Public Shaming Vs Puritan Punishment

[H]e which would have suer peace and joye in Christianitye, must not ayme at a condition retyred from the world and free from temptations, but to knowe that the life which is most exercised with tryalls and temptations is the sweetest, and will prove the safeste. For such tryalls as fall within compasse of our callinges, it is better to arme and withstande them than to avoide and shunne them. -John Winthrop

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.

Retribution has been associated with increased punishment, decreased treatment, but not with reduced recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990). Not only has there been no reduction in recidivism, there has also been no increase in deterrence through the use of punitive measures (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Deterrence-oriented interventions have actually been shown to increase recidivism by 12%, as demonstrated by Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis (as referenced by Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

For less serious crimes they could be punished by public shaming, this is the most common form of punishment due to it not only causing embarrassment to the individual but also the family name along with the rest of the tribe. This is one of the most effective ways of punishment as it causes the offender to feel ashamed for their actions, in the aim of them not committing a crime again.

Today most people would tell you that the stocks, pillory and other tools of public punishment are barbaric. We’ve moved passed them, having figured out more humane ways to deal with crime. Why, then, the resurgence of public shaming, namely the mainstream acceptance of the “dox,” which, in its purest form, is the digging up of a target’s personal information—name, phone number, address, Social Security number, familial relationships, financial history—and exposing it online to encourage harassment from others? This practice has gradually been popularized by Anonymous, the amorphous collective of trolls and “hacktivists” that alternately terrorize tween girls and disable government websites.

Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means

Ever since the beginning of time man has committed crimes. Crimes were described as acts which go against the social and moral norms of society and people. People have learned to deal with these crimes in many different ways. One of the most used forms of dealing with crime is punishing those who commit crimes. There are numerous ways in which people have punished those who commit crimes throughout history from making the criminal pay fines to banishing them from the community. However, in modern times, there are fewer acceptable forms of punishment that are used. For very unserious crimes, governments may simply make a criminal pay a small fine or do service for the community in some way. Offenders who

Today we see five prevalent goals of corrections including retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and restorative justice. Goals employed in corrections change over time depending on several factors including the trends of thought in society and issues within the prison system. Politics as well as prison overcrowding also factor into determining which goal dominates. Retribution has a long-standing history as the most culturally accepted goal because people fended for themselves prior to organized law enforcement (Bartollas, 2002, p. 71). Incapacitation, the dominant goal currently, eliminates the threat by placing the criminal outside society, typically through incarceration, and preventing the criminal from having the ability to commit additional crimes. Deterrence, like retribution, has continued as a goal throughout history. In an effort to reduce the risk of crime, law enforcement attempt to deter criminals from committing crimes. Rehabilitation gained enormous strength with an attempt at moral redemption of the offender. Reformists believed corrections needed a makeover as they worked towards rehabilitation. Rehabilitation places more focus on the individual rather than the act in an attempt to rehabilitate the person. America did not begin to look at the corrections system more substantially until the 1970s as the idea of rehabilitation fell (Bartollas, 2002, p. 75). Restorative justice promises to restore the victim as the offender

Punishment refers to the deliberate or intentional infliction of pain and suffering on an individual for breaching a particular law or code of conduct established in a given society. The idea of punishment has been in existence for a long stretch of time in history with philosophers weighing upon the necessity or otherwise of punishment. Inasmuch as a considerable number of philosophers agree that

As an individual, it’s a part of life to make plenty of mistakes, but is public shaming the answer to solving it? In todays’ society, punishment for people is completely different from back in the Puritan days. For example, in the novel the Scarlett Letter, Hester Prynne commits adultery, which leads her to having to wear the letter “A” on her chest, which is a form of public humiliation but in this sense, it’s not right. This is Hester Prynne’s sin that she committed that she lives with forever and it shouldn’t be any of the public business for her to be humiliated even more. This is a form of public ridicule, reintegrative shaming where attention can be drawn by wrong doing, and in order for you to learn in life you have make some mistakes . Public shaming is immoral in today’s society because as an individual that has done something wrong, you will start to feel like an outcast besides having to endure humiliation for your actions.

Most people believe that public humiliation is cruel and unusual punishment, yet it seems to be the only thing working. Doxxing is when you take someone's personal info -info such as social security numbers or address- and post it for the world to see. Some people still see doxxing as ineffective and just flat out wrong as discussed Cole Stryker in “The Problem with Public Shaming” written in The Nation, Stryker notions that public shaming doesn't work and that people need to talk about its effects on people all around the world. Stryker discusses how doxxing and Scarlet Letters are one in the same and are equally bad to do, he even “And when it slithers its tentacles in a person’s life, we become desperate for some way to fight back—to

It has been discovered from multiple sources that ever since ancient times, punishment was a necessary concept in order to prevent crime or wrongdoings. Ancient laws such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law (or Law given to Moses atop Mt. Sinai) use different methods to attempt to prevent or minimize the unavoidable occurrence of crime. Hammurabi’s Code using retribution (e.g. an eye for an eye), and the Mosaic Law using fear of God’s judgement. Neither of these have proven to be very effective. Since the dawn of human law, new laws have emerged. others have been forgotten, and many have been refined. Logically, it would be impossible to rid society of all actions that harm another person, which means the controllers of our societies (corrupt governments backed by mega-corporations) must concoct a way to keep society from descending into chaos, while still retaining their bloated wallets. The first prisons came about almost immediately after the first sets of laws. In Ancient Greece, “Imprisonment as a penalty was used initially for those who could not afford to pay their fines. Eventually, since impoverished Athenians could not pay their fines, leading to indefinite periods of imprisonment, time limits were set instead” (Allen). For some odd reason, society has still not evolved from using the Machiavellian method of instilling fear in order to prevent rebellious acts. Our supposedly ‘wise and responsible leaders’ actually believe that by using isolation and

For centuries governments have acted on behalf of society removing and punishing criminals with the goal of protecting its citizens. Criminals were arrested and locked-up in jails awaiting their sentencing. Once sentenced, they were publically humiliated, tortured, or killed. Early forms punishments were cruel and mostly focused on retribution.

Punishment, the word has brought fear to men and children alike, leaning towards adult offenders it tends to take on deeper connotations. As a child you would be punished by your parents, school leaders and other parental figures, and mostly under not so serious circumstances, usually requiring very little corporal punishment and/or separation from entertainment devices. As we get older the offenses tend to be greater and therefore demand greater punishment, despite having histories involving death sentences and hard labor, some methods have done little to deter some offenders. The question this raises of course, should we focus more on punishment or on rehabilitation, concentrating on punishment some would say stricter… while many will