When an individual commits a crime, it is often discussed as to whether or not a jail or prison sentence or a punishment such as community service would be a good consequence. Others deem that public humiliation would be the perfect punishment for these crimes. In the essay “Condemn the Crime, Not the Person” by June Tangney, she argues against the use of public humiliation as a way of punishing against crimes committed. Of all of the different options for punishment available today, I believe that public humiliation is not an appropriate form of punishment and less severe punishments are the appropriate consequences for individuals who have committed crimes. There are multiple negative consequences of using public humiliation as a form of …show more content…
Punishment that makes a person feel guilty normally involves feelings of remorse for the crime committed or regret of making the bad decisions. Tangney (2001) states that “research has shown that this sense of tension and regret typically motivates reparative action…without engendering all the defensive and retaliative responses that are the hallmark of shame” (para. 11). If individuals that have committed a crime are subject to punishments that are less extensive than jail time, for example, then they may actually want to change their behavior and not make the same mistakes in the future. For example, a drunk driver might understand just how devastating accidents can be if they are forced to visit the sites of accidents and pick up the debris from the streets and surrounding area. Visiting these accident sites would open their eyes to the potential they could cause if they were to drive under the influence. Additionally, forcing those who have committed crimes to feel a sense of guilt will help an individual not feel like they are a bad person. Tangney (2001) talked about how allowing for individuals to feel guilty about their actions makes them want to work harder to improve their lifestyles so they do not repeat the crime in the future. If they know that they do not have to work on improving their whole selves, but only a behavior that they exhibit frequently, they will have the motivation to better themselves for not only their own personal growth, but for the growth of the relationships that they have with their families and
Every civilized society makes laws that protect its values, and the society expects every single citizen to obey these laws. Whenever a citizen of a certain society breaks one of these laws, the rulers of the society dish out punishments they dim fit for the kind of crime committed. With this kind of justice system in place, criminals are either locked up in prison cells, whipped, or exiled from the society. In the essay, “Bring Back Flogging”, columnist Jeff Jacoby argues that flogging is much more superior to imprisonment and should be brought back as a method of punishing crime offenders like the Puritans did in the past. He is convinced that the shame associated with flogging would prevent offenders from going into crime professionally. Jacoby believes that whipping criminals has more educational value compared to locking them up in cells and that it saves a lot of money. Throughout the essay Jacoby attempts to build ethos even though it fell apart due to misconceptions. He relied mostly on the use of pathos by appealing to his reader’s emotions and using this as a base ground for his logos.
The Punishment Imperative, a book based on the transition from a time when punishment was thought to be necessarily harsh to a time where reform in the prion system is needed, explains the reasons why the grand social experiment of severe punishment did not work. The authors of the book, Todd R. Clear and Natasha A. Frost, strongly argue that the previous mindset of harsh punishment has been replaced due to political shifts, firsthand evidence, and spending issues within the government. Clear and Frost successfully assert their argument throughout the book using quantitative and qualitative information spanning from government policies to the reintegration of previous convicts into society.
According to Jacoby, flogging is faster, cheaper, and a more effective alternative to prison. Many young criminals would be less likely to become career criminals if punished through public embarrassment than through prison. Prison can be a sign of manliness or a “status symbol” (Jacoby 197). He says “prison is a graduate school for criminals”, providing evidence that criminals want to be convicted and be in prison, to strengthen their status (Jacoby 197). Jacoby knows how to properly get his view across to the reader, by saying that ...
Whenever an author is creating an argument, they must appeal to whatever grabs his or her selected audience’s attention. When given the topic of Michael Fay, an 18 year old American citizen who was punished in Singapore for vandalism by being caned, two sources appealed to their audience in two contrasting ways. In “Time to Assert American Values,” published by The New York Times, the author tries to capture his or her audience by stirring up emotion. In “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs up a Fierce Debate about Crime and Punishment,” Alejandro Reyes presents factual evidence throughout the entire article to support his claims. After carefully analyzing both texts, it is apparent that Alejandro Reyes gives a more convincing and sufficient argument due to his use of indisputable facts.
In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment once used by the puritans, flogging, as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe newspaper. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of his other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience.
James Gilligan is an American psychiatrist who presents the causation and prevention of violence from his point of view of working in US prisons for decades in his book “Preventing Violence”. Gilligan provides readers with a multitude of data and theories, but his book (or at least the first four chapters) boils down to the fact that violence towards other is caused by shame. He calls upon his many years of interaction with prison inmates and explains how inmates who committed violent crimes often said it was because they were disrespected, and therefore shamed. However, it’s very important to highlight that it takes not only shame but also an inability to “regain respect” after a shameful event, to cause violence as Gilligan proposes. This
This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders. This research is tied to a larger theory that harsh punishments act as a deterrent to crime. They work by making people not commit a crime for fear of the punishment that is going to follow. This research is applicable across many facets of crimes that are rampant. It is going to help identify whether enacting stricter laws and enforcing them helps in reducing the relate...
