Public punishment for public order offences?

Dyr · 09-03-2012 04:24PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:28PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:36PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:45PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:50PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:54PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:58PM

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 · 09-03-2012 04:59PM

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 · 09-03-2012 05:04PM

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 · 09-03-2012 05:04PM

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 · 09-03-2012 05:14PM

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 · 09-03-2012 05:15PM

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 · 09-03-2012 05:45PM

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 · 09-03-2012 06:43PM

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 · 09-03-2012 06:54PM

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

benway · 09-03-2012 07:03PM

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 · 09-03-2012 07:19PM

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 · 09-03-2012 07:28PM

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 · 09-03-2012 07:34PM

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 · 10-03-2012 02:05PM

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

Ronin247 · 10-03-2012 03:11PM

twinQuins wrote: »

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.New criminals will spring up regardless.....the dead ones will not re-offend so yes, success.

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

Incorrect,crime was not less reported,stop parrotting this rubbish.Murder rate has increased almost consistently since the 1950s.
http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/statistics_cri_crime_murder.html

benway wrote: »

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....

The article you are showing is referring to wars which is a different subject.

Crime rates in the US have been dropping consistently since the 80s when America decided to get tough on criminals!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/america-serious-crime-rate-plunging

SeanW · 10-03-2012 03:29PM

The current system isn't working, just take a look at any part of Moyross for evidence.

To those saying "it's barbaric" what do you suggest instead?

benway · 10-03-2012 04:23PM

Ronin247 wrote: »

The article you are showing is referring to wars which is a different subject.

Crime rates in the US have been dropping consistently since the 80s when America decided to get tough on criminals!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/america-serious-crime-rate-plunging

Violence and disorder in general. Are you seriously saying that things were more orderly in the 18th century? Which is where you're trying to send us back to.

And the crime rate began to drop before "zero tolerance", "get tough" and all that nonsense. It peaked in 1980, dropped for a couple of years, then rose significantly until 1991, when it began to drop again. Maybe, just maybe, it might have had something to do with the economic situation, more so than policing tactics?

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

And I don't recall the stocks or spectacular punishments being in place in Ireland during the fifties. Do keep up.

But the public may not share that view. A recent poll showed most Americans feel crime is still getting worse.

That's what I found most interesting in that article - a lot like here, crime is static or decreasing slightly, but people still think the country's going to hell in a hand cart. I wonder why that might be?

SeanW wrote:

The current system isn't working, just take a look at any part of Moyross for evidence.

what do you suggest instead?

I'm suggesting that more equal and inclusive societies consistently have lower crime rates, and that this is the best way to reduce the crime rate. The current system isn't working, not because it's not extreme enough in the tactics it employs, but because these tactics aren't effective in seriously reducing the crime rate in the first place.

I'm suggesting creating no more ghettoes where much of the population are excluded from the mainstream, culturally and by reason of poverty. Leaving a community where crime is seen as the only available means of making a living beyond subsistence, where criminals can rule the roost.

Slum clearances have a lot to do with much of today's most entrenched social problems, whether you like it or not.

SeanW · 10-03-2012 04:47PM

benway wrote: »

I'm suggesting creating no more ghettoes where much of the population are excluded from the mainstream, culturally and by reason of poverty. Leaving a community where crime is seen as the only available means of making a living beyond subsistence, where criminals can rule the roost.

Slum clearances have a lot to do with much of today's most entrenched social problems, whether you like it or not.

I can agree, to a point, if a person commits crime because they need money, that's not good but that is an explanation. And indeed, it makes sense to look at the root cause of that, i.e. how the person came think that they had to commit crime to live.

However, a lot of crime has nothing whatsoever to do with the criminals means of making a living, how about people who throw rocks at trains and buses trying to cause damage/injury to passengers? People who vandalise playgrounds, steal cars, "joyride" in them (tearing up for example a local football pitch) then crash them into the goalposts and then set the car on fire? Oh and it's not just a poor neighbourhoods thing - sure Finglas and parts of Limerick are the worst but spoiled rich kids do it too - like that case outside Annabelle's Nightclub about 10 years ago. How about animal abuse? Again, that's a sign of a person being pure evil - like Mary Bale, or Katey Barber?

I think we can all agree that these cases have nothing whatsoever to do with money and lifestyle.

What do you propose to do with people who RIGHT NOW have no morals, no fear of the law and commit crimes for no reason other than to get perverse pleasure out of making other peoples (or animals) lives miserable?

Ronin247 · 10-03-2012 05:05PM

benway wrote: »

Violence and disorder in general. Are you seriously saying that things were more orderly in the 18th century? Which is where you're trying to send us back to.Dont remember mentioning the 18th century, could you please provide a link??

And the crime rate began to drop before "zero tolerance", "get tough" and all that nonsense. It peaked in 1980, dropped for a couple of years, then rose significantly until 1991, when it began to drop again. Maybe, just maybe, it might have had something to do with the economic situation, more so than policing tactics? What particular economic situation?? Economies have gone from boom to bust a few times but crime rates continue dropping.

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

And I don't recall the stocks or spectacular punishments being in place in Ireland during the fifties. Do keep up.I actually said"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." Please try and keep up.

That's what I found most interesting in that article - a lot like here, crime is static or decreasing slightly, but people still think the country's going to hell in a hand cart. I wonder why that might be?

I'm suggesting that more equal and inclusive societies consistently have lower crime rates, and that this is the best way to reduce the crime rate. The current system isn't working, not because it's not extreme enough in the tactics it employs, but because these tactics aren't effective in seriously reducing the crime rate in the first place.So if we give the criminals a share of our hard earned wealth they will stop robbing us:eek:Jesus wept.

I'm suggesting creating no more ghettoes where much of the population are excluded from the mainstream, culturally and by reason of poverty. Leaving a community where crime is seen as the only available means of making a living beyond subsistence, where criminals can rule the roost.

Slum clearances have a lot to do with much of today's most entrenched social problems, whether you like it or not.

A sense of entitlement and no fear of the law has even more to do with todays most entrenched social problems,whether you like it or not.

sbyrne92 · 12-03-2012 01:08PM

public punishment is a bit on the farce side. there are more appropriate ways to deal with things these days.

AeoNGriM · 12-03-2012 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.

Incorrect. It obviously works as those executed don't re-offend.

:pac:

Public punishment for public order offences?

Comments