Is it time to bring out the "stocks"/bring back public shaming?

[mjr]

Remember the stocks from old medieval movies/television shows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocks

I'm wondering if it's not time to bring back "public shaming" in certain circumstances, or if it would still be considered "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" under the auspices of the Constitution.

The reason I ask is that I saw two stories recently about people outright stealing people's package deliveries (presumably Christmas gifts) off of other people's porches. They both got caught on security cameras.

First story involved two people. The lady (term used loosely) and her accomplice. The video was shown on all the local news stations, and the police department in that city was flooded with tips. When the police went to talk to her, she admitted she did it. They also discovered she had multiple warrants.

At about the same time, her accomplice was being pulled over by law enforcement. He, too, admitted to taking the items.

Second story involved a woman. Similar circumstance. Caught on security camera (though not as clearly) waltzing right up to someone's house, picking up the package (an iPad of some type), and just sauntering off...

They're looking for information on her right now.

I think all three of them should be put in the stocks. With a bucket of rotten tomatoes nearby. A few hours a day, for a couple of weeks ought to do it. Then maybe some jail time after that.

At the very least, they should be made to give in-person, televised public apologies to the people from whom they stole, before given jail time.

Honestly, in cases like these, I'm not against public shaming. But what say you? Is that cruel?

[Gravekeeper]

The stocks/pillory are legally considered cruel and unusual punishment. So that's a no go. Plus they don't exactly have what you would call the greatest history behind them. Seeing as they were oft used on women, homosexuals and anyone else the Church didn't like. It also wasn't uncommon for the prisoner in question to be harmed or killed by the crowd. You're not just shaming he person you're rendering them unable to protect themselves and encouraging the general public to dole out corporeal punishment. To say it could all go terribly wrong terribly fast is an understatement. Never mind the legal liability of it all.

Plus in this day and age when the entire Internet can zero in on a single target? Christ you'd have people road tripping around from one stock to the next just to abuse prisoners.

Then we have the effectiveness of public shaming itself. Which is to say not very. Because either the community is too large and thus shaming the individual ultimately isn't that effective because they are being shamed in front of strangers. Or the community is too small and the shame can be too effective as the whole community turns on a singular person and by extension may also shame that person's friends or family. You could effectively doom a person and possibly their family to lose their jobs, be shunned by their community and basically be unable to function as part of the society of their town ever again.

Which is far too much of a punishment for the sort of petty crimes you'd be using public shaming for.

[SongsOfDragons]

Gravekeeper's put it pretty well I think. The concept is great in Medieval shows and films...but I think ultimately that's where it belongs. There's certainly a thought behind naming and shaming, showing up the petty criminals, but there's always the element of disproportionate retribution when it comes to tried and tested concepts - the idea above of the 'stock abuse road trip!' is particularly terrifying.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, what Gravekeeper said.

There's a reason we use 'Medieval' as a disparagement...

[Gravekeeper]

the idea above of the 'stock abuse road trip!' is particularly terrifying.

The only question would be whether Twitter or 4chan could organize it faster. >.>

[Rageaholic]

What Gravekeeper said.

Even if someone really deserves a karmic bitchslap, this kind of public shaming is only going to encourage more rotten behavior.

[AccountingDrone]

Though I could see caning brought back ... I bet the American fuckwad they caned in Singapore a while back would think twice about reoffending [if they hadn't deported him.] Though what part of following laws is beyond peoples understanding is incomprehensible to me ...

[Andara Bledin]

The only question would be whether Twitter or 4chan could organize it faster. >.>

You forgot reddit... >_>

Though I could see caning brought back ...

Yeah, no... There's a reason why that sort of thing doesn't happen in places that don't have totalitarian regimes...

[mjr]

Everyone has made some great points here. And definitely some points I had not considered, especially since we're in the age of "social media".

But what about the "public apology to the victims on television" thing? Make it part of a "reduced" jail sentence. The thieves could apologize to the victims, and have their sentence/fine reduced by X, or choose not to apologize, and serve the full time sentence/pay the full fine.

Would you still consider that "public shaming"? In this case, they have the option.

I'm talking about VERY specific circumstances here, not for every crime committed.

[lordlundar]

You forgot reddit... >_>

And Tumblr.

Let's face facts here. The public shaming is a concept where the phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" holds weight and the end result is the shaming is largely internal because the onlookers are concerned that THEY could be next. In the modern day when that phrase is uttered there would be people lining up by the thousands thinking they are above reproach.

