Can Public Shaming Be Good Criminal Punishment?

Shaming sentences grab headlines, but experts question whether they solve problems.

National Journal
Matt Berman
Add to Briefcase
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 »
Mississippi Governor Signs Bill to Ban Abortions After 15 Weeks
11 hours ago
China Tariffs May Be Even Bigger Than Originally Proposed
11 hours ago

"President Trump is preparing to impose a package of $60 billion in annual tariffs against China, following through on a long-time threat that he says will punish China for intellectual property infringement and create more American jobs. The tariff package, which Trump plans to unveil by Friday, was confirmed by four senior administration officials. Senior aides had presented Trump with a $30 billion tariff package that would apply to a range of products, but Trump directed them to roughly double the scope of the new trade levies."

Trump Attorneys Have Offered Documents to Mueller’s Team
12 hours ago

"President Trump’s attorneys have provided the special counsel’s office with written descriptions that chronicle key moments under investigation in hopes of curtailing the scope of a presidential interview, according to two people familiar with the situation. Trump’s legal team recently shared the documents in an effort to limit any session between the president and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to a few select topics" on order to "minimize his exposure. ... The lawyers are worried that Trump, who has a penchant for making erroneous claims, would be vulnerable in an hours-long interview."

Trump Isn’t Firing Mueller, Lawyer Says
20 hours ago

White House Lawyer Ty Cobb said that President Trump not considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller. Speculation swirled after Trump attacked the investigation on Twitter, and called out Mueller directly for the first time. “In response to media speculation and related questions being posed to the Administration," Cobb said, "...the President is not considering or discussing the firing of the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller." Several members of Congress, "including some top Republicans, warned Trump to not even think about terminating Mueller."

Rubio Says McCabe Should Have Been Allowed to Retire
1 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.