The 1920’s was a time of social and political change. Food, entertainment, home appliances, and dancing, were roaring but my interest was focused on women’s roles. More women were becoming flappers, wearing shorter, more freeing dresses, having short hair ( History.com Staff ), but more specifically women were becoming more involved in crime. Murderess row was a group of 3 women, Katherine “Kitty” Malm, Belva Gaertner, and Beulah Annan, and a reporter Maurine Watkins. The three women all have something in common, murder and they also were the inspiration of a famous show, Chicago.
In “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby, a journalist, argues why the current criminal justice system in America is not effective or successful. As a solution, he suggests that America should bring back the old fashioned form of punishment, flogging, once used by the Puritans as an alternative to imprisonment (198). This article originally appeared in the op-ed section of the Boston Globe. Therefore, the primary audience of this article is people who want to read arguments about controversial topics and have probably read some of Jacoby’s other articles. His argument that the current criminal justice system is not working is extremely convincing. He appeals to pathos and uses statistics to prove that thesis and to persuade the audience. However, he provides no reason why corporal punishment is the best alternative to imprisonment and never offers any other options. Additionally, he does not make an effort to explain why corporal punishment would be more effective or successful than imprisonment. Thus, in “Bring Back Flogging,” Jeff Jacoby successfully informs his audience of the dangers and problems with imprisonment by using verbal irony, appealing to the emotion of pity, incorporating logical
Jacoby starts his essay by providing a background history on flogging by relating the punishment to crimes that are insignificant in today’s society. He claims that imprisonment has become an “all purpose punishment” used for violent and nonviolent crimes alike (193). Citing a plethora of facts and research, Jacoby argues that the prison system is ineffective and too costly. To support his claim, he advocates for a system of public humiliation and degradation to deter lower class criminals from becoming repeat offenders. Jacoby realizes that flogging’s “crimes of the day” are not our crimes, but maintains that flogging is effective in current society and not any more brutal than being caged (194).
Herbert Morris and Jean Hampton both view punishment as important to a healthy society. However, their views on what kind of role does punishment plays in a healthy society are vastly different. Morris believes that when one commits a crime they “owe a debt to the society and the person they wronged” and, therefore the punishment of that person is retributive, and a right for those who committed this wrong (270). Hampton, on the other hand, believes that punishment is a good for those who have strayed in the path of being morally right. Out of the two views presented, I believe that Hampton view is more plausible, and rightly places punishment as a constructive good that is better suited for society than Morris’s view.
Emotional intelligence in restorative justice not only falls into a method for helping mend wounds and resolve anger and fear issues after a crime has taken place, but also to prevent it. By holding emotional power over potential offenders, the community can use these emotions to seek to restore and prevent reoffending individuals. Besides positively engaging offenders, communities that practice restorative justice can also seek to shame offenders for their acts, without blaming the offender directly for their actions. One such method of restorative justice that communities utilize is the reintegrative shaming theory. Developed by Braithwaite in 1989, the theory states that societies that aim to create shame on the act of crime will reduce crime rates (Braithwaite, 2001). The theory
Punishing the unlawful, undesirable and deviant members of society is an aspect of criminal justice that has experienced a variety of transformations throughout history. Although the concept of retribution has remained a constant (the idea that the law breaker must somehow pay his/her debt to society), the methods used to enforce and achieve that retribution has changed a great deal. The growth and development of society, along with an underlying, perpetual fear of crime, are heavily linked to the use of vastly different forms of punishment that have ranged from public executions, forced labor, penal welfare and popular punitivism over the course of only a few hundred years. Crime constructs us as a society whilst society, simultaneously determines what is criminal. Since society is always changing, how we see crime and criminal behavior is changing, thus the way in which we punish those criminal behaviors changes.
Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.
Punishment has been in existence since the early colonial period and has continued throughout history as a method used to deter criminals from committing criminal acts. Philosophers believe that punishment is a necessity in today’s modern society as it is a worldwide response to crime and violence. Friedrich Nietzche’s book “Punishment and Rehabilitation” reiterates that “punishment makes us into who we are; it creates in us a sense of responsibility and the ability to take and release our social obligations” (Blue, Naden, 2001). Immanuel Kant believes that if an individual commits a crime then punishment should be inflicted upon that individual for the crime committed. Cesare Beccaria, also believes that if there is a breach of the law by individuals then that individual should be punished accordingly.