Public Shaming Vs Incarceration

In the United States there are four main goals when it comes to punishment which are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). The main goals for these punishments are to maintain order over society and to prevent recidivism (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). This ties into the Ecology perspective. By maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism, it ties into all of the issues regarding the Ecology perspective which requires for each issue to address the individual, family, community and society. Maintaining order over society and preventing recidivism strives toward making a safer environment for the individual, family, community and society. There is no universal agreement for making the severity of punishment just or fair (DeJong, 2016, p. 288). When it comes to retribution the person who is getting punished deserves the punishment (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Retribution refers to when an individual commits a certain crime then that person must receive a punishment proportionate to that crime or suffering that they may have caused towards the victim (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Regarding deterrence there are two types, general deterrence and specific deterrence (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). General deterrence focuses on the society in general and wants to scare everyone away from committing crimes (DeJong, 2016, p. 289). Specific deterrence focuses on criminals that have already been convicted and wants to prevent them from

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.

Shaming or puritan punishment like forcing people to keep a sign with a dishonorable inscription seems more like retaliation yet, not justice. Nonetheless, if we look at this problem from a different angle, exposing criminals to the public condemnation may be quite beneficial because it may have a powerful educational effect on potential criminals, and thereby may prevent some of the crimes that could already be planned. At the same time, a prison cannot cause such a vivid condemnation that public shaming does consequently, cannot be an effective behavioral corrector just by itself. I think that combining these two types of punishment into one can give a staggering result and, perhaps, in the near future humanity will forget about such problem

In our day-to-day life, it is inevitable that someone will do or say things that will hurt or upset us. In the same way, laws were created to guide people, curb crime, and restore law and order in the society but still people happen to break laws despite the existence of law. However, someone may ask what is the best way of dealing with criminal behavior? Should the society embrace the concept of “an eye for an eye” or “get to the root” of the problem, or just simply to focus on and assist the victim (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2012 pg. 12)? Many studies conducted by criminal justice scholars in line with this debate point towards punishment to crimes committed as the most acceptable means of dealing with an injustice for most societies. However, still the moral basis for punishment is a conflicting issue that has given rise to numerous competing views. This paper will address reasons why an eye for an eye is the best means of dealing with criminal behavior and not focusing on the victim nor getting to the root cause of criminal behavior (Akers, 2013).

The role of punishments in the justice system is designed to be served for a certain period of time then end, but today “public shaming exercises haphazardly mix the real world with virtual reality [social media] [...]” (Beato) because public humiliation fails to have an exact ending due to social media. A crucial part of the justice system is to reform the individuals who are punished under it; punishments that end allow individuals to move on and become good citizens again. Since public humiliation does not end, it is not a viable option for punishments that reform the individual. Judges often sentence criminals to public humiliation because they believe it to be a less intense form of punishment. However in reality, public humiliation is the most damaging form of punishment, below the death penalty, because the damage caused by public humiliation follow the individual for the rest of their life. Public humiliation is too damaging to be used to punish

Carissa Larriuz Mrs. Gordon English 11 29 April 2018 The Value of Shame In modern culture, it is often used as a great threat and punishment to be “publicly shamed,” multiple judges of the court even sentence this as a punishment. When the term is used loosely, it appears an inappropriate alternative to jail time, yet when speculated closely, public shame is in some ways worse than being put away in a cell. This can be argued due to the behavior spectators display with involvement in the situation firsthand. I believe that although in some cases public shame could be excessive and not fit the ‘crime’ correctly, that public shaming is an effective and influential form of punishment for certain crimes.

     Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence evaluates the premise that the rate of crime in any population is a function of both general and specific deterrence. Using empirical data deprived from their own practical experience, as well as from the observations and experiments of their other colleagues in their field, they attempt to establish their theory of the reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. First, it is important to understand the background of their work and the foundation of deterrence. There are two types of deterrence, general and specific. In analyzing the deterrent effects it is highly important to distinguish between general and specific deterrence, because they are very different. General deterrence refers to the effects of legal punishment on the general public (i.e., potential

Throughout time, the use of punishment has changed drastically. Not only has the actual infliction of punishment changed, the reasoning behind this punishment has also changed. There have been numerous scholars, educators, and researchers that have presented various theories on the reasoning behind societal punishment. Some of these theories are closely similar, however some are drastically different. It is important to note that these theorists have broad perceptions that can be rooted back to specific time periods throughout history. Societal punishment is defined as, “punishment being a complex social institution, shaped by the ensemble of social and historical forces and having a range of effects that reach well beyond the population of offenders” (Garland, 1991).

The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.

Punishment is defined as “the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense” (“Punishment”). Some prominent theories of punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the moral education theory. Although retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all crucial components of punishment justification, independently the theories have weaknesses that avert the moral rationalization of punishment. I believe that Jean Hampton’s moral education theory is the best justification for punishment because it yields the most sympathetic and prudent reasons for punishment, while simultaneously showing that punishment cannot be justified by solely

The thesis of “The Aims of Punishment” is that both backward-looking, which entails that a specific punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime, and forward-looking, which focuses on how punishment can be used to protect societal ideals, approaches to crime and punishment are influenced by political and social theories that are popular during certain periods. Backward-looking approaches—retribution where criminals are given the punishment that they deserve and censure where individuals are held morally accountable for crime—are based on the idea that there is a socially agreed upon contract on what is right and those who voluntarily violate this code must be sanctioned to the same degree. In contrast, forward-looking approaches—deterrence

Numerous enforcers debate whether or not to use public shame as an alternate punishment to save tax payer’s money, and create extra space in jails. Public shaming can range from wearing a sign addressing your crime to writing an “apology ad” for a newspaper to even receiving the same treatment that you dished out.

“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.

According to John Braithwaite (1989), “Cultural commitments to shaming are the key to controlling all types of crime” (p. 55). Shaming is related to showing expressions about a certain act and making the offender feel guilty for the criminal act that they engaged in. The two different ways to shame criminal offenders are reintegrated and disintegrative. These two ways of shaming are extremely different, yet have a similar effect on the offenders after they commit a crime. These two different ideas both have the same goal that acquires some sort of shaming towards the offender so they understand the criminal act was wrong.

In every country in the world there are certain levels of shaming that every society has, where some countries have extreme shame than others. Shaming is form of criticism and judgement when an individual violates social or moral norms. Shaming fundamentally reacts our psychological need for acceptance and approval from either someone or the public. It is true that for centuries, shame has been given a negative name, but there is reason why shame has existed for a long time and why it will continue to exist in the future. Shaming should be part of society since it brings order and control, it causes people to reflect their wrong doing, and it creates a positive change that affects everyone. Shaming should be part of the society since shaming, most of the time, brings positive results.