I think that shaming punishments are completely fine. When faced with little wrong doings such as petty theft I think it is a great way to deter future thieves. When faced with a year in prison or a shaming punishment it seems logical to want the shaming. The counter argument of this would be what if the judges get out of control and I can see that side but I truly believe that with proper laws this worry would not be a problem. At home parents can do this as well and it works. An example of this is a mother making her daughter cut her hair after relentlessly bullying a little girl with cancer. Through doing this the mother is sending a message to the daughter that she can not act this way and belittle others. Another example is a mother making her daughter stand outside with a sign saying she stole from her moms purse. This makes the daughter learn that stealing is not ok to do. This works with kids so it will work with criminals as well.
In my opinion, shaming punishments are not an effective practice in the judicial system. Chopping days off a sentence or waiving a substantial penalty fee in exchange for the perpetrator to have to do something embarrassing for a day or two is not smart. The criminal would then feel like he/she got away with minimal punishment. While I agree that this practice could be good if the crime is small, larger crimes should not be treated the same way. For example, back in 2002, the four offenders shouldn't have gotten away with not having to pay back the 60,000 in damages. They should have to at least face jail time. On the other hand though, the punishment for the litterer was fitting because not much harm was done to the community. The phrase, "Does the punishment fit the crime?" is perfect for these acts. While some of the shaming does fit the crime,most of the time a harsher sentence is needed. If let off easily, the criminal might feel the urge to act again.
Shaming punishments do not seem like the best idea at home or in the judicial system. The criminals have to accept these punishments from local judges and have to live them out for a certain amount of time as an alternative to jail time. This does not seem like the best idea because it just seems like a way to get out of jail. People are able to deal with shame, in the comfort of their own home. Sentencing them to another punishment or jail seems like a better idea because they will have time to reflect on what they did and will most likely not commit that crime again versus the people who get shame punishments. They will realize how bad jail is and won't want to go back to that. Whereas if they get shame punishments, they are still connected with the real world and won't affect them if they don't care about what other people think about them, so shame punishment is not very effective. At home, kids usually do not care what others think about them, they might feel bad about what they did, but they will most likely do it again. Other forms of punishment, like preventing them with going out with their friends or taking away their electronic devices are more effective than a day of shame. Everyone goes through shame in their lives, it is common, it's not an effective way of punishment.
I believe that practicing the act of “shame” is necessary. It is important to teach people from right and wrong, and by “shaming” someone, it is possible that you can prevent them from acting out again in the future. For example, if someone got caught stealing, they would most likely be sentenced to jail time. It is likely that when they get out of jail, they will not commit the crime again because they know that they’ll get punished. On the other hand, the judicial system could possibly be too harsh with their punishments, but if they follow the correct laws, it shouldn’t be a problem. The “shaming” method is often used in homes as well. For example, if a child is being disrespectful to their parents, or did something that is inappropriate and they do not approve, the child can be sent to their room. By doing this, it forces the child to think about their actions in hopes that they will not do it again. The method of shaming is an effective way of teaching good behavior. It works in most cases, and people seem to take it seriously.
This reborn form of punishment can prove successful. It can teach the lesson that can prevent future offenses in addition to not harming the chances of young people at living a relatively normal life as badly as a jail sentence. While the claim of it being unconstitutional on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment, it can have the same affect as normal prison time. Some of them are similar to the Hammurabi Code, such as forcing thieves to allow the victim to take something of equal value from their home. It could also be effective is that in today's society many people find image more important than going to jail. Several judges giving these types of punishments say that those receiving them aren't concerned with going to prison, and therefore making the public aware of their crime. It can also work because they have to think about their crime. They would think about it if they went to prison, however, not all crimes carry prison sentences. This makes it more effective than fines for smaller crimes. In other situations it can be effective. This is because a parent can't send their child to prison for disobedience. Therefore they need another way to prevent the offense.
I agree with this practice at home, but not in the judicial system. When used to discipline children, shame punishments are effective, however, when dealing with adult criminals, a harsher punishment should be given. Children are more susceptible to the shame and embarrassment that comes with this type of punishment. If a parent was to require their child to carry around a sign stating that they are a bully after being mean to other kids, the child would be embarrassed. This would discourage him from bullying or doing any other act that would receive similar punishment ever again. Taking away children's phones or toys is only so effective, as over time they begin not to care anymore, however, inflicting these shame punishments on them would teach them important life lessons and discourage negative behaviors. While this may be effective on children, shame punishments do not work the same on adults. Adults are more likely to get angry over having to participate in this punishment, as opposed to embarrassed. An example of this was when a man hit another man with a gas tank and got off with a year of house arrest, $17,500 in fines, and having to post a sign saying "Warning, A violent felon lives here. Travel at your own risk.", as opposed to the 2-6 years in prison that someone that committed this offense would have normally received. He sees the sign as plain unfair and harsh. Instead of being embarrassed by it, he is instead mad. This kind of punishment does not make sense because it only incites more anger in the felon towards the judicial system, causing them to want to commit more crimes to get back at them. These shame punishments also let the criminal get off relatively easy compared to the jail time they would have had. They are also not the same everywhere you go. Some judges may instill harsh shame punishments on someone who committed a crime, while another judge could give another person a less extreme punishment. Because there is no national standard for shame punishments, they are not given out equally and are therefore not fair and should not be used by the judicial system. Overall, shame punishments should not be used in the judicial system because they do not serve the intended effect of embarrassing the criminal, they let the person off easy, and they are not always equal.
Based on the court examples I have read, I do not think shaming punishments are very effective. The "creative punishments" state and local judges come up with may appease the public for a short amount of time, but most of these consequences only last for short periods of time. Besides this, I do not think society really learns from the "eye for an eye" punishment method many judges seem to favor. They have ordered punishments such as victims of a robbery taking something from the robber's home and allowing an abused wife to spit in her husband's face. These punishments only make offenders more angry at the situation and makes it seem alright that someone is abused or robbed because they will be allowed to get their revenge. However, getting revenge does not undo the crime that has been done and just gives victims minor satisfaction before anger consumes their lives. This form of punishment does not solve anything-it may even spark future conflict-but certainly does not provide justice.
Other types of unusual punishments such as holding up signs proclaiming a crime or being forced to parade around in public are equally ineffective because the orders are not equal for all offenders. If someone commits a crime, they are unsure of what a judge will order for them. Wearing a sign is arguably a mild form of discipline if the criminal was expecting prison time. Shaming like this does not really make society feel that the criminal got what they deserved. Instead, as in the case of Glenn Meyer's sign, the community feels like the offender "got off easy". Compared to potential years of jail time, this could be true. The sign at the end of Mr. Meyer's driveway was not the result of a first-time offense, which shows that shaming punishments do not prevent future crimes from happening. By using shame as a solution to criminal offenses, criminals and communities as a whole do not really learn the value of doing the right thing and, more importantly, learning from mistakes.
In my opinion, I believe that public shaming is completely okay. For one thing it allows the public to be informed on criminals, and it also allows the criminal to get what the punishment they deserve for their crime. A person who commits a heinous crime, like abusing a child, should be shamed for what they did. There is nothing morally wrong with giving someone the punishment they deserve. This kind of punishment may seem unfair but is it fair for someone to murder someone or to abuse a child? This questions show that this form of punishment is completely justified. It not only gives a criminal what they deserve but I believe this method of shaming makes a criminal think twice about committing a crime again. This can be easily seen in how humans act in general. For example, when a child gets punished privately, they tend to just forget about the punishment they received and continue to test limits. But when they are punished publicly in front of friends and family they tend to remember that incident and think before repeating the same bad deed again. This simple fact just shows why this form of punishment is so effective. Not only so this form of punishment so effective but it is also morally just.
