Public humiliation: Bring back the stocks and the shrew's fiddle?

Jeb Bush is in the news today, for having indicated in his 1995 book that single mothers and rascals of all descriptions should be publicly humiliated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html

One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.

Now his reference to unwed mothers is obviously harsh, republican invective and we can dismiss it.
But doesn't he have a point about criminals?

In the context of present-day society we need to make kids feel shame before their friends rather than their family. The Miami Herald columnist Robert Steinback has a good idea. He suggests dressing these juveniles in frilly pink jumpsuits and making them sweep the streets of their own neighborhoods! Would these kids be so cavalier then?

Well? What do you think?

Should we reconsider pillorying non-dangerous criminals?

People might be a lot slower to vandalise public property, mistreat animals or commit corporate fraud if they believed it might land them in the stocks at College Green, or laying by the heels in the bilboes or wearing the shrew's fiddle

Yes. I think that would do quite nicely.

HeidiHeidi

The stocks and the what?

Mesrine65

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrew%27s_fiddle

HeidiHeidi

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

The stocks and the what?

Well I did include a photograph.

People who don't read the OP in their clamour to get the first reply will go top of the naughty list!

HeidiHeidi

What would you do if you had an itchy nose, though

Must say I love the idea of the double one to resolve arguments

Junkyard Tom

They'd probably end up getting their own reality TV show and a slew of fans which would lead to others copying their crimes in an attempt to get their own shows and fans.

I say nay.

MathDebater

A lot of young fellas in the shythole estates of Dublin look up to the drug dealers. They see them with nice clothes, a souped up car and a reasonably attractive slore.

Have them sweep the streets, pick up the rubbish and to odd jobs around the loca, area for anti social behaviour and it might take a shine away from that sort of lifestyle.

El_Duderino 09

OP humiliation would probably deter you from engaging in crime. Being handcuffed and brought to the garda station is enough and that's before the idea of going to court and having your name in the paper and your mother raising the kind of fool who gets arrested.

Those scumbags aren't deterred by all that humiliation so why would you think they would be deterred by stocks?

Nodin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Jeb Bush is in the news today, for having indicated in his 1995 book that single mothers and rascals of all descriptions should be publicly humiliated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/09/jeb-bush-1995-book_n_7542964.html

Now his reference to unwed mothers is obviously harsh, republican invective and we can dismiss it.
But doesn't he have a point about criminals?



Well? What do you think?

Should we reconsider pillorying non-dangerous criminals?

People might be a lot slower to vandalise public property, mistreat animals or commit corporate fraud if they believed it might land them in the stocks at College Green, or laying by the heels in the bilboes or wearing the shrew's fiddle

Yes. I think that would do quite nicely.

Didn't work in the past, won't work now.

And we'd have to start convicting people of corporate fraud and corruption beforehand.......

MathDebater

They would be deterred if humiliated in front of their peers. Being arrested, brought to court and having your name in the paper is a badge of honour for them. Picking up the lads empty cans, dog shyte, litter and used rubbers in the local park - not so much.

Nodin

MathDebater wrote: »

They would be deterred if humiliated in front of their peers. Being arrested, brought to court and having your name in the paper is a badge of honour for them. Picking up the lads empty cans, dog shyte, litter and used rubbers in the local park - not so much.

Public humiliation, corporal punishment, long sentences, solitary, transportation and the death penalty hasn't worked. About the only thing the above would result in is them chasing each other round with either dog shite or a used condom on the end of a stick.

Panthro

Fcuk them all on to an island with no food or shelter and that's surrounded by shark infested waters but one that also has hidden cameras everywhere and let us all have a good laugh at them every night from 9pm onwards.


You're all lucky I don't rule these lands.

Arsemageddon

Panthro wrote: »

Fcuk them all on to an island with no food or shelter and that's surrounded by shark infested waters but one that also has hidden cameras everywhere and let us all have a good laugh at them every night from 9pm onwards.


You're all lucky I don't rule these lands.

