Public Shaming Of An Olympic Weightlifter

The purpose of this essay is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. This will be accomplished by providing a description of the theory before examining the literature surrounding its strengths and weaknesses. The strengths of the theory surround its novel concepts, utility amongst academics and its policy implications. On the contrary, the weaknesses of the theory surround its limited empirical evidence, its ambiguous terminology and its impracticability towards certain offences and certain offenders.

In her article, “Condemn the Crime, Not the Person,” June Tangney argues that shaming causes more harm than good. She focuses on alternatives to traditional sentences instead of shaming and incarceration. As a more recent trend, officials are using shaming sentences more and more. Tangney states that it is important to know the distinction between shame and guilt. Tangney states, that research has shown feeling of guilt “involve a sense of tension and regret over the bad thing done.” Guilt makes people feel bad. It makes them want to change their behavior whereas shame does not motivate people to feel better and they are less likely to stop their wrong behavior (577). She also states that scientific evidence suggested publicly shaming a person makes a problem instead of creating a constructive change in them and individuals may hide and escape the shameful feelings and try to blame others (577). In conclusion, Tangney suggest community service as a sentence for offenders to pay their debt to society for their wrongdoing, been linked to the crime they did. Her tone is informative and innovative and keeps the reader interested while reading. However, this article displays weakness in term of the evidence the author presents, it is one sided and does not provide evidence her suggestion for community service as a sentence option works. Therefore, it fails to persuade the reader.

Professional athletes are always under the pump, either if they are on the field or out in their social life, we are they to see it, to give them judgement with every life choice. So when an athlete commitment a crime they are the centre of the news and papers, they are always looked at and face so much pressure to keep these perfect statues, which no one is and impossible to do. So when they do commit a crime the lights are on them and never get a fair go because we think just because their famous that they should be punished hardly because “they are role models of this generation”, “shame on them”. Athletes are working 10+ hours a day to keep fit, training their whole life and are on a strict diet, making them not different then everyone else so this should give leeway with punishment because they work 10x harder than a normal person and are more advance then most. Why should professional athletes be treated the same then normal people when they are nobody’s in life where athletes have made something of them self’s and have worked hard to get where they are.

In “The Problem with Public Shaming,” an essay that first appeared in the Nation, Stryker argues against the form of public shaming promoted by online networks and how people have figured out a way to deal with crimes but not with social media. Stryker introduced the essay’s subject matter through social media examples, while reflecting on past experiences and stating important details that reinforce the subject of public shaming as well as “dox” and discusses this term throughout the essay. Stryker helps define the term “dox” by listing the common traits and information “doxxers” try to gather, which include—name, phone number, address, social security and financial

Suspension’s in sports are very controversial in the sports and news world. It’s almost like there is a athlete each month who was convicted for homicide, taking performance enhancing drugs, or DUI and DWI. And this continues to happen in the sports community. Leagues such as the NBA, NFL, MLB take this into vigorous consideration. But that doesn’t stop an athlete from injuring others and themselves. This is why suspensions need to occur more often in sports that lead to more serious consequences.

It’s common to argue that a perpetrator “deserves” to be shamed, but in fact human psychology doesn’t work this way. Many pedophiles, for instance, recognize that that they are inexorably—even biologically—bound to impulses that they themselves loathe. Does the shaming—through public registries for example—cause the pedophile to reform? Unlikely. Does it deter others from engaging in pedophilic acts, or does it drive them to darker corners and sneakier tactics?

Public shaming has been around for a long time. Back in the 1700s it was very popular, especially with the Puritans. Literature such as Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and Arthur Miller’s The Crucible show examples of such public shaming and punishments. Hester Prynne is made an example by the colony’s leaders by forcing her to wear a red A on her clothing. By doing this along with public hangings seen in The Crucible by Arthur Miller, people would follow the rules because they do not want to end up like the example set before them. Although there are not public hangings like in The Crucible, at least not in America, there are still forms of public shaming that are sentenced by courts. Public shaming as a punishment to criminals can be fair and just depending upon the crime and whether the judge takes things too far; it can also be effective in making the criminal not want to do what he did again.