I believe that shaming can be a useful punishment in both at home and in the judicial systems. As stated in one of the articles, the young are more affected by the shaming than any other group of people. I think that if shaming as a punishment were placed on young people it would have a greater effect. An older person may not learn or undergo as many repercussions as young person will. One article speaks about a man being shamed for hitting someone else, but he seems more angry than embarrassed by this punishment. It does not seem logical to place such a punishment on someone who will not undergo the life change that is expected. As for children, shaming, or telling them to go to timeout will let them know not to repeat an action, while a stronger punishment would be needed for older children and teens. Therefore, I feel that a shame punishment should not be used on all types of people, specifically the young so they can learn their lesson. The shame punishment, I believe would be more effective in small and local towns since everyone knows everyone else. In a city and urban environment, those being publicly shamed might not receive the intended punishment because no one would know who you are or care as it is a city, and people have business to conduct. In the local towns, however, everyone will remember you as the one who did this crime, and it will not be forgotten. Shaming in these local areas will have a more lasting effect than shaming in an urban area. Overall, I believe the shame type punishment would be more effective on the young in the small local towns in states, and should not be used in the urban environments.
In my opinion, shaming punishments don't seem to be very effective in the home and judicial system. In a way, yes they are because obviously others are now warned about the person who convicted a crime, but that won't necessarily stop the person from doing other wrongful acts. Just because a sign was put up saying that "this felon did this, you are warned" kind of thing was put up, it doesn't mean it will necessarily stop the criminal from doing this in the future. In the same way, if a child is only shamed in the household for a wrongful act, it will be wrong as they are just shamed and not really any drastic measures were taken to prove that this was wrong. They need a tougher punishment in order for them to get it through their head that this is wrong, and should be taken more seriously. A way to do this is to send a felon to jail for a crime they’ve committed or take away a child’s device/ ground them. For example, Mr. Meyer in the article "Crime and Punishment: Shame Gains Popularity" he already had previous convictions for aggravation, but instead of sending him to jail so he couldn't harm anyone, they just put out a sign at the end of his driveway stating he was a felon. Although it does say that all of his neighbors believed for him to be a kind man, it is ridiculous that he convicted all these crimes and didn't have to do jail time. By allowing jail time, these criminals have time to be put through acts in which they are doing good in their life, and if they really need help will be sought to one-on-one attention. In the same way, by not allowing a child to have something they are typically allowed to have, like a phone or to hang out with friends, it allows them to better grasp that what they have done is wrong. Shaming is a punishment that most have gone through, it is not very effective. Shaming is an easy punishment to deal with and to just get over it. By having serious punishments it allows for the person to endure serious measures and to realize what they have done is severely wrong.
I believe that shame punishments can be effective at home, but not within the judicial system. This practice at home will most likely be targeted at the younger age group, and parents may shame their kids to teach them a lesson. Children don't like being shamed because they feel embarrassed. Going out in public with a sign around their necks may work for the sole purpose that they don't want to be seen by other people and kids by what that sign labels them. It teaches the child to not do the act again because the punishment is far too humiliating for them to hand. On the other hand, this would not work in the judicial system. Adults charged with crimes and punished with shame does not prove to be effective. Rather than feeling embarrassed, they turn towards anger. For example, Mr. Meyer's driveway has a sign that reads, "Warning, A Violent Felon Lives Here. Travel At Your Own Risk". This sign made him angry, not shamed. It made him think the judicial system was unfair in shaming him this way. Not only do shame punishments seem ineffective, they do not provide equal punishment for the same crime. Allowing a victim of a robbery to take something of equal value from the thief's home does not seem fair in thee sense that the thief doesn't actually learn a lesson. They most likely will commit the crime again, thinking "you win some, you lose some". Instead of shame punishments, a lesson would be better learned in prison where criminals don't get let off easy.
I don't agree with shame punishments in the Judicial System, but they can be effective at home. The shame punishments that might be given in the Judicial System most likely cause the reaction the court was hoping for. A reason for giving these punishments were to cause the person to feel embarrassed, but instead they may cause more anger. In a home, a parent may give there child a shameful punishment to teach them a lesson because younger aged children get embarrassed easier. When the child thinks about maybe repeating the act they will remember the embarrassment they felt from their punishment and then they may not chose to do it. For older individuals, they may have accepted that what they did was wrong, but the shameful punishments may keep them from forgetting or forgiving themselves, which can lead to anger towards the Judicial System. That happened with the sign on Mr. Meyer's property. It didn't cause him to feel ashamed, it caused him to get angry with the government. Some people agree with this type of punishments for little crimes, but other feel it is just plain mean. so, I don't agree with the Shame Punishments in the Judicial System.
In my opinion, shaming at home is more useful than shaming in the judicial system. In the judicial system, I think that it depends more on the person as to whether or not they will learn from what they did wrong through public shaming. Where at home, many times shaming is aimed at the younger children of the house. Since the children are usually younger, they know that when they are punished it is because they did something wrong, so they learn from their mistake. Whereas in the judicial system, the men and women know what they did wrong, but publicly shaming isn't an equal alternative to, say five years in prison. For instance " In Ohio... a 120-day jail sentence [was cut] down to 45 days for two teens who...had defaced a statue of Jesus they stole from a church's nativity scene. In exchange, the pair had to deliver a new statue to the church and march through town with a donkey and a sign reading "Sorry for the Jackass Offense." (Turley). Taking 75 days off a sentence in exchange for walking around the city of Ohio for "x" hours with a donkey wearing a sign, isn't equal. Although the sign did shame the teens, I believe that 75 more days in jail would be more effective. In a similar situation in Illinois, a farmer in a small town had a sign put at the end of his driveway reading "'Warning A Violent Felon Lives Here. Travel At Your Own Risk.'' (Hoffman). This punishment did not shame Glenn Meyer. Instead it just made him feel agitated and embarrassed, rather than shamed. These "creative punishments" that are coming from the judicial system are starting to become ridiculous instead of effective. I believe that normal punishments, such as jail, should be used for many crimes instead of public shaming. Based on the individual changes how one may take the form of punishment.
Within the judicial system, I qualify with whether shaming is an effective form of punishment. After reading the article "Crime and Punishment: Shame Gains Popularity", I took away that public humiliation was something that could be suggested as a deterrent. Professor Dan Kahan stated that within examples of real societal occurrences, "the penalties can satisfy the public's need for dramatic moral condemnation in a way that's effective and just". In specific, after Mr. Meyer shown hostile behavior towards Mr. Mason (a customer), judges required for a sign to be put up warning the public about his temperament. In addition to that case, "the judge added that since the sign went up, there have been no incidents of violence". On the other hand, after reading "Shame on You', I had a different outlook on these creative punishments. Since the judges have the freewill to prosecute however they choose, it may be giving them too much legal power. According to Jonathan Turley, a professor of law, "these novel sentences threaten the very foundation of a legal system by allowing arbitrary and impulsive decisions by judges". With either perspective taken into account, the truth of the matter is shaming is becoming more popular in today's justice system than ever. Whether they truly are effective is a different story.