Sounds like you've been watching The Island with Bear Grylls

AndonHandon

Take them out of society and society is better off.

Back during the time of witch trials, they used what was called a ducking stool, where people would be tied to the chair and dipped into the water for 9 minutes - either for one long period, or nine short bursts of one minute - a witch hunter wasn't paid for a dead witch and their surviving "proved" they were a witch. They also used it when a business person was being dishonest, lied, scammed, or cheated anybody. They were tied into the chair in front of a big crowd, so everybody could witness that they were being punished - some people say that this is where the origin, "business going under" comes from.

Anyway, I'd love to see this happening nowadays with the major corporations and businesses - then again, nobody would be rich anymore.

Nodin

Panthro wrote: »

Fcuk them all on to an island with no food or shelter and that's surrounded by shark infested waters but one that also has hidden cameras everywhere and let us all have a good laugh at them every night from 9pm onwards.


You're all lucky I don't rule these lands.

"Cannibal Sodomy Island"......could be a hit.

mad muffin

Jeb Bush the is his own public humiliator.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Didn't work in the past, won't work now.

I don't know that it didn't work in the past, since we don't have crime statistics for feudal societies.

It has been argued in the academic literature that public humiliation was seen as popular with the masses, and that it declined because of bourgeois and elite fears about the public participating in justice. English and American elites were nervous about depictions of the guillotine and the American revolution, and feared the power of the masses.

Thereafter, it is said, support for public justice dwindled and died. It wasn't because it didn't work.

Bring it back I say.

MathDebater wrote: »

Being arrested, brought to court and having your name in the paper is a badge of honour for them

This isn't meant for everybody. There are some people for whom the pillory will be ineffective, just as there are some people for whom court fines are a minor nuisance.

Pillorying could also be used in conjunction with other punishments. Instead of sticking a dangerous-driver or a shoplifter in a prison cell where he will be idly cavorting with scallywags & hardening his nerve, we could put him in the stocks for an hour in the morning, then send him off to scrub hospital floors and help to build public amenities. That'll soften his cough!

Nodin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't know that it didn't work in the past, since we don't have crime statistics for feudal societies.

...............

Well......
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html

http://www.historytoday.com/sean-mcglynn/violence-and-law-medieval-England

...what we do have don't look too purty.....

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Well......
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html

http://www.historytoday.com/sean-mcglynn/violence-and-law-medieval-England

...what we do have don't look too purty.....

That relates to violent crimes like homicide. There is no logical argument in favour of using the shrew's fiddle to prevent murder, since we know that extreme punishments like the electric chair, torture and life imprisonment have failed to do so.

Furthermore, feudal societies were notoriously violent because there was no police, and no real way of resolving disputes. You can't attribute serious violence to the punishments that were available for minor (even petty) crimes. There is no comparison.

We know that men who resolve to take human life or lash out violently, usually in a fit of rage, will not be restrained by the beseechment of judge or jailer.

That's why I suggest humiliation as a punishment for non-violent crime, such as dangerous driving, theft, and fraud relating to taxation and corporate affairs.

Nodin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That relates to violent crimes like homicide. There is no logical argument in favour of using the shrew's fiddle to prevent murder, since we know that extreme punishments like the electric chair, torture and life imprisonment have failed to do so.

Furthermore, feudal societies were notoriously violent because there was no police, and no real way of resolving disputes. You can't attribute serious violence to the punishments that were available for minor (even petty) crimes. There is no comparison.

We know that men who resolve to take human life or lash out violently, usually in a fit of rage, will not be restrained by the beseechment of judge or jailer.

That's why I suggest humiliation as a punishment for non-violent crime, such as dangerous driving, theft, and fraud relating to taxation and corporate affairs.

...theft used be punished by transportation, which was - particularily in the earlier years - essentially a death sentence.

Riskymove

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Jeb Bush is in the news today, for having indicated in his 1995 book that single mothers and rascals of all descriptions should be publicly humiliated.

