Can Public Shaming Be Good Criminal Punishment?

.photo.right{display:none;}Shaming sentences grab headlines, but experts question whether they solve problems.

National Journal
Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Sept. 9, 2013, 2 a.m.

For a few hours every day last week, a 58-year-old man in Clev­e­land with a gray goat­ee, a ratty AC/DC T-shirt, and a back­wards hat wore a sign around his neck that clearly labeled him as an idi­ot. “I apo­lo­gize to of­ficer Si­mone & all po­lice of­ficers for be­ing an idi­ot call­ing 911 threat­en­ing to kill you,” it read. “I’m sorry and it will nev­er hap­pen again.”

The man, Richard Damer­on, didn’t wear the sign by choice: It was part of his pun­ish­ment — along with 180 days in jail — ordered by mu­ni­cip­al Judge Pin­key Carr.

The prac­tice is called pub­lic sham­ing, and it’s the kind of cre­at­ive pun­ish­ment that is be­ing ordered by judges around the coun­try, from court-man­dated din­ners at Red Lob­ster to wear­ing a chick­en suit on the side of a road. And it could ac­tu­ally work to not only cut down on low-level crime, but to help slash bal­loon­ing state and loc­al budgets as well.

Jes­sica Eaglin, the coun­sel for the justice pro­gram at New York Uni­versity’s Bren­nan Cen­ter for Justice, says that some judges may view pub­lic sham­ing as more for­ward-look­ing than re­tributive pun­ish­ments. For­ward-look­ing pub­lic sham­ing is more de­terrence-based, says Eaglin, and can have an im­pact on an en­tire com­munity in­stead of just one per­son. For low-level crimes in small towns, “that’s where the pub­lic sham­ing comes in,” Eaglin says. “It’s re­flect­ing on your life, people are watch­ing you, and that’s go­ing to af­fect your be­ha­vi­or more than just pay­ing a fine.”

Not every­one agrees. “This kind of pub­lic sham­ing has no re­cord of ef­fic­acy in turn­ing someone away from crime,” Peggy Mc­Garry, dir­ect­or of the Cen­ter on Sen­ten­cing and Cor­rec­tions at the Vera In­sti­tute of Justice, said in an e-mail. Mc­Garry thinks this is es­pe­cially true for small-town, low-level of­fend­ers: 

In a small town or even a small city, sub­ject­ing someone to this might cause them to lose their job or jeop­ard­ize their chances for fu­ture em­ploy­ment, hous­ing, and/or cred­it, and sub­ject fam­ily mem­bers to hu­mi­li­ation.

Pub­lic sham­ing pun­ish­ments aren’t just about try­ing to de­ter fu­ture crimes, or em­bar­rass­ing low-level of­fend­ers to the ex­tent that they would nev­er think to re­lapse. They’re also about the eco­nom­ics of the fisc­ally broken state and loc­al crim­in­al-justice sys­tem.

The state and loc­al pris­on sys­tem in the U.S. is something of a dis­aster right now, with more than 1.3 mil­lion in­mates in state pris­ons in 2012. That has res­ul­ted in some tough budget­ing for states around the coun­try, and has led some judges to think a bit more with their wal­lets. As states be­come in­creas­ingly strapped for cash, there’s been great­er “en­thu­si­asm” for cre­at­ive sen­ten­cing de­signed to keep of­fend­ers out of pris­on while ad­dress­ing un­der­ly­ing prob­lems, says Eaglin.

But put­ting a sign around Richard Damer­on’s neck and mak­ing him stand out in pub­lic for hours doesn’t ne­ces­sar­ily solve any un­der­ly­ing prob­lem. “I don’t per­ceive it as be­ing a par­tic­u­larly ef­fect­ive ap­proach to de­ter him from an idi­ot­ic ac­tion,” says Nancy La Vigne, dir­ect­or of the Justice Policy Cen­ter at the Urb­an In­sti­tute. And the con­text of the sign and the situ­ation is so nar­row, La Vigne says, that it’s un­likely to de­ter oth­ers. La Vigne, like Mc­Garry, wor­ries that this kind of pub­lic sham­ing could just de­mon­ize low-level of­fend­ers who are in dif­fi­cult per­son­al situ­ations and leave them in an un­end­ing cycle of crime and ab­use.

The eco­nom­ics of pub­lic sham­ing and al­tern­at­ive sen­ten­cing can still be com­pel­ling. And there are more ways to shame someone than mak­ing him or her dress up like a chick­en or don a card­board sign. La Vigne points to pub­lish­ing the names of people who so­li­cit pros­ti­tu­tion, a type of pub­lic sham­ing that she thinks could be “very ef­fect­ive” in de­ter­ring sex crimes. And if you can de­ter sex crimes, then you can also de­ter spend­ing money on hous­ing a pris­on­er. That is an es­pe­cially big deal for the kind of low-level crim­in­als who are of­ten fre­quent of­fend­ers and wind up in state and loc­al jails on short sen­tences time after time.

There are fisc­ally re­spons­ible ways of hand­ling re­peat of­fend­ers aside from just sham­ing them. Those “chron­ic mis­de­meanants” are of­ten drug or al­co­hol ab­users, and many jur­is­dic­tions are turn­ing to sobri­ety cen­ters or sup­port­ive hous­ing pro­grams for the chron­ic­ally home­less, says La Vigne. 

Even though the scattered sen­tences have been reas­on­ably high pro­file, pub­lic sham­ing is cur­rently not a com­mon prac­tice in the U.S. crim­in­al-justice sys­tem. But as state and loc­al gov­ern­ments look to more cre­at­ive sen­ten­cing to get around budget is­sues, it’s easy to ima­gine more judges fol­low­ing the path of Clev­e­land’s Pin­key Carr. The is­sue now is find­ing a way to keep low-level of­fend­ers both out of the crim­in­al-justice sys­tem’s re­volving door, and also out of the stocks.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×