I do not agree with shame-punishments for certain crimes, but for others, it is fitting. I do not agree with shame-punishments when the crime is major, where the person should be facing jail time or paying a large fine. An example of a shame crime that was did not fit the normal punishment for the crime was when a man in Georgia had cocaine on him and was driving under the influence. Instead of 7 years in jail, the man had to keep a casket in his house to remind him of the dangers of substance abuse. This shame crime would not prevent the man from doing it again, and doesn't really teach him a lesson. He got off without a fine or jail time, so he has no incentive to not do it again. An example where the shame punishment that did fit the crime was when a boy littered. Instead of being fined, he had to scrape gum off of the bottom of the court benches while the judge and others watched. This punishment fit the crime because it was minor, and most likely taught the boy a lesson. If the punishment fits the level of the crime, then I agree with shame punishments, but if the crime is major and won't teach the criminal a lesson, then I do not agree with shame punishments.
I agree that shame punishments are effective practices. These punishments help keep people in line so that they do not commit the crimes again. This way the shaming is a reminder to the people about what they did, so it would enter their mind not to do it again. By making this a punishment, it also keeps other people safe. If there is a sticker on a license plate saying that the driver was caught drunk driving, people would know to keep an eye out on that driver. By doing this, there is less of a risk of an accident and people are safer. It is effective at home because when a neighbor or someone visiting the sign sees it, they would know to be careful. This way the visitor would be able to avoid being harmed. It is effective in the judicial system because it would stay as a record on the person convicted. This way the one who did the crime would remember this and never make the same mistake again.
I agree that shame punishments at home are more effective than shame punishments in the judicial system. A person will give this punishment because they are hoping that person will be embarrassed and not do whatever they did wrong again. When using this practice at home a parent might want to embarrass their child to help them learn a lesson. Younger children get embarrassed more easily which will teach them to not do this act again or they will be humiliated. Also, parents will take away their electronics or toys in order for them to learn that act is wrong. This will help parents discourage negative behaviors and teach them life lessons. This may be effective on children, but does not work the same on adults. In the judicial system the judge thinks that a shame punishment will make them embarrassed and not do that crime again. However, they are more angry than they are embarrassed which will make them want to commit the crime again. For example, they put a sign on Mr. Meyer's driveway that says, "Warning, A Violent Felon Lives Here. Travel At Your Own Risk." This made him feel angry with the government, not embarrassed. Shame punishment are not only ineffective in the judicial system, they are unfair because they do not have equal punishments for the same crime that is made. If someone robs a bank, a shame punishment is not going to be as effective as years in prison are. Shame punishments should not be used in the judicial system because it is not effective with just embarrassing a criminal and it lets them off easy compared to jail time.
I disagree with the use of shame punishments. These unconstitutional penalties do not match the use of fines or jail time. They allows for the judges to make impulsive decisions concerning the case and their personal feelings toward it. As judges vie for notoriety through sentencing, citizens will be increasingly uncertain about the consequences of their actions. They do not instill fear into the criminal and do not teach them their lesson. Judge Joe Brown is a prime example of this. He is notorious for making burglars allow their victim to go into their home and take something of equivalent value of what the burglar stole. Instead of paying fines or facing jail time, the burglar just gets to get an item taken. That punishment does not give the burglar a reason to not do it again because they know they'll get off easy. Another example of this is when an abusive father was caught harming his 11-year old son. Instead of facing time in jail, he was allowed to sleep in a doghouse for 30 days, because that is where he made his son sleep. This is not equivalent to jail time, because the father is still able to live his life. He is able to still go out, instead of being stuck behind bars. These shame punishments do not match the usual punishments that these criminals would face. They don't give the accused a reason to be scared or regretful, and that's why I disagree with the use of shame punishments.
I agree that shame punishment at home is more effective than shame punishment in the judicial system. When a child misbehaves at home and they get shame punished they are most likel not going to do it again. They will be embarrassed and learn a lesson. In the judicial system I agree hat shame punishment is effective as well. It makes people aware. Of their surroudings and know what is happening around them. In Mr. Meyer's driveway there as a sign that said " Warning. A violent felon lives here. Travel at your own risk. All though the sign didnt make him embarrassed but rather upset, it was\rned people that if you enter you can get hurt. When a person commits a crime a goes to jail for it, when he gets out he is most likely not going to commit another crime because he knows the life he had in jail. I think shame punishment is effective.
I disagree with this practice in the judicial system, but at home, I do agree with it. When using shame punishments to discipline children, I think it is an effective practice. This is because kids get more embarrassed when doing things out of their comfort zone. When they get embarrassed, they don't want to have to do that again, so they will learn their lesson. By parents taking away their electronics, like their phones, will only do so much to them. They are going to get them back eventually, and it's only a temporary punishment. If they get embarrassed, they will always have that in their minds, and think that they don't want that to happen again. With other crimes, that are not done by children, the shame punishment is not very effective. They deserve a harsher kind of punishment, because their crimes are way worse than what some children do, and trying to embarrass them is not the best idea. Most criminals wouldn't care to be embarrassed, so it wouldn't stop them from doing it again. The adults making these crimes, will most likely get angry and try to cause other problems, rather than getting embarrassed. If the criminals get the shame punishment, it lets them off relatively easy, because rather than going to jail for years, they are just put somewhere to try to embarrass them, and they'll go back in the world and try to do other crimes, because their punishment is not bad. Shame punishments should not be used within the judicial system because it lets too many criminals "off the hook" and get away with crimes, because they aren't necessarily getting punished if they are just trying to embarrass them. Criminals need a harsher punishment, so they end up learning their lesson, and not want to commit a crime again.
Although many justices and courts believe that this method of punishment is beneficial, it has the opposite effect. Embarrassing young adult criminals could keep them from committing the crimes again, since younger people care about their permanent records and reputations more than adults. However, it isn't the punishment that they should receive. If a person commits a crime, they need a more permanent punishment, such as jail, to ensure that the crimes won't be committed again. There was also a point made that these types of punishments undermine the uniformity of sentences. This makes criminals unsure of what they're punishment will be, making them less frightened to commit a crime. These sentences threaten the legal system by allowing the judicial branch to act on impulse and personal beliefs instead of letting the legislative branch decide what punishments are acceptable. This new type of law enforcement is ruining the legal system. Judges shouldn't use their personal beliefs to give a certain punishment. Humiliation and shame don't prevent people from doing wrong. The effect only lasts a small amount of time because people get over how they feel.
With the increasing popularity of shame punishments, it is natural for us to question their effectiveness. While it serves as an effective punishment for a child's wrongdoing, it does not have the desired effect on combating adult crimes. Children are more impressionable, and embarrassing them wears on their conscious, preventing them from wanting to do the shamed action again. For example, if a parent were to embarrass their child in front of their friends for making fun of of one of them by making fun of their child, the kid will be ashamed of doing what they had done and not want to do it again. Although it can help teach lessons to kids, it doesn't do quite the same thing for adult criminals. Adults are more likely to be set in their ways and cannot be embarrassed into behaving differently. They'll do what they want and a little public humiliation won't stop them from doing it again if they want to. Eventually the humiliation is forgotten by others and since it angers the recipient more than embarrasses them it is not an effective deterrent to crime. Shaming also brings a great deal of inconsistency to the judicial system. A person charged is not sure if they will be receiving the standard punishment for their crime, such as a fine or jail time or if they will have to display a sign like Mr. Meyers stating something like his, "A violent felon lives here. Travel at your own risk" (Hoffman 1) that displays their crime to the public. It makes the judicial system somewhat unfair, as depending on the judge, some people get off easy with a little humiliation as punishment while others get sent off to jail for similar crimes. The slap on the wrist punishment of shaming is not something that should be used to punish those who break the laws.