[mjr]

@lordlundar:

That is an understandable position.

Judges, however, have offered "undesirable" choices to people before.

I do agree with the "let he without sin cast the first stone" thing.

Also, "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

But I do think that giving the option in this case is suitable.

Let's face it: We've all done stuff we're not proud of (I know I have). But doing something immoral is different from doing some thing illegal.

In fact, based upon perspective, something can be considered "moral", yet still be illegal, and vice versa.

Here's an example. There have been cases where, in certain circumstances, a judge offered two options:

1. Jail time
2. A vasectomy

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200..._loc2avas.html

Another judge offered a person a deal to get a vasectomy to knock 5 years off of his sentence.

http://www.news10.net/story/news/nat...deal/11284515/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...8ce_story.html

I'm not saying these punishments are right, I'm just saying they've been offered and accepted.

So I would think that it would not be a stretch to have someone stand on a street corner with a sandwich board that reads "I stole people's Christmas presents".

[s_stabeler]

Though I could see caning brought back ... I bet the American fuckwad they caned in Singapore a while back would think twice about reoffending [if they hadn't deported him.] Though what part of following laws is beyond peoples understanding is incomprehensible to me ...

the issue with caning is that a) it is the intentional infliction of pain ads a punishment. Severe pain, at that- historically, canings had to be split into more than one session to avoid killing the victim. Does that really make it any better than torture? Torture, after all, was banned because it was recognised that pain should not be used as a punishment. b) it's more dangerous than it seems- IIRC, it used to be considered that 50 strokes would cripple, and generally someone caned will be bleeding afterwards, even from just a few strokes. The fact that caning is usually done as hard as possible really shows the motivation of the people imposing it, I think.

Also, Michael Fay's offences weren't even that severe- slashed tires, keyed cars and stolen road signs. That's about average for a petty vandal. ( oh, and he claimed later that what he actually did was steal the signs- he had pled guilty because he was told he wouldn't be caned if he confessed) I'd say that the prisons entance was fine.

oh, and here's a pciture of what he would have been caned with:

and then consider that in south-east asia, they soak the canes to cause extra damage ( increased weight) and use as much force as possible in the caning.

[AccountingDrone]

the issue with caning is that a) it is the intentional infliction of pain ads a punishment. Severe pain, at that- historically, canings had to be split into more than one session to avoid killing the victim. Does that really make it any better than torture? Torture, after all, was banned because it was recognised that pain should not be used as a punishment. b) it's more dangerous than it seems- IIRC, it used to be considered that 50 strokes would cripple, and generally someone caned will be bleeding afterwards, even from just a few strokes. The fact that caning is usually done as hard as possible really shows the motivation of the people imposing it, I think.

Also, Michael Fay's offences weren't even that severe- slashed tires, keyed cars and stolen road signs. That's about average for a petty vandal. ( oh, and he claimed later that what he actually did was steal the signs- he had pled guilty because he was told he wouldn't be caned if he confessed) I'd say that the prisons entance was fine.

oh, and here's a pciture of what he would have been caned with:

and then consider that in south-east asia, they soak the canes to cause extra damage ( increased weight) and use as much force as possible in the caning.

And this is an abused woman. Chances are, the man walked away with a tiny little slap on the wrist.

[Andara Bledin]

If all you want is vengeance, then sure, bring on the torture implements.

But if what you want is justice then stop with the appeals to emotion and consider the real problem.

And it's not a lack of punishment.

The death penalty doesn't stop murderers, and barbaric punishments won't stop other crimes. Mostly because those guilty think they'll never be caught in the first place, and if caught, don't think they'll be punished.

You don't cure an ill by over-treating the symptoms. You go after the cause, and only treat the symptoms enough to ensure they aren't overly detrimental in the meantime.

[mjr]

You don't cure an ill by over-treating the symptoms. You go after the cause, and only treat the symptoms enough to ensure they aren't overly detrimental in the meantime.

No, but you can make it very undesirable to partake in that activity.

But to address your point:

What is the "cause" of beating the s**t out of a woman to the extent of the photo that AccountingDrone posted? I don't care how angry you get, there is NEVER justification for that.

What is the cause of someone just walking up to someone's house and taking a package that is not theirs? How do you cure "entitlement", if that is the cause?