Shame-ridden punishments may not just be a part of history. Within the last decade, judges like Ted Poe use humiliation to punish crimminals as an addition to conventional sentences. In this article from the
Washington Post, writer Johnathan Turney sheds light on a number of judges who use shame and public humiliation to punish those who break the law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091700064.htmlHere are some questions to explore:
- What are your thoughts on the article?
- Do you think these methods could be (in)effective?
- Why do you think these judges choose this method?
- Does this hint at a Puritan influence on our society?
I liked this article and I didn't think that the man having to walk with an "I stole mail" sign was sentenced to cruel or unusual punishment. After I read the examples of other incidents like this where the court established similar punishments, this one didn't seem to out of the ordinary. I think some of these outrageous punishements would be more effective than the same old usual punishments. However, I don't know if I would want other people to know that I stole mail.
ReplyDelete-Nadia
This could be a good punishment if the people being charged are easily embarassed. It would depend the people being punished. These judges may have chosen these punishments because nothing else worked. IT could be a last resort for the judges. Many people do not like being humiliated in public, some of those people would not mind going to jail. This does not necessarily hint at the Puritan influence in today's society, but it hits the same type of punishments.
ReplyDeleteThe article was pretty entertaining to read. To hear about judges making strange punishments isn't something that you hear on an every day basis.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that these methods are very effective. They aren't exactly punishment; the sentences are based on humiliation. Some people may take it, and they might be changed. However, I don't see many people changing their ways because of their way.
I believe that the judges think they their method is a way to stop crimes. Humiliation, something that teens really try to avoid, may work for that age group. However, I don't believe that the judges realize that some criminals do not care about being embarrassed.
This does hint at Puritan influence. The article even mentions the Scarlet Letter. A few of the punishments listed in the article were set so that the criminal would be reminded of what they done in hopes that they wouldn't do it again.
I think this is a very good punishment. These methods will be very effective, especially for teenagers. Humiliation can be considered as a cruel punishment for most teens. These judges probably chose this method because if someone gets embarassed doing somthing, chances are they probably wont do it again. Purtian societies, like in The Scarlet Letter, often use this kind of punishment when dealing with crimes. So in a way, it feels as though they have had an influence on our society.
ReplyDeleteI think that these punishments might be unique and give a certain embarrassment, they are almost always temporary. I think that the feeling of embarrassment would soon be forgotten sfter their sentence was over. If it was a life long thing, I think that the criminals would get used to the punishment and it would become apart of their everyday life, and lose its purpose in the long run. I think the judges choose this method because they want to get the point across that these crimes needed equal punishment for what they have done; "walk a mile in thier shoes" sort of thing. All of this methods do hint at a puritan influence on our society. I think it is human nature to want to see someone be humilated for humilating others.
ReplyDeleteThis article has a lot to do with the book we are reading and the punishments involved are just like the punishment for Hester. I do not think these methods could be effective because i do not think that making a man wear a sign that says "I stole mail." is going to help him change his ways. I honestly probably wouldn't really notice him or care enough to look at what his sign said. I also don't think that sending someone to church for 10 days will help them not do drugs anymore. I personally have seen people attend church for years and have nothing in their life changed. I think that the judges chose this method because they don't want there to be cruel and unusual punishment, but honestly there has to be something a little more serious than making someone buy a casket.
ReplyDelete-Gabby :)
I found this article to be very interesting. It is hard for me to decide whether I'm for or against these methods. In some cases I feel like they could work but in others I don't think the humiliation is enough. I can see that with young people the donkey would've worked, but with the drug addict I don't think buying a casket will really solve the problem. I think the method of humiliation should be saved for teenagers who are causing trouble. Adults most likely aren't concerned with what society thinks about them; after all they chose this life style of wrong-doings. I think judges choose this method because in their minds for some people it could be a more effective punishment. If the person seems like they are cocky or care what people think, I can see this method as a great way to deter further offenses. I'm not sure this necessarily shows a "puritan influence." I just think it’s a kind of parent like approach on justice.
