Public punishment for public order offences?

b.harte

There have been a few threads of late about criminal activity / crimes / punishment and the reactions to the news of sentences or retributions for offences.
As I get older, as as my family grows up I have noticed a change in my own mindset as to how the current system is failing, for the most part, to protect the people who need to be protected.
To me it would appear that there is very little by way of a deterrent for re-offenders.
On a weekly basis the news is reporting how person X with a string of previous convictions is facing more serious charges or had left someone dead or maimed.
It has to start somewhere, most people do not set out on their path through life thinking that someday they will seriously injure or kill someone, it often stems from a long standing disregard for society / the rules or as a reaction to their own surroundings, all of which while relevant are not "excuses" to do something wrong.

My theory is that rather than impose pointless sentences (small fines, bound to the peace etc) for public order offences offenders should be locked in a stock in a public area so that people can see the public order offenders.

I know that this is deeply regressive, and most certainly a cruel and unusual punishment, however I know that if the sentence for my misbehaviour was a public punishment I would be less likely to do anything a second time.

I think it is a good idea, there are people within society who repeatedly ignore the rules that govern that society, as a result they don't give a fiddlers and there is a public perception that as nothing appears to be done there is no point in reporting stuff. At least a visible deterrent might alter things.

And no, the next step in my master-plan is not gladiatorial combat in the aviva, mind you....


The tldr; version:

Public punishment for public order offences yea / nah

jester77

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

faceman

Corporal punishment is never justified and it doesn't work. If it did there would be no crime in states with the death penalty and countries that have religious laws.

Agricola

You said it yourself OP. Its deeply regressive. We've had thousands of years of this kind of thing in human history, why go backwards. The countries that still advocate this, are mostly still stuck in the old testament.

Having said that, gladiatorial combat in the Aviva would be epic. Feeding a few politicians and bankers to the lions in the morning, before watching Brian Cowen and Bertie Aherne go head to head in an afternoon bout, wearing only thongs...

twinQuins

You admit it has been tried before (and didn't work) and yet still want to try it again?

I'm reminded of that quote about insanity being trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

wilkie2006

Agricola wrote: »

You said it yourself OP. Its deeply regressive. We've had thousands of years of this kind of thing in human history, why go backwards. The countries that still advocate this, are mostly still stuck in the old testament.

Having said that, gladiatorial combat in the Aviva would be epic. Feeding a few politicians and bankers to the lions in the morning, before watching Brian Cowen and Bertie Aherne go head to head in an afternoon bout, wearing only thongs...

Mr Trade In

Only one way to solve these issues.

benway

Don't be daft. :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

b.harte wrote: »

There have been a few threads of late about criminal activity / crimes / punishment and the reactions to the news of sentences or retributions for offences.
As I get older, as as my family grows up I have noticed a change in my own mindset as to how the current system is failing, for the most part, to protect the people who need to be protected.
To me it would appear that there is very little by way of a deterrent for re-offenders.
On a weekly basis the news is reporting how person X with a string of previous convictions is facing more serious charges or had left someone dead or maimed.
It has to start somewhere, most people do not set out on their path through life thinking that someday they will seriously injure or kill someone, it often stems from a long standing disregard for society / the rules or as a reaction to their own surroundings, all of which while relevant are not "excuses" to do something wrong.

My theory is that rather than impose pointless sentences (small fines, bound to the peace etc) for public order offences offenders should be locked in a stock in a public area so that people can see the public order offenders.

I know that this is deeply regressive, and most certainly a cruel and unusual punishment, however I know that if the sentence for my misbehaviour was a public punishment I would be less likely to do anything a second time.

I think it is a good idea, there are people within society who repeatedly ignore the rules that govern that society, as a result they don't give a fiddlers and there is a public perception that as nothing appears to be done there is no point in reporting stuff. At least a visible deterrent might alter things.

And no, the next step in my master-plan is not gladiatorial combat in the aviva, mind you....


The tldr; version:

Public punishment for public order offences yea / nah

You say you feel the need for family protection. What are you doing and where are you going (and when) that your family is threatened by public order offenses?

