Public punishment for public order offences?

b.harte · 09-03-2012 12:09PM #1

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 · 09-03-2012 12:14PM

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

faceman · 09-03-2012 12:17PM

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 · 09-03-2012 12:21PM

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 · 09-03-2012 12:24PM

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 · 09-03-2012 12:30PM

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 · 09-03-2012 12:35PM

Only one way to solve these issues.

benway · 09-03-2012 12:36PM

Don't be daft. :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-03-2012 12:39PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:06PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:23PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:26PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:29PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:38PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:47PM

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 · 09-03-2012 01:47PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:00PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:02PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:03PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:07PM

Community service.

benway · 09-03-2012 02:08PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:10PM

flanders1979 wrote: »

Community service.

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

conorhal · 09-03-2012 02:11PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:17PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:22PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:24PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:48PM

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 · 09-03-2012 02:50PM

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 · 09-03-2012 03:27PM

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 · 09-03-2012 03:31PM

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

I think this is quite a good form of public punishment

poisonated · 09-03-2012 03:32PM

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.

Public punishment for public order offences?

Should we bring in public punsihment? 35 votes

Comments