ReplyDeleteI find this article very amusing. I think its funny that some judges has taken it upon themselves to come up with creative punishments. I dont think that these punishments mentioned violated the 8th amendment. These methods were not curel and barley constiuted as unsual. I believe that whether these methods are effective depends on the indiviual receiving the punishment. I think that the judges wanted to try something new, instead of giving the same old sentence that none of the delinquents really mind.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution states that cruel and unusual punishment is illegal. The methods here arent cruel and very effective...but kinda unusual.
ReplyDeleteBut the judges choose these to get a point across, and it works. I'd rather get a night in jail than wear a sign around my neck. Humiliating as they are i'm sure the offenders well never do whatever they did again.
I think that public humiliation punishments can be just as effective as conventional punishments as far as making the criminal rethink what he/she has done. I also think that these punishments can be a little extreme, much like the punishments that the Puritans used on wrong-doers back in pre-colonial America. I think that judges are starting to lean to these punishments more just because it does not involve jail time or fines. I think that we have so many repeat offenders in our society because when they commit a crime it is just the same old punishment. With these newer, more modern, punishments criminals will think twice before commiting another crime.
ReplyDeleteI lkied this article. I didn't really think that the examples of the creative punishments were cruel. They may have been a little unusual, but they fit the crime that they committed. I think that people might actually learn from their mistakes by doing such things like wearing signs in public if you stole mail. This will let the public know what crime the person committed, so maybe the culprit will be embarressed and not do it again.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that these methods are cruel and unusual. I think it could become an effective way to punish criminals. Now a days they don't seem sooo bothered by the punishment of going to jail. I think that these judges chose these ways to make a statement that its time for something new, for new ways to punish. The old ways are wearing out and its time for something new to come in. This possibly could hint at a puritan lifestyle. With the public humiliation as a punishment.
ReplyDelete~caryssa
I disagree with the position of the author of the article. The point of these punishments is not only to shame the person, but to do it enough that they never commit the crime again. I think that some of these methods could be very effective. Perhaps the solution would be to make some of these "creative punishments" part of the standard punishments around the country. That would eliminate the argument that they are hurting the push to make punishments the same for the whole country. I don't really think that it hints at puritan influence on our society, because when the puritans were around, there wasn't a standard punishment code; the public humiliations were the standard punishment. They weren't something extra added on to keep the offender from doing it again.
ReplyDeleteYou can never truely punish someone to the point that they learn from their mistakes. You can try all you want and give them the most unique or random puishment but if they are not willing to give in and learn themself, then nothin will come from it. The accusor will simply be waisting energy. I do believe, however, that certain punishments are more effective with certain people. As it said in the article, teens are more likely to learn from their mistakes when they are punished publicly beacause they are all about looking good to their peers and wanting to be accapted. I would not call the judeges methods cruel and unusual punishment but rather better and quicker ways to teach a child a lesson. I think that any measures should be taken in order to correct a wrong, no matter who the person or what they did.
ReplyDeleteI think that the punishments were light. They were just things that would be embarrising. What I want to know is why in the world would the father that beat his kid only get 30 days in jail or 30 days in a dog house. That is sickining to me. He should get alot longer punishment for that. He beat his kid. He should go away for awhile.
ReplyDelete-Ryan
I agree with the Court of Appeals. This punishment may have been unusual, but it was not cruel. I know that if I was to commit a crime and be given one of these 'shameful' punishments, I would be much less likely to commit the same crime again. I think that many criminals would be the same way. Being embarrassed, or put to shame, is a more personal punishment, where as in prison, you actually aren't treated that poorly. I defintitely think that this punishment could be effective, depending on the type of person. Some people aren't embarrassed by anything, so this punishment would not be effective for them. However, people who many are not so self-confident, or care more about what people think of them, this punishment would be very effective. I think that judges choose this method because it will keep people from commiting the same crimes again, and keep other people from committing the crime, after seeing what the other person's punishment was. This is a Puritan influence, relating to our book, with Hester having to wear the 'A' on her chest. That is an unusual punishment, but it isn't cruel. It seems like Puritan influence gives us many ideas about using unusual punishment for crimes. I think that this is a good idea and it should be used more often.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think punishment in the form of humiliation could work in some cases, I think the idea as a whole is an ineffective form of punishment. I think some judges choose this method because they don't want to be too hard on a certain person, such as a minor, and give him or her jail time. But if that's the case, a judge should give the person community service to do so they'll at least be benefiting the community; humiliation only makes a joke out of the situation.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why some judges would choose this method, however, such as the judge who suspended the sentence of cocaine user and just made him keep a casket in his home. That sentence seems ineffective when its given to someone accused of driving under the influence; I doubt he was moved to quit using cocaine just because he had to keep a casket in his house... he could turn that into a conversation starter when his coke buddies come visit his house.