Beyond that, it's been done and it didn't work.

b.harte

My concern for my family is that there are elements within our society who feel that it is okay to do something, (as yet to occur, thankfully), which may harm or injure people.
I think that if "criminal tendencies" are nipped in the bud, or at least discouraged in an active way, those persons may not begin the path to large scale criminality.
I know that this theory is flawed, but it's a start.
If joe scum who gets off his face on a friday night and starts a fight outside the chipper was to be put in the stocks for a day of two where he would have time to reflect on his actions he may not start a fight again. We very well might and in that case then perhaps a different form of punishment would be preferred.
Similarly, the person who attempts a bag snatch on my wife while she is holding a baby and pushing a buggy was to have some time fore "reflection" would they alter their behaviour?
As I said, it is regressive, and yes it has been tried before but it didn't work? Not entirely sure on that, as a society we have moved on, and left some of the ideas from the past behind as being backwards, however if our current forward or progressive system isn't up to the task then what is the solution?
I just think it is deeply unfair that people who abide by the rules society expects of them can not freely enjoy the liberties that they deserve. I believe I should be able to go out with my family at any time, and in any location without the risk, no matter how small, that someone will try to rob me, break into my house or car or in any way impinge on my rights to not be bothered.
If the vast majority of people can do the right thing is it too much to expect that they have the right to enjoy it?
I'm not very hard-line, but I do think that there comes a point when frequent and blatant disregard for the rules of society should lead to the removal of at least some of the benefits of society.
I can give an example of Mallow town park, there are a few people who think it is appropriate to sit there all day drinking and eventually passing out, after verbally abusing passer bys for the day, as a result not many people use the park any more. No one complains because even if they are moved on they will go back there again, and again. So the net losers of the park are the people who can not use the park because others choose to do something contrary to public order. How is this right?
If there were a t least some form of visible deterrent this situation might change.
Seems reasonable to me.

OldGoat

faceman wrote: »

Corporal punishment is never justified and it doesn't work. If it did there would be no crime in states with the death penalty and countries that have religious laws.

That is only if you look at the punishment as being a deterrent to the offender. An argument could be made that the punishment is a good thing from the viewpoint of the public and victims of petty crime. We get to witness the humiliation of offenders as a reward for our good conduct.

faceman

OldGoat wrote: »

That is only if you look at the punishment as being a deterrent to the offender. An argument could be made that the punishment is a good thing from the viewpoint of the public and victims of petty crime. We get to witness the humiliation of offenders as a reward for our good conduct.

Punishment doesn't reverse or nullify the crime.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

b.harte wrote: »

My concern for my family is that there are elements within our society who feel that it is okay to do something, (as yet to occur, thankfully), which may harm or injure people.
I think that if "criminal tendencies" are nipped in the bud, or at least discouraged in an active way, those persons may not begin the path to large scale criminality.
I know that this theory is flawed, but it's a start.
If joe scum who gets off his face on a friday night and starts a fight outside the chipper was to be put in the stocks for a day of two where he would have time to reflect on his actions he may not start a fight again. We very well might and in that case then perhaps a different form of punishment would be preferred.
Similarly, the person who attempts a bag snatch on my wife while she is holding a baby and pushing a buggy was to have some time fore "reflection" would they alter their behaviour?
As I said, it is regressive, and yes it has been tried before but it didn't work? Not entirely sure on that, as a society we have moved on, and left some of the ideas from the past behind as being backwards, however if our current forward or progressive system isn't up to the task then what is the solution?
I just think it is deeply unfair that people who abide by the rules society expects of them can not freely enjoy the liberties that they deserve. I believe I should be able to go out with my family at any time, and in any location without the risk, no matter how small, that someone will try to rob me, break into my house or car or in any way impinge on my rights to not be bothered.
If the vast majority of people can do the right thing is it too much to expect that they have the right to enjoy it?
I'm not very hard-line, but I do think that there comes a point when frequent and blatant disregard for the rules of society should lead to the removal of at least some of the benefits of society.
I can give an example of Mallow town park, there are a few people who think it is appropriate to sit there all day drinking and eventually passing out, after verbally abusing passer bys for the day, as a result not many people use the park any more. No one complains because even if they are moved on they will go back there again, and again. So the net losers of the park are the people who can not use the park because others choose to do something contrary to public order. How is this right?
If there were a t least some form of visible deterrent this situation might change.
Seems reasonable to me.