In the article, the author, Zach claims that suspensions will not deter PED users like Maria Sharapova. Zach reasons that although the highest-paid female athlete Sharapova received a suspension of about a year because of her use of PED, she still owns some sponsorships and aids, and her net worth is about $125 million a year. Sharapova’ reputation might be untarnished because of her play to the public. Zach states that the behaviors like Sharapova’s will cause a negative effect to the society and we need to find a way to solve this problem.

When we hear shaming our minds quickly go to someone being embarrassed and humanized for their past actions. In public view for people to create judgments and uncertainty about a behavior seen from a certain person. This description falls under the common form of shaming known as stigmatization, found in our criminal system stigmatization is disrespectful shaming, “where the offender is treated as a bad person. The offender is left with that stigma permanently” (Braithwaite, 2000, 282) due to the forgivingness found in this form of shaming. Stigmatization shaming only tends to bring more shame than a resolution so crime tends to increase the crimes because the offender feels like there no way out, so I might as well

What does it mean to be publicly shamed? Have you ever been publicly shamed? These are all great questions that come to mind when you consider the world we live in today. Author Jon Ronson does a wonderful job answering these questions in his bestselling book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. Throughout the book, Ronson takes the reader into the lives of those who have been publicly shamed.

Public shaming has happened to many people over the years. It is one of the worst feelings in the world. The painful, antagonizing, embarrassing shame that comes out of it makes people’s lives as miserable as getting tarred and feathered. Hester Prynne committing adultery, Monica Lewinski having sexual relations with Bill Clinton, Justine Sacco tweeting out an African-AIDS stereotype. These are all examples of people who have been publicly shamed. Because public shaming promotes the negative change in perspective towards a victim, long-lasting embarrassment, and regret, it should be left in the past.

The Olympics now have various organizations and committees delegated to testing for and eliminating the use of performance enhancing drugs. The most recent Olympic committee for the Games in Vancouver was partnered with the World Anti-Doping Agency, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, L’Institut national de la recherche scientifique — Institut Armand-Frappier, the United States Anti-Doping Agency, and LifeLabs to collect and test approximately 2450 blood and urine samples (“Anti-Doping Initiatives”). Their meticulousness and commitment was most definitely justified. Olympic athletes implicitly agree to a social contract of fair competition. Those athletes who take steroids have an unfair advantage over those who do not, and therefore these athletes are breaking this social contract.

Despite many incidents of the athletes and the corporate sponsors infringing the core values of the Olympics, the IOC claims that they are working on their part to enforce more significance on the Olympics moral standards. The IOC is the main organizer of the Olympics Games, who is responsible for the total construction of the event, from the venue, athletes, to the judging system; thus, it should be safe to assume that once the IOC determines to put effort into reviving the true spirits of the Olympics, the moral codes of the Games should gradually restore. During the Sochi Olympics event, where five athletes were sent home after being tested positive from the use of performance-boosting drugs, Thomas Bach, an IOC president, commented that

Many people believe that drug use in professional athletics is not a serious problem, however it is more widespread and serious than people think. In professional athletics the use of drugs is looked upon as somewhat of a serious problem, but is also very discrete and low key. Every once in a while one might see a prominent figure in a certain sport being reprimanded for the use of some outlawed drug, however this is just one of the many who happened to get caught. Athletes today seem to find no moral problem with using performance-enhancing drugs, or in other words cheating. Also many of them feel that because they are "stars" there should be no repercussions for their illegal activity.

“Shame corrodes the very part of us that believes we are capable of change”(Brené Brown). In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, a woman is publicly shamed for having a child with a man who is not her husband. Another example of public shame can be seen in modern day articles “Florida ‘Scarlet Letter’ Law is Repealed by Gov. Bush,” by Dana Canedy, and “Houston Couple Gets ‘The Scarlet Letter’ Treatment.” Both talk of public shame that people have had to endure in the present day. Public shaming is not an effective punishment because it is a cruel and unusual punishment, it does not deter crime, and it can emotionally traumatize the one being shamed.