With incarceration costs becoming high there are new alternatives rising, one of the most popular being public shaming. Public shaming should not be considered appropriate for any offense that can result in a short jail term. Public shaming can do so much emotional damage to someone, and no one should feel such incredible humiliation or self hatred. People who endure public shaming cannot bear to live with themselves sometimes that it could lead them to do something irrational. Public shaming at times is not even a punishment for some, if someone does a crime they should also do the time. Public shaming can comes with serious consequences if given to the wrong person and if given to others it is just a slap on the wrist. Crimes should be taken seriously and so should the punishments. People should go to jail or do community service based on what they have done, they should not be let go so easily.
The court system seems to think that by using public shaming a criminal will not do the crime again. In some cases that may work but in other cases the criminal will continue to do crimes. Public shaming will not solve any of the issues in society that creates criminal nor will it decrease crime rates. Criminals will not stop committing crimes because they are put to shame in the public eye. In fact criminals who are shamed in the public will probably commit more crimes now that they are labeled as criminals. That is how society works today, people are labeled for what they have done. No matter how hard one tries to become a better person or what one does to redeem himself, he will still be what society labels him as. So if a person were to be labeled a criminal he would only commit more crimes because that is what society expects of hi...
... middle of paper ...
... service that relates to the crime they committed. She gives examples such as a drunk driver being sentenced to help with road accidents to have them see what really happens that they do not know about. This is a much greater and reasonable punishment because people will actually learn from their wrongdoings. Doing volunteer work can help better the person and get them on the right track.
Public shaming is much more than just a punishment for people, they either learn nothing from it or hate themselves because if it. It should not be considered appropriate under any circumstances. A crime is a crime no matter how big or how small, people should do the time for what they did. They should not be placed in public and made a fool of. They should be placed somewhere where they can learn from their mistakes and get the help they need to better themselves as a human being.
There has always been an opinion on the correct way to deal with criminals. This will be yet another, but by me. The ways of dealing with criminals is not easy, and there is technically not a definite way to do so. But in my opinion, among the many goals of corrections, the ways I can agree on are a combination of rehabilitation and deterrence. These two things are completely opposite of one another, but used at the appropriate times, to the appropriate inmates, it could work in a positive way.
They explain three agendas that they believe will work in fixing the problem of mass incarceration, brought about by the Punishment Imperative. The first solution they offer is to make changes to minimum sentencing, especially for drugs, and to create structured sentencing systems to guide judicial discretion. The next agenda is to reduce the length of stay in prisons through parole, early release, and changes in sentencing strategies. The final agenda that Clear and Frost provide is to reduce recidivism by attempting to make it easier for released convicts to reintegrate into society. This is an effective way of supporting their argument because they are proving that the Punishment Imperative was ineffective and that their solutions will reverse the consequences brought about by
Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means of punishment.
The offender should be held responsible for their actions, and should be taken out of society to complete their punishment. I am torn between which system I believe does the most good. I used to believe that no contact with the outside world would always be the best punishment. They committed a crime, and they should pay for it. These days, people with a record can have a very hard time bettering their life after jail or prison. Having some contact with other prisoners, society, and a means to work inside can help with this. It really comes down to whether you believe criminals should be able to start fixing their mistakes during or after their punishment. The cost of these systems is different and should not be ignored, but for my assessment of the systems I have not included a difference in price. This is mostly because I feel as though there are cuts that could potentially be made to make the costs more
But as will be discussed, there are major flaws in the Australian criminal justice system with issues focussing on three main concerns: (i) lenient sentencing in the criminal justice system particularly with white-collar and blue-collar crimes (i) recidivism and lack of support for offenders (iii) public safety concerns. This essay will examine issues with the Australian prison system, and explore the punishment of shaming and if it is an effective method in preventing general and specific deterrence using sociological frameworks and theories.
According Irina Raicu’s “Ethics of Online Shaming”, “however, may see it as inherently unethical because the shamer has no real control over the proportionality of the response: in many cases of online shaming the effect seem to be disproportionate to the offense that set them off (when the shaming goes viral and them marks the person, both online and off, potentially forever) – and proportionality is a key part of a just
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
For centuries, prisons have been attempting to reinforce good behavior through various methods of punishment, some more severe than others. There are several types of punishments which include “corporal punishment, public humiliation, penal bondage, and banishment for more severe offenses, as well as capital punishment”(Linklater, V). Punishments in which are more severe pose the question “Has it gone too far?” and is stripping away the rights and humanity of a criminal justified with the response it is for the protection of the people? Is justice really served? Although prison systems are intense and the experience is one of a kind for sure, it does little to help them as statistics show “two-in-five inmates nationwide return to jail within three years of release”(Ascharya, K).
They are successful in immediately punishing the offender and they are also seen as “high in profile”. Following a sentencing, the convicted criminal is immediately escorted out of the courtroom and straight to the confinements of prison. This instant punishment keeps the convicted off the streets preventing more harm to the community. This also is a result of “high in profile”. Prison is the most severe punishment that the government can inflict on a criminal (including the death-penalty). Criminal sentencing is taken very seriously and is meant to scare lawbreakers from re-offending. However, rehabilitation does a better job in preventing
He suggests flogging, but he gives no evidence as to why flogging would be more effective. Since Jacoby does not consider any other alternatives to prison such as community service, loss of privileges, or in extreme cases, exile, his argument that flogging is the best alternative is unconvincing to the reader. Also, he fails to define flogging or give proof that physical punishment would lower the high crime rate in the United States. Thus, while his article raises compelling concerns about the American prison system, Jeff Jacoby fails to persuade his audience that flogging is the best alternative to
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more, the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our e...
The system has gone as deep as to making it so that even if a person has not committed a crime, but is being charged for it they can agree to a plea bargain, which makes it so even though the person did not do it the system is going to have them convicted of it anyway (Quigley 1). “As one young man told me ‘who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn’t do?” (Quigley 2). The criminal justice system has scared the majority of the population into believing that even though they did not commit a crime, they are convicted of it.
Punishing criminals by putting them in a correctional facility such as prisons can be successful in repenting the criminal as they would reflect on their own actions, allowing the guilt to make them better people, probably even seeing their own faults through other prisoners. Prisons give criminals a chance to rehabilitate themselves by using the facilities there present such as the counseling and seminars given. The fact that prisons house a lot of criminals that associate with each other has created a “criminal community”, an atmosphere where crime inhibits; therefore criminals can only aid each other out to become better “crims”, learning the tricks of the trade as well as toughening each other up through the highly abusive nature of the criminals there. Health wise, prisons can highly be dangerous and lethal to the prisoners; such diseases as AIDS from homosexual relationships and drug use is prevalent, as well as male rape, and even female rape, even some become mentally insane. In general however, prisons aren’t a nice place to be.
Public humiliation supposedly enforces people’s behaviors to change but does shame really influence people to change? Most people have their different opinions on public humiliation but either way Hester is a victim of this cruel well-known Puritan punishment. On the other hand, as a result of Reverend Dimmesdale withholding his sin, a hard-hitting sickness secretly hits the reverend. The scarlet letter located on Hester’s chest is a constant reminder of her wrong decision. In the novel The Scarlet Letter, author Nathaniel Hawthorne expresses the effects of sin in many ways, including public humiliation, Hester and the scarlet letter and Dimmesdale’s sickness. Maria Stromberg, who wrote the article “Hawthorne’s Black Man: Image of Social Evil” expresses the danger of breaking laws through her writings about The Scarlet Letter. Olivia Taylor’s article “Cultural Confessions: Penance and Penitence in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter and The Marble Faun” indicates that with every sin one commits there are consequences.