Your argument is flawed because it assumes a direct co-relation between public order offenses and prgression to more serious crimes: not eveyone who has been caugh drunk and disorerly moves on to serious crime, and not everty serious criminal started out via public order offenses.

If the people of Mallow do not make a stand and just bend over backwards, they will never have a park. Sounds like the guys in the part aren't bothered about public humiliation.

OldGoat wrote: »

That is only if you look at the punishment as being a deterrent to the offender. An argument could be made that the punishment is a good thing from the viewpoint of the public and victims of petty crime. We get to witness the humiliation of offenders as a reward for our good conduct.

Possibly, if your the head of Sky News and want broadcast rights.

OldGoat

faceman wrote: »

Punishment doesn't reverse or nullify the crime.

Agreed but from the victims point of view having the perpetrator of the crime getting a suspended sentence or bound over to the peace is akin to a second slap in the face.
Having petty criminals dealt with in the stocks grants some sense of closure to the victims rather then the double blow they currently get.

benway

OldGoat wrote: »

That is only if you look at the punishment as being a deterrent to the offender. An argument could be made that the punishment is a good thing from the viewpoint of the public and victims of petty crime. We get to witness the humiliation of offenders as a reward for our good conduct.

Kinky.

Ever occur to you that maybe some of us wouldn't regard watching public humiliation as a reward, but rather as something that debases all of us?

twinQuins

OldGoat wrote: »

That is only if you look at the punishment as being a deterrent to the offender. An argument could be made that the punishment is a good thing from the viewpoint of the public and victims of petty crime. We get to witness the humiliation of offenders as a reward for our good conduct.

A counter argument could be made that in a post-Enlightenment society such barbarism should have no place.

If victims want vengeance they have civil law. I don't agree that violent punishments should be meted out just to make other people feel better.

Ronin247

twinQuins wrote: »

You admit it has been tried before (and didn't work) and yet still want to try it again?

I'm reminded of that quote about insanity being trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

We have tried the nice,namby pamby route of reform and re-educate and that hasn't worked. Anyone put to death for a capital crime has NEVER re-offended which is a 100% success rate in my books.

Never mind the stocks idea,bring back full capital punishment for capital crimes,mandatory sentences for a range of crimes and a harsher regime in prison.Remove social welfare benefit entitlements from repeat offenders.

"The old system didn't work" is something we often hear but there was less crime both on a large scale and the anti-social sh*t that we constantly see going on in them times, so I would say it did work.

OldGoat

benway wrote: »

Kinky.

Ever occur to you that maybe some of us wouldn't regard watching public humiliation as a reward, but rather as something that debases all of us?

I cite the popularity of The Prison Forum. Seeing miscreants humiliated attracts large crowds.

twinQuins wrote: »

A counter argument could be made that in a post-Enlightenment society such barbarism should have no place.

If victims want vengeance they have civil law. I don't agree that violent punishments should be meted out just to make other people feel better.

Who mentioned violent? I know that the majority of right thinking people see this as barbaric but I'm arguing that there might be a place for it barbaric or not. A more acceptable form of humilation punishment might be the orange clad gangs doing public services, picking up litter on the streets, painting public buildings...

twinQuins

Ronin247 wrote: »

We have tried the nice,namby pamby route of reform and re-educate and that hasn't worked. Anyone put to death for a capital crime has NEVER re-offended which is a 100% success rate in my books.

And yet it doesn't stop new criminals from springing up. Yes, that's definitely a "100% success rate" if you use a very loose definition of success.

Never mind the stocks idea,bring back full capital punishment for capital crimes,mandatory sentences for a range of crimes and a harsher regime in prison.Remove social welfare benefit entitlements from repeat offenders.