I do agree with the use of shame punishments in the house, but not in the judiciary system. I believe that the use of shame punishments at home could mainly help the younger children to not make them do this action again. Parents can punish their kids however they want to, to have their kids' action have a consequence. Kids will benefit this practice more because they will get more embarrassed when his/her friends are over. His friends would probably judge him which will not make him want to do it again. Parents put children in time-out, take away toys, etc. just to teach them a lesson. Children live on their toys, so when they get them taken away, they feel like it's the end of the world. They really benefit from this type of shame punishment because kids wouldn't be able to get their way, which shows good parenting. Shame punishment is not a good idea for the judiciary system because the people committing these actions, don't always learn from their mistakes or will get less of a consequence. If someone was supposed to go to jail, but instead has to wear something around his neck that says he's a thief, the individual might not even be embarrassed by it. Everyone has different personalities, which determines whether shame punishment is a good idea for them. Sometimes, the punishments won't do anything for the person that committed the action. This person would most likely do the action again because he already knew that the consequence wasn't bad. Most adults do not care what others think of them, which could also cause a person to act out again on that action. People that break the law, need more severe punishments because if they don't, they will continue to break the law and not learn from their mistakes.
I do not believe that this system of shame punishments are a good practice withing the household and court system. The whole idea itself is a flaw mainly because all it does is scare people from being shamed. In today's world being shamed isn't the end of the world, and as a result this punishment won't be very effective. Most people commit crimes because they have to or because they get a thrill from it, and this is one of the reasons shaming won't stop this. Our world is in a bad place, and a lot of people are in poverty, so in order to survive people may need to rob places to provide for their family. By seeing someone being shamed or poked fun of won't make these people stop supporting their families by any means necessary. Although this may not be effective in the judicial system, it can be effective in the household. Children enjoy being the center of attention, and always being on everyone good side. So by shaming someone and showing the consequences of making a mistake could prevent them from doing said action in the future. Although these two situations are very different, if there was one verdict to be made, the system is pointless. It won't stop adults from committing crimes, because mistakes happen, and some circumstances require it. Further backing my point, there is no need for this system to be in place among kids, because nothing they do will be bad enough to hurt anyone.
In my opinion, I feel as though shame punishments, in this society, would prove to be ineffective in stopping crime. Shame punishments were created to bring humiliation and embarrassment to the person who committed the crime, hopefully so that they would not perform that crime ever again. While this mentality has certain pros, such as a creative utilization of humiliation, it obtains a great deal of cons. In all seriousness, humiliation does prove to be a crippling mechanism used in certain practices, a prime example being bullying. Bullies use certain methods and say certain things to make other people well aware of another person's shortcomings or flaws. In turn, the humiliation makes that person afraid and instills a sense of submission into them to try and avoid being humiliated again. In the criminal justice system, the people are supposed to kept safe from criminals. The only way the people can be safe is for those criminals to pay for their crimes in jail or some other form of confinement. One of the Constitution's civil liberties is to protect people from cruel and unusual punishment. While some may argue that in no way is shame punishment a cruel method of punishment, others would strongly disagree, including me. Earlier, I related shame punishment to bullying, which is indeed cruel. Rather than humiliate criminals, make sure that they can never perform those crimes again by sending them to pay for their crimes in jail, where they cannot harm anybody else.
I do believe that shame and humility are effective means of punishment, in certain cases. When it comes to juvenile crimes, and crimes committed by the youth of america, the shame punishment can be very effective. Younger people have more going for them in the upcoming future-school, college, a job, a family and many other things life has to offer. If they are seen wearing a giant sign that says “I am a felon”, and are remembered for it, or if that ends up on the internet, they may have a much harder time getting into a school or getting a job. Either way, through jail time or shame the result will be the same. Yet, public humility to the younger american can be incredibly humiliating, most likely bringing the likelihood of the felon committing the crime again, down. Yet, in some cases where felons do not care about shame, or have no sense of guilt because they are “stone cold criminals” shame punishment may not be an effective means of preventing the reoccurance of the crime. The effectiveness of shame punishment also depends on the crime. Obviously if this involves something serious such as murder- shame punishment will definitely not cut it. But for shoplifting, stealing, or committing a smaller offense- shame punishment may get the job done.
Recently, Puritan type shame punishments have made a resurgence in modern society. However, this is not an effective or proper method of discipline, on a governmental or familial level. For one thing, it is ineffective. If someone commits a serious crime such as murder, they likely will not care about being "shamed', and are a threat to do it again. The shame could even fuel their desire to get violent revenge, putting those who are causing them the shame. It is also ineffective in cases of lower level crimes, such as robbery, or drugs. This is because the individual who committed the crime is often attempting to escape from their criminal past and move on. This is especially the case for individuals from lower income urban areas who felt as if they had to sell drugs or rob a gas station just to survive. Public shaming guarantees that their criminal past will follow them, making it hard to escape from that past. This makes the individual more likely to return to their life of crime.
I agree with the practice of shaming at home, but not when it used to punish criminals. Because children are so young, they often want the approval of adults. So, when they are punished by their parents and go through public embarrassment, it has a lasting impact on them. However, like one of the articles said, people who commit crimes tend to be very arrogant. If this is the case, I do not think that shaming them would be effective because it seems like the easy way out and it probably wouldn't discourage the criminal from breaking the law again. Also, although shaming may be embarrassing, it is not a super harsh punishment. Therefore, it is better suited for children who don't obey their parents than for criminals who violate the law. Lastly, I do not believe that shaming should be used in the judicial system because it could give court judges too much power. They could make biased decisions and punish people in unfair ways. Therefore, shame punishing is effective in the home but should not be allowed in the judicial system.
In my opinion, shaming punishments could be effective if it is used in the right situations and on the right people. This technique works better on younger children in my opinion. A younger child will learn from the shaming when an older teenager or adult might find offense. The innocence in a child helps them learn from the shaming. If I child is bullying another kid, an example of shaming would be his/her parents forcing them to stand outside in a public place holding a sign saying I am a bully, honk your car horn if you don’t like bullies! Shaming should only be used for teaching purposes of younger children. Kids have the ability to bounce back after an embarrassing situation because they are too innocent to completely understand what is going on. The only thing that they understand is what they did was wrong, and that they shouldn’t do it again. An adult might not be able to recover from the embarrassment of shaming like kids can. Adults can fully understand and learn from what they did, but they don’t need shaming to teach them that. Shaming should only be used in beneficial/ teaching ways on a child. This technique should be used at home, but not in the judicial system. At home, you use shaming to discipline a child when they do something that they shouldn’t have. The child might get embarrassed about the shaming, but they will learn not to do that again. Shaming shouldn’t be used in the judicial system because adults are more likely to get upset or angry over the shaming. They might feel like they are being treated like a child. Also, when an adult is embarrassed, it is harder to get back up and continue your life after it. Shaming would stick with you forever as an adult. Embarrassment doesn’t just go away with adults. It is more beneficial to charge an adult with a fine if they do something wrong than making them stand out on the side of the road with a sign stating the crime that he/she committed. If the judicial system forced an adult to do that, they might get mad or frustrated rather than embarrassed. To teach an adult, it is easier to give them a direct punishment that is over quickly, than a long and dragged out shaming punishment. A child is more likely to respond to shaming than an adult, therefore, shaming should be used in the home (if used for learning purposes), and it should not be used in the judicial system.
I believe that the practice of shame punishments is not effective. When a person is publicly shamed, granted it does make them feel bad, it may not necessarily teach them a lesson not to commit the crime again. To a teenager who may have committed a minor offense for the first time, it may prove effective, however that is not guaranteed. By being let go so easily it may cause the person to think that they will easily be let go the next time, leading to more problems. If a teenager that has committed a bigger offense and has a poor background of trouble, public humiliation may not be enough to show them what they did was a bad thing. For instance, a father that was abusive had a 30 day sentence, but also had the choice to instead sleep in a dog house for 30 nights. This would't teach the offender much, other than what the inside of a dog house looks like in the dark. If he slept in the dog house at his house, he would still have access to his family and son, but if he spend a month in jail, he would be confined to a concrete box with bars where the setting would be more convincing to make him think about what he did. A study by June Tangney showed that when some people are publicly shamed, could backfire and blame others for their mistakes. This could make an offender more agitated and more likely to commit another crime in the future.
