.)
I think shame is an effective deterrence, definitely. I mean, even now without the threat of shame punishment, I wouldn’t want the people whose opinions I hold in esteem to think I was a thief, or stupidly reckless, etc.
Yeah, but if we’re all pulling together against the zombie threat and you go and steal somebody’s tomatoes, you are TOTALLY not welcome to all my birthday parties and bar mitzvahs. I imagine that in a crisis, shame punishments would be particularly effective.
For lesser crimes in our non-zombie world (like the underage drinking one I mentioned) no police officer is necessary, although the probation officer will stop by periodically and make sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to do, or they’ll have them do it right on the courthouse steps where they’re easily kept track of. For crimes where there’s a possibility an outraged citizen might assault the probationer, I suspect he or she is required to pay for the services of an off-duty officer.
Without knowing the methodology the niumbers are meaningless. Don’t you think they cherry pick the offenders selected for shame punishment? They select the ones least in need of incarceration, and therefore least likely to reoffend.
If all offenders convicted were given shame punishment you’d see the numbers match or exceed the current numbers. Plus, if it gets used more, the increased incidence would make the shame factor decrease, and you’d be back where you started.
I had thought of this as well. I don’t think the people who received the the punishment were career criminals, or had lifestyles that led to a life of crime, so the numbers might be skewed by that.
Regardless, this might make an effective argument for not dropping first time or lesser offenders directly into the “old system,” if it’s reducing the recidivism rate.
What would be the best comparison to make? First time offenders who’ve committed a crime in the “control list” compared to the same, between both punishments? Makes sense to me.
That’s the problem with social science, it’s so darn hard to do double blind studies. Should we incarcerate? Sentance to community service? Shame punishment? Crush their kneecaps with a ball peen hammer? Nobody really knows, and random experiments are rightly frowned upon.
I’d start off by, as you suggest, making a list of crimes for which first offenders would be eligible for shame punishment and randomly assigning convicts to either incarceration or shame. It would take some time to see results, but I have to admit that what we’re doing doesn’t seem to have the
desired result.
When Ted Poe was a judge here in Harris County, he sentenced a bunch of people like that. Not very many of them came back for second helpings. And yes, he had people file suit claiming cruel and unusual punishment. No one won except Judge Poe.