I guess this does hint at a Puritan influence in our society.
I think this article demonstrates how our justice system is so weak. I don't know how these people got away with the bad crimes that they committed. In a way humiliation is a cruel punishment, but I believe most of these sentences are very ineffective. How can wearing a sign over your neck justify breaking into a school? Why arent these kids punished severely? The judges choose this method because i think that they feel bad for these kids, but i really dont know why. I mean if someone committed a crime they should be punished for it, not sentence to something that's not even humiliating.
ReplyDelete-Andrew R
If I was a cocaine fiend, choosing between seven years of prison and buying a coffin would be an easy choice. And having a coffin in my house wouldn't bother me or scare me into putting the coke down. I don't support the use of these punishments, in most situations, because people aren't always affected by public "shame". Shoveling manure is nothing more than a chore, and if I saw someone scooping poop, I wouldn't point and laugh, I'd just get on with my life. So, for the most part, these punishments are ineffective. In some instances, though, these strange punishments may work. I doubt the Jesus-defacers will go manger-raiding next year; carrying a donkey through town is pretty humiliating. But, their crime as small and pathetic. So, I figure that ridiculous sentences are OK for small things committed by minors and idiots. I wouldn't litter if I knew it meant I had to scrape gum from under the benches while the courtroom patrons watched me. For an abusive dad, the doghouse isn't the way to go; I'm sure he learned nothing from that.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking these judges like the attention they get from making these sentences. They think their ridiculousness will earn them a "scary" reputation. It's funnier than it is scary, though.
I don't think this is surge in shame-based punishments hints at a Puritan influence on society. The scope of their punishments weren't usually as strange as these. Also, views in society have changed. Adultery earned Hester Prynne the most undesirable reputation possible. Nowadays, many people don't see cheating as that bad of an offense; some people even flaunt it.
This article was entertaining because it showed incite on punishments for different "crimes". Most of the methods mentioned, like skipping drug counseling to go to church, seem ineffective; just because the man went to the church services doesn't mean he paid attention to what was said. Others, like making the abusive father sleep in a dog house, do seem like they would be effective. The judges use these methods because they feel if the defendent is punished in the same way that they hurt the victim, they will be less likely to commit the crimes again. This does hint at a Puritan influence in the courtrooms of our country; so much so that the article even mentions the Scarlet Letter.
ReplyDeleteChelsea
hey! This article is very interesting because it ties in older style punishments. People are more embarrassed infront large crowds. It could be effective depending on the person. Some are easily embarrassed more than others. It may be the last resort because some people do not mind going to jail, so it would not affect them as bad as another punishment. No I do not think it hints at a Purtain in our society.
ReplyDelete~Lindsey Brown~
I thought this article was very interesting. However I think that these "embarrassing" punishments will not last long. Soon people won't care that they have a sign around their necks saying "I stole mail", etc. If the judges keep doing this I agree that the judges will have to come up with harder punishments. Also these punishments is just a short amount of time and after it happens people will forget about it. So it could have little effect on the people.
ReplyDelete-Ty
I think these punishments are extremely effective. I guess it just depends on the judge and the person being procecuted. Some people won't learn from these punishments and others will be extremely effected by them. If the person is a repeated offender then they should get the normal, jail sentence. Others should be given a chance to "redeem" themselves. I think this is kind of a Puritan influence. It definitely reminds me of the scarlett letter.
ReplyDelete