I do not believe that shame punishment is effective at home or in the judicial system. First of all, it allows criminals to get off easy. Instead of paying a fine or doing community service, they are sentenced to some kind of shame punishment. This is not only useless for the community, it could have negative impacts on it. The person receiving the shame punishment will be, most likely, ostracized from the community and could have their life ruined. While this may seem an appropriate punishment for a domestic abuser, for other smaller offences, such as the boy and his friend who were caught stealing other people's letters, it could wrongly ruin their lives. Not only damaging their self-esteem by making them wear an embarrassing sign that can be seen by their peers or superiors, it could damage their future. Any photo taken of them could be easily spread on social media, damaging their changes of getting a job or being accepted into a college, as well as introducing the possibility of being ridiculed online as well as in real life. Even for major criminals like sexual abusers or murderers, these punishments should not be used because they could take the place of jail time. This allows the offender to commit another crime if they want, and is not fair to the victim who has to see them walk free. Even at home, shame punishment would not be an effective practice. To teach a child a lesson from right and wrong, a parent could have a discussion with their child and trust that they raised them to have good morals and that they understand enough about why what they did is wrong. Using a shame punishment to teach a child a lesson, can ruin their self-esteem at a crucial point that it is developing, and cause irrevocable damage to the relationship between a child and the parents.
After reading these two articles, I feel that using embarrassment as a form of punishment isn't very effective. Although it may have a lasting impact on some people, I don't think it will stop true criminals from continuing to commit crimes. I feel as though it might even increase the crime rate since there is no real expense or price to be paid for breaking a law. Criminals probably prefer to stand outside with a sign saying what they did rather than pay thousands is dollars or spend years in jail. This practice of using shame to discourage bad behavior has been used for hundreds of years and since then there certainly has not been a decline in crime rates, but rather in increase. This shows that these methods of punishment aren't very effective. As one of the article stated, more and more of these unusual punishments are being put into place and it is becoming harder to come up with new punishments that will have a lasting impact on criminals. After all, if too many criminals have embarrassing punishments, then eventually it will become normal to the public, and not as humiliating to criminals. Overall, I think this method of punishment would only be effective on truly innocent people or the youth since they are more sheltered and have more to be ashamed of. As for criminals, I think this form of punishment would actually be perfected over others, which is why I don't think it is very effective. Also, I think that this method of punishment gives too much power to the judicial legislatures.They get to come up with the unusual punishments and have no standards to go by to indicate the degree of humiliation in accordance to the crime being committed. Therefore, I think this method is ineffective.
The practice of shame punishments may serve as an effective method at home, however I do not believe it is appropriate in the judiciary system. This goes for a couple reasons. First of all, it may not be harsh enough. Somebody may be convicted of stealing, but there only punishment may be to march around town with a sign saying "Hey guys! Sorry for stealing!" How effective can this possibly be? One may continuously commit the same crime knowing that there only punishment will be to preach about kindness for a day or two, or have to attend a mass for a week. Does this really compare to jail time? Attending church is routine for many, so why should it be considered a punishment for others? Time in jail is much more effective in the sense that you are temporarily stripped of your freedoms. It gives criminals time to reflect on their wrongdoings and make the proper adjustments in jail, as opposed to going right back to stealing after wearing an embarrassing sign for a day. With this being said, these humiliating punishments can be very effective at home. It is harmless in the sense that there is no danger involved in disciplining the child, but at the same time they understand that what they have done is wrong and that it cannot happen again. Some adults won't care if they are humiliated, but children on the other hand will take it much more seriously and come away from it thinking differently.
I do not believe that shaming is a good method of punishment at home or in the judicial system. No person should think that humiliation can get them away with a serious crime such as murder. With cases as big as these, I do believe that jail time without any other human contact is the best punishment and way to give a person enough time and space to figure out that there are different and better ways to handle a difficult situation. Say a person robs a bank. If that person gets humiliated and that’s all they receive in order of punishment, they’ll have every reason to rob another bank, maybe even the same one. But, if you throw that person in a cell to think about what they did, they’ll come to the conclusion that there are better ways to solve financial or even their own greedy personal problems than robbing another bank. By using a shaming punishment at home, it does not help the child learn right from wrong, in fact, it could do the opposite. If a parent's "shaming" punishment is caught by the child's peers, it could lead to bullying, which would teach that child to do anything and everything they could do in order to stand up for themselves. This type of punishment can even lead a child to depression if the bullying after the shame gets bad enough. This can all be avoided by simply explaining to your child what they did wrong and then giving them a rational punishment that wouldn't lead to the damage that "shaming" would. Therefore, shaming is not a good punishment in either the judicial system or a home system.
Shame punishment is a method of humiliating a criminal with the intention to condemn their wrong doing. I believe that this practice is effective in some cases, however, it is ineffective in others. At home, parents or guardians will use shame to punish their children. I feel this method works as they learn their lesson to not break the rules. Usually when kids do something wrong, they don't know any better because they are so young. They are still learning right from wrong. However, in a judicial system, the person who is convicted is older, and they typically have a motive behind their wrong-doing. So if a child is "sentenced" with a shame punishment at home, it will stick with them, effectively deterring them from breaking the rules. In a judicial environment, when a criminal is punished by shame, I feel that this method is ineffective. A person who commits a crime does it for a reason; they know right from wrong as they are older and more experienced, but still have the motivation to do it. These criminals need an effective punishment that will reflect their wrongdoing and stop them from doing anything more, despite whatever their motivation was. Shame punishment is unfair to all criminals, due to the fact that one person may be offered a less harsh of a punishment than another. Some are sentenced to years in prison while others may be forced to hang a sign in their yard announcing their crime. Everyone has a different way of responding to the events around them, therefore, a shame punishment could be completely ineffective. "Urban high school students might applaud a teenager for stealing a Mercedes, not condemn him (Hoffman 1)." Shame punishments are only effective dependent on the response of society. After a short period of time, that shame will be forgotten about and the criminal will be simply right back to square one.
Kids are easier to persuade and teach from their crime, however, in the judicial system, that's not usually the case; And that is the difference between home and the court. Shame punishment is effective at home with children but highly ineffective and unfair in the judicial system.
I agree that this practice at home or within the judicial system is an effective one. I think this because it is helping decrease violence, shows the public who has done what and those who should not be trusted with others, and gives the criminal a fair sentence without having to go to jail at all or for a full-time sentence that usually is accompanied with doing a specific crime. Also, I believe everyone has their civil liberties and included in those liberties is the right to not be involved in unusual and cruel punishments as stated in the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution. Though these sentences given to criminals are unusual, they are not cruel and people are not reaching death due to the punishment. Thus, the act of ruling creative punishments for criminals without having to go to jail is not unconstitutional and should be allowed and used more often. Examples of creative punishments include “drunk drivers have to put special license plates on their cars. Convicted shoplifters must take out advertisements in their local newspapers, running their photographs and announcing their crimes. And men in cities around the country who are convicted of soliciting prostitutes are identified on newspapers, radio shows and billboards” (Hoffman). Once the punishment becomes noticeable to the public, it makes others realize that if they commit the same crime, they will have to do the same or something like that. Their choice is either humiliation in public or spending nights to months to years in a jail cell.