"The old system didn't work" is something we often hear but there was less crime both on a large scale and the anti-social sh*t that we constantly see going on in them times, so I would say it did work.

No there wasn't. It was less reported. Stop parrottting this... what am I saying, this is AH. Carry on!

flanders1979

Community service.

benway

Ronin247 wrote: »

We have tried the nice,namby pamby route of reform and re-educate and that hasn't worked. Anyone put to death for a capital crime has NEVER re-offended which is a 100% success rate in my books.

Never mind the stocks idea,bring back full capital punishment for capital crimes,mandatory sentences for a range of crimes and a harsher regime in prison.Remove social welfare benefit entitlements from repeat offenders.

"The old system didn't work" is something we often hear but there was less crime both on a large scale and the anti-social sh*t that we constantly see going on in them times, so I would say it did work.

Nope, that just isn't true. The world is a much more peaceful and orderly place today than in was in the past:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

Nice work on breaking the "bring back 'anging" duck though, was wondering his long it would take. What about all the innocent people that would and have inevitably been put to death? Wouldn't that make murders of all of us? And, of course, the death penalty has succeeded so well in keeping the crime rate down in the US....

OldGoat

flanders1979 wrote: »

Community service.

I was racking my (age-fuddled) brain trying to remember that term.

conorhal

faceman wrote: »

Corporal punishment is never justified and it doesn't work. If it did there would be no crime in states with the death penalty and countries that have religious laws.

Uh.. who exactly is suggesting we implement Sharia law now....?

I've spent some time in Singapore back in the day when you'd get bare ass whipped for spitting gum on the street, if you were to compare the Dalmatian pavements of Henry St with a comparable shopping street in Singapore ….well let's just say that I beg to differ regards the effectiveness of the deterrent.

Lets face it, little scrotes laugh at the prospect of the 35th court appearance in this country, I reckon they'd laugh a little less if their mates were standing around laughing while they got three of the best in Smithfield square.

AngryBollix

Public order offences prove that the human race is utterly retarded.

Turning up to watch someone getting humiliated in public because of a public order offence is equally retarded.

Besides public order offences are ten a penny

bbam

I think stocks are a good idea.
Nothing seems to deter the scumbags, community service is not working and a short term inside is like a badge to there idiots.
The one thing they seem to think is important is face in front of their peers.

Give them 2 days in the stocks, have to soil themselves in public and have a basket of rotten fruit there for Joe public to throw at them if they want.

Maybe then they would learn to behave like humans.

foggy_lad

AngryBollix wrote: »

Public order offences prove that the human race is utterly retarded.

Turning up to watch someone getting humiliated in public because of a public order offence is equally retarded.

Besides public order offences are ten a penny

If offenders were flogged publicly for their crimes the offences would not be ten a penny and would not cost the state a small fortune!

I would also stop all benefits for offenders and their partners and children!

benway

foggy_lad wrote: »

If offenders were flogged publicly for their crimes the offences would not be ten a penny and would not cost the state a small fortune!

I would also stop all benefits for offenders and their partners and children!

And of course a policing and punishment system capable of picking and delivering such punishments for such minor offences would cost nothing?

Personally, I'm willing to accept gum on the pavement, the odd spot of public drunkenness and other messing as the trade off for a society that allows individuals the freedom to do their own thing in so far as possible. Better that than having the cops looking over our shoulders every second of the day.

AH: where the green ink brigade go to bleat.

The King of Moo

All of this is based on the assumption that having to stay in the stocks would be humiliating to the criminals.
If they don't care about the rule of law or about having their names in the papers or on the news because of their convictions, then they're probably not so self-conscious that they'd see the stocks as a humiliation. They'd probably see it as a better alternative to prison or community service (both less-pleasant alternatives in my opinion), especially as I think it might be difficult to legally force someone to soil themselves, and to allow people to throw rotten fruit (which I'm sure would be classed as assault). So they'd just have to stay in one place for a day or two, and the state would be obliged to feed and hydrate them and shelter them if necessary. You can't leave someone for a few days exposed to the elements and without nourishment, and no-one in the west would ever legalise that.