I think you have gotten the wrong end of the stick .....or stocks?

he is talking about something being taboo or socially frowned upon as a deterrent as opposed to publically humiliating unmarried parents

valoren

You have to dig deeper.

The local scumlord supports Liverpool/Celtic for example?

Sentence him to a week of community service which must be completed in a Manchester United/Rangers jersey/tracksuit.

The sheer disgust they would feel at the thought of it would be more effective :pac:

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

...theft used be punished by transportation, which was - particularily in the earlier years - essentially a death sentence.

Yes but I don't think anybody wants to re-introduce transportation.

The Victorians certainly overreacted in trying to stamp-out crime: we see the relics of that today, with a culture of imprisoning all the wrongdoers (unless we fine them or wag the finger, which seems equally ineffective)

I would like petty wrongdoers to have to live with the reality of punishment - with a bit of shame and elbow grease. I don't think sticking them into a grubby boarding-school-type-facility is working.

Riskymove wrote: »

I think you have gotten the wrong end of the stick .....or stocks?

he is talking about something being taboo or socially frowned upon as a deterrent as opposed to publically humiliating unmarried parents

He is speaking generally about the value of humiliation; he addresses both general societal disapproval, and shame as a way of chastening petty criminals and scallywags.

conorhal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OP humiliation would probably deter you from engaging in crime. Being handcuffed and brought to the garda station is enough and that's before the idea of going to court and having your name in the paper and your mother raising the kind of fool who gets arrested.

Those scumbags aren't deterred by all that humiliation so why would you think they would be deterred by stocks?

Because, for starters, most of them think of getting arrested as a right of passage not humiliation. I remember reading somewhere that the fashion trend for open trainers and your jeans falling down off your arse started in deprived black New York nighbourhoods, it signified that you'd just been released from detention where your laces and belt had been taken from you, yeah, the ultra hip 'I've just been arrested look' so considering that there's enough cache in getting arrested to make it a fashion statement I doubt that the 'humiliation' of handcuffs is much of a deterrent at all.

The reason that the stocks, or sweeping the streets dresed in clown shoes is more of a deterent then a perp walk is down to the macho and agressive alpha make culture of these working class estates. I'm fairly sure that just about the worst thing an ASBO baiting teenager can imagine is sweeping his local streets in a pink jumpsiut while his friends all gather round to take the utter piss.

Mesrine65

MathDebater wrote: »

They would be deterred if humiliated in front of their peers.

Public genital mutilation so :eek:

Nodin

conorhal wrote: »

.............

The reason that the stocks, or sweeping the streets dresed in clown shoes is more of a deterent then a perp walk is down to the macho and agressive alpha make culture of these working class estates. I'm fairly sure that just about the worst thing an ASBO baiting teenager can imagine is sweeping his local streets in a pink jumpsiut while his friends all cather round to take the utter piss.

If walking round with yer shoes falling off and yer trousers half way down yer arse became a badge of honour, why wouldn't a pink jumpsuit?

El_Duderino 09

conorhal wrote: »

Because, for starters, most of them think of getting arrested as a right of passage not humiliation. I remember reading somewhere that the fashion trend for open trainers and your jeans falling down off your arse started in deprived black New York nighbourhoods, it signified that you'd just been released from detention where your laces and belt had been taken from you, yeah, the ultra hip 'I've just been arrested look' so considering that there's enough cache in getting arrested to make it a fashion statement I doubt that the 'humiliation' of handcuffs is much of a deterrent at all.

The reason that the stocks, or sweeping the streets dresed in clown shoes is more of a deterent then a perp walk is down to the macho and agressive alpha make culture of these working class estates. I'm fairly sure that just about the worst thing an ASBO baiting teenager can imagine is sweeping his local streets in a pink jumpsiut while his friends all gather round to take the utter piss.

If being arrested has been turned into a rite of passage and being released from prison without laces or a belt is a fashion statement, what makes you think sweeping the street in a pink jumpsuit wouldn't carry exactly the same sort of symbolism?

Handcuffs and stocks would deter you and me because the symbolism is undesirable for us. It's not a problem for them.