I feel that the system in which a person is publically “called-out on” their wrongdoing(s) is effective. I don’t, however, fully agree with the system. For example, I feel that when we’re younger, being called-out for doing something wrong is more effective because that sticks with us as we grow older. Now, when a person goes out in public to display what they have done, it will obviously cause some uproar in people. Most people watching their fellow citizen(s) will cause them to become precautious around the person and the situation. It’s almost as if this type of public humiliation creates fear in everyone else so that it doesn’t happen again, which is a good thing. Aside from that, I think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I agree, for example, with the system concerning drunk drivers. I think it’s important for the world to see that this person committed a serious crime. It also gives people an opportunity to see what happens when you make the wrong decisions. Because of this act, the law might be saving people from drinking and driving because they don’t want the embarrassment of having a license plate screaming to the world that they drove while being drunk. On the other hand, the idea of having shoplifters take out an ad in the newspaper to display their wrongdoings isn’t right to me. A person could have potentially shoplifted because they don’t have money and they really need an item. Although it isn’t right and I don’t condone shoplifting, I just think that having a person take out an advertisement to showcase their wrongdoing is just unnecessary and honestly a waste of ink. Therefore why I feel that although this system can be effective but is not always the most ideal method depending on the circumstance.
I do agree with the practice of shame punishments in the house to a certain extent. For example, if a young kid or teenager commits a minor crime and gets shamed for it it will make then fell humiliated and embarrassed. This would make the younger person not want to commit another overtime because they wouldn't want to feel all that humiliation. However, i do not agree with shame punishments in the judicial system. This is because the judicial stem deals with mostly major crimes committed by adults. Adults have had a long time to get their fair share of shaming and feeling that humiliation, this renders shaming ineffective to criminals. Say someone kills another person and they just get publicly shamed and humiliated for it rather then server hard time in jail. This would punish the criminal non effectively whereas being locked up away from people would serve a better punishment and purpose.
No, this is not an effective practice in the judicial system or at home. For one, when shaming someone as a punishment, the shaming is totally up to the judge, and the punishments can be based solely off of the judge's opinion. So, judges can gain power by making the convict their personal playtoy. Another reason is that these punishments would not deter future convicts from breaking the law. If someone does not care about their public image, then they could break the law, and their punishment would not be effective, as they wouldn't mind being shamed. Basically, shaming is not an effective punishment because it is not harsh enough, and actual punishments such as fines and jailtime are more effective. Not only that, but imposing such punishments have no data to back their effectiveness. In addition, as the New York Times article stated, shame as an emotion is misunderstood. It has been found that guilt is more effective in deterring people from committing crimes again in the future, and that the latter of shame could actually backfire. People who are shamed can react angrily, blaming others, and therefore making the whole shaming pointless as they just blame others for their actions. Similarly, at home shaming is ineffective. Though the effects of shaming and embarrasment is lasting for children, in this age of technology a simple punishment of taking away a child's phone for a week can make them think twice about what they have done, and there is no need for the excessive embarrasment. Therefore, shaming is not effective. It is unconstitutional, as the punishments are harsh and unusual, and are quite ineffective, since it seems to be the easy way out. Also, it can make people angry and give judges too much power, since they can make biased opinions.
The use of shaming in both the home and judicial system should only be used in certain situations and in certain ways in order for it to be effective. Before delving into shaming, it is necessary for one to understand that the purpose of punishment should be to prevent an individual from performing their wrongdoing again. This being said, shaming should only be used if it is able to encourage a miscreant to change their ways for the better. One aspect of shaming is particularly fitted for this task: the public confession of crimes. When one admits in front of an audience a misdeed of theirs, they are very likely to reflect and realize that what they did was wrong. This sense of guilt would help keep the person from doing it again. An instance of this through the judicial system would be the teenagers who had to wear signs in front of a post office reading that they stole mail from mailboxes. This would encourage the teens to refrain from repeating their actions. In addition to this, the confession of crimes is already a very common practice in homes. When a parent instructs his or her child to go tell his or her sibling sorry for hitting them, they are having them admit their wrongdoing and then apologize for it. Like the teenagers, the children will most likely refrain from doing it again. However, some crimes are so large that they not only need to be kept from happening again, those who commit these crimes should be punished for committing the crime once. Examples of this include murder and abuse. For situations like these, more serious repercussions are necessary than shaming. Because of this, the aspect of shaming including confession of crime should be used in the house and judicial system for minor infractions only, as it effectively prevents individuals from repeating their wrongdoings.
I do not think that shaming is an effective response in the judicial system to most crimes. The fugitive Glenn Meyer had a sign put in his drive way to warn people that a fugitive lived there. This had no effect on him whatsoever since he is "unrepentant" or not showing any regret. If this punishment does not make him learn from his mistakes, he can commit the same crime without worrying about going to jail since he will only be shamed and that did not effect him. This little punishment is not helping the society be protected from criminals and should not be used. Also, shaming was once used in place of the majority of a seven year sentence for driving under the influence and in possession of cocaine. For this type of crime, a shaming would not be sufficient.
In families, the children would not be as embarrassed from the shaming if it was within the family. If the shaming did go beyond the family, the child would be more embarrassed and it could be effective if their peers knew and proceeded to go along with the shaming. The children would be more ashamed infant of their friends and probably learn from their mistakes.
Practice at home or within the judicial system is not an effective one because it is fair to the defendant to suffer the consequences, however not in the judicial system, It is not fair that the charges that different cases and prosecutors must face, have different shame punishments. It is an unbalanced way to run a justice system if there isn't a justified way to approach charging someone for what crime they have committed. It is fair in small crimes, depending on the case for shame punishments to be enacted, but only in special cases that follow a certain standard. All judges in all levels of the justice system must follow some sort of mandate order so all criminals face the punishments they deserve. "June Tangney, a professor of psychology at George Mason University who has studied over 10,000 people to distinguish feelings of shame from guilt, said such penalties, when crudely applied, could backfire. People made to feel ashamed can react angrily and blame others." (Hoffman). Tangney's study shows that shaming defendants "backfires" and is not an effective way to justify a case. On the other hand, the article also said, "But if defendants can feel guilt, Professor Tangney said, they are more likely to want to make reparation" (Hoffman). There is a side of some defendants of making amends and finding peace, but these are only special case scenarios. This is not an every day thing, where the defendant can make peace on their own after a shame punishment that causes to feel guilt. A feeling of doing something wrong is a judge's main goal of how they want the defendant feeling after forcing them to act in a shame punishment. Is that really an effectual way of how justice can be found? No, this is not the way some courts want to punish their defendants, and this is why shame shall not be apart of the judicial system because it is measured unjustly. It is not fair to a defendant charged with having a sign in front of their house and a ruined-reputation, and being the talk-of-the town, compared to another defendant that had to go to mediated class with scented candles. I would much rather it through a refreshingly scented class with a bunch a strangers than to be embarrassed to head into my own town where my friends and family may feel humiliated because of my faulty acts. I shall suffer the same consequences as someone else that committed the same crime as me, instead of us having different punishments of shame. Shame is not a great feeling, but it is measured in different ways and is not a fair way of distributing consequences to those who might have committed the same crime because every individual is entitled of handling their feelings in their own ways. One prosecutor may be like Mr. Meyer and live with humiliation around town and another prosecutor may be sent to a refreshingly scented class.