It might be easy to think that you'd mock a criminal in the stocks when you're safely behind a computer screen, but in real life I doubt very few people would mock a dangerous-looking chap who would be free in two days to go look for them, especially if they live in the same area.
No, I think the abuse would mostly be one way, coming from the criminal.

Silly idea, to be honest.

b.harte

I can accept where some of the concerns are coming from, and to an extent I can see how habitual criminals may not be dissuaded from continuing on as usual. Similarly I do agree that people may not be so vocal or public in the flesh as they are behind a computer.
But, isn't that part of the problem? If the public at large were to see justice / sentencing / punishment in action it would alter their own views of what is allowed and not allowed in society.
I believe that this would open the gap between those who want to behave in a way that benefits society, against those who do not.
Those who want to live in a safe and secure society would be more interested in preserving their way of life, those that want to go against that would stand out.
The disruption of social norms should result in a punishment that befits the crime. Anti-social crimes are not necessarily the stepping stone to more serious offences, and I don't think I implied that. What I did say is a disregard for laws and rules has it's foundation laid early, treat people respect, by whichever means, and it should prevent or at least lessen re-occurrence.
That isn't entirely dissimilar to the aims of our current system, re-education to prevent re-offending is the aim of the game.
However, and again this is only my opinion, from where I'm sitting it doesn't appear to be working. The statistics might say otherwise but from what I see there is a massive problem, in a lot of areas, where there is a blatant disregard for society, and as a result it is the people who conform who are losing out.
As for the point about mallow town park, the same could be said for many public areas in the country.

talkinyite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtdTJP_GUI

I think this is quite a good form of public punishment

poisonated

I think it really depends on the offence. Public order offence is a very broad term. If two people got into a drunken argument, they shouldnt get publicly punished. If they did something like brick a bus, they should get publucly flogged.

Dyr

faceman wrote: »

Corporal punishment is never justified and it doesn't work. If it did there would be no crime in states with the death penalty and countries that have religious laws.

By that logic no punishment works.

Dyr

I say we strap serial offenders into hig viz orange outfits. People can avoid them business premises can refuse them entry, public transport can ban them and in general they can be ostracised the rest of society for being the durtbags that they are.


That or public flogging.

benway

Bambi wrote: »

By that logic no punishment works.

Is the fact of the matter. A high degree of certainty of being caught has been shown to be a deterrent, but the severity of the punishment in itself has little or no deterrent effect.

Blue in the face saying this on here, but I'll say it again - if we want to reduce the crime rate, we need to create a fairer, more equal and more inclusive society. Might not be much satisfaction for the keyboard warriors in that, but the fact is that the degree of equality in a given society has consistently been shown to be probably the best predictor of its crime rate.

JohnMarston

Not a fan of corporal punishment nor am i an advocate of putting them in stocks and pelting them with the greengrocers leftovers.

Public offenses? Well, i've always been curious as to see how banishment from a persons home county or county of residence would work out.

44leto

I was actually reading about the stocks recently. In the films it looked harmless the petty criminal was put on display in a local marketplace and the public mocked and threw some rotten vege at them. It was a great laugh.

But in reality the public threw bricks and rocks at them and you were seldom sentenced for a day, it could be as much as a month, a lot didn't get out of them alive and if they did, they remained permanently injured. It was a very cruel punishment.

du Maurier

b.harte wrote: »

There have been a few threads of late about criminal activity / crimes / punishment and the reactions to the news of sentences or retributions for offences.
As I get older, as as my family grows up I have noticed a change in my own mindset as to how the current system is failing, for the most part, to protect the people who need to be protected.
To me it would appear that there is very little by way of a deterrent for re-offenders.
On a weekly basis the news is reporting how person X with a string of previous convictions is facing more serious charges or had left someone dead or maimed.
It has to start somewhere, most people do not set out on their path through life thinking that someday they will seriously injure or kill someone, it often stems from a long standing disregard for society / the rules or as a reaction to their own surroundings, all of which while relevant are not "excuses" to do something wrong.

