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 »
27TH AMENDMENT
Congress Can’t Seem Not to Pay Itself
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Far Away from Cleveland is the California GOP Staying?
3 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."

ATTORNEY MAY RELEASE THEM ANYWAY
SCOTUS Will Not Allow ‘DC Madam’ Phone Records to Be Released
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."

Source:
DOWN TO THE WIRE
Sanders Looks to Right the Ship in Indiana
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

Hillary Clinton may have the Democratic nomination sewn up, but Bernie Sanders apparently isn't buying it. Buoyed by a poll showing them in a "virtual tie," Sanders is "holding three rallies on the final day before the state primary and hoping to pull off a win after a tough week of election losses and campaign layoffs." 

Source:
‘SPOOKED’ IN NORTH DAKOTA
Cruz Delegates Having Second Thoughts?
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

As unbound delegates pledged to Ted Cruz watch him "struggle to tread water in a primary increasingly dominated by Trump, many of them, wary of a bitter convention battle that could rend the party at its seams, are rethinking their commitment to the Texas senator."

Source:
×