I agree that the shame punishment at home are far more effective than a shame punishment in the judicial system. The shame punishment is used to embarrass a person so that they will not commit a crime or bad act every again. When using a shame punishment at home the parent that gave their child the punishment wants them to behave better and uses it to control their child in making better more effective choices. An example of a shame act at home would be to make the child sit in the corner or wait in a room until they thought about what they have done. Younger children will become embarrassed that they did something wrong and they will do anything to get out of the situation they are in. Taking electronics away is also a punishment where it teaches children the important skill to not pay attention to the electronic, but rather to the parent in order to behave and get it back. in the Judicial system a shame punishment would be telling everyone of a convict that lives nearby. This wouldn't be as effective because rather than being embarrassed, simply they will be angry and/or will not care. Punishments in the judicial system are easy to get around by paying money usually for the things that have been broken or harmed. However, in a household it is different because the parents that give the punishment do not want money from the child, rather that they will behave correctly. I believe that using the shame punishment like the one at home will definitely get felons to behave better than in a judicial system.
I feel that the use of shaming as a punishment both at home and in court is ineffective. Although shame may work for some criminals a majority of offenders will remain unaffected and probably continue to commit similar crimes knowing that their only punishments will be to walk around with a sign for a day. If an animal bites a person then it will be killed, but this idea says that if a person kills another person they only have to walk around with a sign around their neck. As stated by Jonathan Turley, "yet it appears that some judges long for those Judge Judy moments when they can hand out their own idiosyncratic forms of justice". This shows how shame punishments hurt the justice system by loosening laws and leaving punishments up to the interpretation of the judge, not laws decided by the people or elected officials. This also shortens and weakens punishments. Criminals would be more inclined to stopping their actions if they were sent to prison for a period of time or forced to do community service for several days or weeks. On the contrary, the worst shame punishment is spending one day walking around wearing a sign. Another issue with shame punishments is that people are not as close as people in Puritan times. In colonial America, small Puritan townsfolk knew everyone in their town, so they knew who committed the crime. Today you have places like Boston and New York City that have so many people, even small town have up to 1000 people. With so many people in their cities a shame punishment would not work because most people walking by the criminal would not even know them. The idea of using shame as a punishment will not encourage criminals to stop their crimes and allow them to get off easy.
I do not believe that shame punishments are ethical, but I do believe that on some level, they are effective. One of the benefits of the American judicial system is that after a public trial, punishments can be kept relatively private. It is unethical to shorten sentences or get rid of them all together in return for an embarrassing and relatively small punishment. In some ways however, shame punishments are effective. These are small scale things and shouldn't have an essential purpose of shaming. Things like marking the license plate of a drunk driver can be beneficial to the general well being of a community and should not be considered a crime punishment as much as a safety precaution. Consistent with the example of drunk drivers, shame punishments can have little effect on convicted criminals. Having said sign on a license plate would not necessarily prevent the driver from driving while intoxicated, but would warn others. I think that shame punishments are more unethical and more effective when used in the home. When parents shame their children, it makes them feel small and does not set a good example for them for how they should treat others or how they should be expected to be treated by others. This can instill a sense of self hate in children which is not what parents should focus on. Childhood should build children up, not tear them down. This is much more unethical than shaming criminals, however it is more effective. Impressionable children will take embarrassment very differently than a grown adult will. They will most likely change their behavior as to not be embarrassed again because the feeling will sit with them more. Shame punishment is not ethical by any means or on any level, but it can prove effective at times.
In my opinion shame is a not very effective way to punish someone. Event though shame and embarrassment might be a little effective for very small offenses. But the major problem with this is it is very unethical and not professional at all. The judicial victim is supposed to be clean and orderly and the ways that same would be carried out do not seem clean or orderly at all. On the other hand if there where to be found a clean and professional way to carry out the punishment it would be very effective. The reason for this being true is shame or embarrassment is a very driving force. It could potentially deter someone from committing the crime in the first place if the shame is effective enough. At the end of it all it is not a very clean and it is not nearly as effective as a fine or jail time.
In my opinion, the use of shaming punishments is effective at home, but not in the legal system. At home if a parent reprimands their child in private the child normally doesn’t even care, but when a parent makes their child publicly acknowledge something they have done they are more likely to be very embarrassed and never do it again. On the other hand this type of punishment in the legal system is not effective. For example, a judge in Georgia suspended nearly all of the seven year sentence a man had for cocaine possession and driving under the influence in exchange for his promise to buy a casket, and keep it in his home to remind him of the costs of drug addiction (Turley). No type of shame punishment can add up to seven years locked away, and it is unacceptable to let convicted/guilty criminals get away with such serious crimes with such little punishment. Punishing these people like this will not teach them a lesson, and chances are after their punishment is over they will be more likely to resort back to old habits. It has also been seen that after being in prison many convicted criminals really do regret the things they have done and want to start fresh when they get out. If they are never in prison how will they really be able to look at their actions and change for the better. This type of punishment is also not a very legal way of doing things. When you really think about it the judges dishing out these punishments are abusing their power and being almost too “creative” with what they are giving out. For this reason although it can be useful at home, when used in the legal system shame punishments don’t teach criminals that there are consequences for their actions and let them off too easy.
In my opinion, the use of "shame" punishments in the judicial system are not an effective practice, however in households, they can have more of an effect. When punishing an adult for a criminal offense, the use of shame punishments will only cause embarrassment and not be an effective way for them to learn from their mistakes. When dealing with children, on the other half, they will take the embarrassment as a punishment and hopefully learn to not do whatever they had done again. For example, if a child were to be grounded or get their electronics taken away by an adult for an improper action, they most likely would be embarrassed because now they won't be able to do what they want as well as they have to now tell their friends what happened, embarrassing themselves even more. Throughout the judicial system, the judges believe that adults will get embarrassed through the shame punishments and therefore think before committing a crime or act again. In reality, however, most adults in these types of situations get over the embarrassment and tend to have more of an angry mentality towards shame punishments. For example in Crime and Punishment: Shame Gains Popularity, after Mr. Meyer had swung a metal-encased pump at Mr. Mason smashing his nose and eye socket, Mr. Meyer was forced to put a sign up at the end of his drive saying, "Warning", "A Violent Felon Lives Here. Travel At Your Own Risk". This punishment forced upon him by the judicial system didn't cause him to be embarrassed but to feel angry. Although these punishments instill anger in adults and embarrassment in children, for adults this is not an equal punishment for what they actually have done. Most of the time, adults commit harsher crimes than any kid would ever commit, so by only disciplining the adult with a shame punishment, it barely teaches them a lesson and is basically letting them off the hook. Therefore, adults should be disciplined with a punishment that's equal to what crime or act they committed. In general, I believe that in the judicial system, shame punishments are not an effective way of discipline, but in households they are an effective way to learn from disciplinary actions.
After reading the two articles on shame punishments, I agree that the practice at home is less effective by means of punishment compared to the Judicial System. In some cases, when it comes to crimes and citizens becoming inmates, it is more shameful for the prisoner to be faced with guilt by their families than other convicted felons. Understanding as an offender, that your mom and dad know that you are in prison is embarrassing, maybe even so embarrassing this would be the last crime you would commit. Some families send their young delinquents into juvie to scare them into turning a blind side towards bad influences and inflictions with the law. In my opinion, most children do or should listen to their parental guardian. In a household, if a parent punishes their child, it hurts more in the heart. Living with the fact that ones family does not want to keep a child around publicly acknowledges the shamefulness. With that shame, they are more likely to be very embarrassed and never do it again. In the Judicial System, inmates act tough, almost as if they are unstoppable behind bars. In prison, there are thousands of strangers, who most likely so torn with being away from their family, they hardly ever speak. This loneliness will help them think about their past designs, making them finally realize their family was right. Not wanting to disappoint them, the offender would try and make amends with both the law and their family.