My theory is that rather than impose pointless sentences (small fines, bound to the peace etc) for public order offences offenders should be locked in a stock in a public area so that people can see the public order offenders.

I know that this is deeply regressive, and most certainly a cruel and unusual punishment, however I know that if the sentence for my misbehaviour was a public punishment I would be less likely to do anything a second time.

I think it is a good idea, there are people within society who repeatedly ignore the rules that govern that society, as a result they don't give a fiddlers and there is a public perception that as nothing appears to be done there is no point in reporting stuff. At least a visible deterrent might alter things.

And no, the next step in my master-plan is not gladiatorial combat in the aviva, mind you....


The tldr; version:

Public punishment for public order offences yea / nah

I'm for it! Imagine smashing a nice hard granny smith apple off some degenerates' head. You'd get a nice purchase on it as well:)

b.harte

44leto wrote: »

I was actually reading about the stocks recently.

Yeah, that article in BDSM fortnightly was great.....:eek:

Yeah I was reading about them too, I never said what I was suggesting was that extreme, a more civilised version perhaps?
From what I was reading there were for and against, the rate of use was high for what I would consider odd crimes, but and this remains valid today, the majority of usages were for what we today could class as public order offences. In the appropriate time frame what the public expected were different.

al28283

b.harte wrote: »

I think it is a good idea

Oh really? Thanks for clearing that up, now I understand why you started a thread about

du Maurier

The King of Moo wrote: »

All of this is based on the assumption that having to stay in the stocks would be humiliating to the criminals.
If they don't care about the rule of law or about having their names in the papers or on the news because of their convictions, then they're probably not so self-conscious that they'd see the stocks as a humiliation. They'd probably see it as a better alternative to prison or community service (both less-pleasant alternatives in my opinion), especially as I think it might be difficult to legally force someone to soil themselves, and to allow people to throw rotten fruit (which I'm sure would be classed as assault). So they'd just have to stay in one place for a day or two, and the state would be obliged to feed and hydrate them and shelter them if necessary. You can't leave someone for a few days exposed to the elements and without nourishment, and no-one in the west would ever legalise that.

It might be easy to think that you'd mock a criminal in the stocks when you're safely behind a computer screen, but in real life I doubt very few people would mock a dangerous-looking chap who would be free in two days to go look for them, especially if they live in the same area.
No, I think the abuse would mostly be one way, coming from the criminal.

Silly idea, to be honest.

This is true, though. There'd be hordes of their family circumventing the stocks and no one would really get a look in.

Dyr

benway wrote: »

Is the fact of the matter. A high degree of certainty of being caught has been shown to be a deterrent, but the severity of the punishment in itself has little or no deterrent effect.

Blue in the face saying this on here, but I'll say it again - if we want to reduce the crime rate, we need to create a fairer, more equal and more inclusive society. Might not be much satisfaction for the keyboard warriors in that, but the fact is that the degree of equality in a given society has consistently been shown to be probably the best predictor of its crime rate.

Oh dear, you've confused reducing crime with the punishment of crime. I think you're looking for the third thread over.

source

There's a UK police force who have a great policy, If they catch people pissing in public, they bring a van over which is towing a water tank trailer, they give the person a brush an a bucket of sudsy water and tell them to clean up after themselves.

Public punishments don't have to be cruel or physical to be effective. The people caught will not be in any hurry to take another leak in public.

This is an inventive punishment, which works by embarrassing the person into changing their attitude to the offence.

b.harte

al28283 wrote: »

Oh really? Thanks for clearing that up, now I understand why you started a thread about

I started a thread to see what others here had to say about it, you know to share ideas propagate debate and so on.

As per boards expectations I stated my own opinions on the topic at hand, I don't think there is anything unusual about this.

Your input has greatly enhanced the discussion, thanks.