After reading the articles provided, I have come to believe that shame punishments are not morally acceptable at home or in the judicial system. At home, shaming a child as a form of punishment is counterproductive for the child and is emotionally damaging. Shame punishments provides children with a negative example and understanding about how they should treat others. In addition, this form of punishment has the ability to instill fear into the minds of children and self loathing. As human beings, we are entitled to make mistakes and mess up, however, shaming children makes them avoid making mistakes, in fear of getting humiliated or feeling bad about themselves.
Conversely, using shame as a form of punishment does not prevent a criminal from avoiding committing the crime again. Despite the practice being constitutional, once a criminal is shamed with an embarrassing sign outside their house, for example, what prevents them from committing the crime again? The fear of a bigger sign or more humiliation from their neighbors? It seems that was the full extent of the judicial system's ability to shame an individual. In addition, humiliation is not a factor that would prevent most "true criminals" from committing a crime. Shame punishments are an example of cruel and unusual punishment and have been deemed ineffective by most courts in the United States. Thus, I believe shame punishments are not morally acceptable in the home or in the judicial system.
I believe that shame punishment isn't a good practice. It's ineffective because many people don't care if they are shamed. They would care if they got fined or put into jail. The real reason is that it's not right. You shouldn't make someone embrassed for being themselves. Making people hold up signs in public that read "I bully mentally disabled children" isn't right. Just give that person jail time. Going back on what I said before, shaming sometimes doesn't work. A person with little care is not going to feel the punishment as much as others. Shaming isn't a fair punishment. Jail time is fair because you are locked up for time which can't be manipulated. Being shamed can be bad for someone to do or really bad.
After reading both articles, I believe shame punishments are a good form of punishment. They make the individual feel ashamed of their acts by publicity stating what they did. Compared to jail time, shaming lets the individual reflect without completely ruining their lives. Jail time completely removes them from society, giving them time to reflect on their actions. Shaming does essentially the same without removing them from society. Shaming may even be more effective to make an individual reflect. It publicly states their crime, let the individual feel the judgement of all the people that are aware of their crime. The shamed individual will usually feel embarrassed and never do that crime again; they might even try to make amends back to society. However shaming only works on people that care about how others think of them. If a criminal doesn't care what the public thinks, them they will think they get off with a light punishment and further continue to do criminal acts. In conclusion, shaming is a very effective way to punish moderate crimes, making the individual dwell on their actions, however it only works on some people.
Yes, I agree with the usage of shaming punishments in the home and the judicial system. I believe that theses punishments can be effective with family members and criminals alike if executed correctly. Within the home they can work because they make the offender feel shunned and ostracized by their family. Shaming punishments can also be beneficial for using with certain criminals. This is because some lifetime criminals continue to enter and re-enter jail and prison. This is proves that this type of punishment is not effective of this group of criminals. One important rule to follow when distributing these types of punishments is make the punishment fit the crime. One example would be if a teen is caught spray-painting a school, instead of making them pay a fine, how about ordering them to scrub and clean up the graffiti. This would teach them to respect and admire the hard work that goes into keeping theses places clean and they may think twice before doing it again. This proves why shameful punishments are appropriate for usage in homes and the judicial system.
I believe that shame punishments are not effective because people don't really care whether there shamed or not. It can affect a child in negative ways such as their role in society. All humans are bound to make mistakes and if we can't learn to forgive and forget them, then how can we learn to be a better person. This is why I believe shame punishment is ineffective and wrong
I do believe that shame punishments are effective, because embarrassment and guilt are two of the strongest emotions one can feel. Due to the fact that most criminals commit a crime again, and re-enter jail after their original sentence is over says that going to jail doesn't do much for a criminal but waste their time. Sitting in a jail cell, doing nothing doesn't do much in ways of rehabilitation for someone who is mentally ill and has committed a crime. One may even get ideas on how to better commit their crime when they are sitting in jail, with many other criminals. Doing nothing but sit around all day gives a criminal the chance to think about what they could have done differently to cover up their crime. They may even hold grudges, or use their time to strategically plan a crime while in jail. Shame punishments cause embarassment to the criminal, which most likely is going to make them feel guilty for their actions. When one is embarrassed, it causes them to think about their previous actions, and most likely causes them to never want to do whatever they had done again. Personally, I feel that embarassment is the worst emotion to feel, because you feel so judged and unintelligent. Seeing as how jail time is ineffective in most cases, why not try something new?
I disagree with the use of shameful punishments in the judicial system. I believe it is a less harsh punishment and a way of actual criminals to get out of doing hard time or less of it. For example the abusive father got his sentence reduced if he slept in a doghouse. I don't know about other people but I would much rather sleep in a dog house than go to jail for a longer time. Another example is the person who was caught with cocaine and driving under the influence, the judge suspended almost all of all of his sentence because he will but a casket and sleep in it to remind him about what drugs can do to a person. These punishments are ineffective. Cocaine users will most likely continue to be cocaine users if they do not serve jail time and are separated and punished because of the use of the drug. If they stay at home and just sleep on a different thing other than a bed they will most likely pick up their old habits of doing cocaine and go on how they were living before. Some juveniles who need to wear a sign in public really don't care and are just happy they didn't need to serve jail time. I believe that jail time and community service are punishments that would actually teach the criminals a lesson to not commit a crime again. Shameful punishments should not be used in the judicial system, there should be a set punishment in place for every crime so some people don't get off easier than others for the same crime.
I do not think this "shame" punishment is really an effective way to punish a wrongdoer. While it is humiliating, it is little more than an irksome slap on the wrist for the perpetrator. If a man who is normally peaceful (say, Mr. Meyers) is shamed for getting angry rather than getting a prison sentence for a while, it could be considered unusual punishment as well, which is unconstitutional. It does not have to exclusively be cruel. While the shaming is humiliating, it does not necessarily induce guilt. Shaming may lead to barbaric practices such as Hammurabi's "eye-for-an-eye" policy. The best course of action in my opinion would be to make "correctional" facilities correctional rather than simple detention facilities where criminals never learn to be functioning, law-abiding members of society. The framers included the Bill of Rights' cruel and unusual punishment ban for a reason, and shame punishment such as this is included. We must remain civil in our practices of punishment. Criminal justice is not for entertainment, it is for the good of society and the righting of wrongs.
I believe shame punishments are more effective at home, rather than in the judicial system. In the judicial system, shame punishments are used as a way to embarrass or humiliate a person. Judges often believe that it will stop the person from committing the crime again. However, shame punishments are an easier way of "getting off the hook." Whether it be community service or going to therapy, it is much better than spending time in jail. Adults aren't going to learn from their mistakes by simply being embarrassed. Throughout their whole lives, everyone deals with embarrassment and eventually it doesn't phase a person anymore. They are more likely to show anger like Mr. Meyer did. In the article "Crime and Punishment: Shame Gains Popularity," Mr. Meyer saw sign that was placed in his driveway by a judge. The sign said " Warning, a Violent Felon Lives Here. Travel At Your Own Risk.'' Although the judge thought it would publicly humiliate him for his wrongdoings, it actually angered him. However, at a house, parents know their children best and know how they react to punishments most effectively. Whether it be taking away their phones or not allowing them to go out with their friends, it gives the child an opportunity to realize what they did and to fix their mistakes for next time. Shame punishments are more effective at home because children are more likely to get embarrassed. Often kids become embarrassed when they answer a wrong question in class, so they always have fear they will get laughed at.Once a child is embarrassed,it will prevent them from making the same mistake twice. Parents can talk to their child about their wrongdoings and give them life-long advice when bad behavior is done.