44leto

b.harte wrote: »

Yeah, that article in BDSM fortnightly was great.....:eek:

Yeah I was reading about them too, I never said what I was suggesting was that extreme, a more civilised version perhaps?
From what I was reading there were for and against, the rate of use was high for what I would consider odd crimes, but and this remains valid today, the majority of usages were for what we today could class as public order offences. In the appropriate time frame what the public expected were different.

What would be civilised about it, project yourself, bent over your head, hands and body fixed in a stressed position (to say the least) unable to go to the loo, unable to scratch yourself, unable to move. How long do you think that you would be in agony, 30 minutes less even, now imagine been left there in the elements, for days. Most died of hypothermia in Britain.

It was extraordinary cruel and very much a slow death sentence. These stocks are still visible in a lot of old European cities and villiages, monuments to a time when torture was routine.

OldGoat

benway wrote: »

AH: where the green ink brigade go to bleat.

benway wrote: »

...Might not be much satisfaction for the keyboard warriors in that...

It's be nice if I could argue a point or have a debate or simply play Devils Advocate without being slighted as some kind of ranting lunatic.

John Doe1

Crucifixion would suit some of the politicians with delusions of grandeur:p

benway

OldGoat wrote: »

It's be nice if I could argue a point or have a debate or simply play Devils Advocate without being slighted as some kind of ranting lunatic.

That wasn't addressed to you specifically, it's more a reflection of my experiences of AH in general, the second page of this thread, and how the voting's going on the poll.

Although I do have to maintain that someone's thinking that public humiliation / the stocks / flogging is a good idea would be strong evidence as to green ink brigade, keyboard warrior, ranting lunatic status, in my book.

Just sayin', like.

OldGoat

benway wrote: »

That wasn't addressed to you specifically, it's more a reflection of my experiences of AH in general, the second page of this thread, and how the voting's going on the poll.

Although I do have to maintain that someone's thinking that public humiliation / the stocks / flogging is a good idea would be strong evidence as to green ink brigade, keyboard warrior, ranting lunatic status, in my book.

Just sayin', like.

You give with one hand and then you take away with the other.

I think a rational perspective on the argument woud be that the current system fails the victim when the offenders are percieved to get away with their crimes. In the States there is (supposed) regard to "Justice not only being done but being seen to be done". This view is not about rehabilting the criminal but soothing the pains of the victims. From that perspective a humilation punishment for a petty crime is not so far fetched.

Ellis Dee

Whoops! I thought I'd gone onto the Daily Hatemail web site by accident. Other sane posters have covered most of the main points very well and it is clear that public punishments would do no good at all, as pleasing as they might be for the kind of sick, ghoulish people who used to wait outside prisons the day of hangings, often talking small children with them so that they would learn "right from wrong".:rolleyes:

Some of you may have heard of something called "The International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment", which Ireland signed in 1992 and ratified in 2002.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Ireland has signed, but not yet ratified, the Optional Protocol to the same convention:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat-one.htm

Thus, unless we want to cut ourself off from the civilised world and become either a place like North Korea or the 51st state of the USA, I guess public punishment is not going to become a feature of our society.:)

benway

Hey, I aim to please

But nah, I don't think soothing victims' feelings is a valid aim in punishment, and even if it were, a restorative justice type approach, involving both complainant and accused in the sentencing process and making them interact with each other, is much more effective, on every possible level.

Fact is that people love to feel better than other people ... to get Freudian on it, they love to shadow project their weaknesses on others, and they love to hate - seems to me that the hatred of "scumbags" is one of the key unifying features of today's Ireland. None of this is a valid justification for spectacular public punishments - and I don't think anyone's seriously trying to suggest that they'd be effective in reducing the crime rate.

The problem is that these methods are likely to make the problem of crime even worse. Victims of such punishments will be left with severe resentment and alienation from straight society, such that they're likely to be more inclined towards more serious crimes on that basis - if you tell someone they're a lower form of life, then treat them as a lower form of life, and sneer at them for being a lower form of life, they're likely to act like a lower form of life. For which we can blame and punish them.

Mr Trade In

Make them smoke a full carton of smokes,then we'll see who is cool.