Be it resolved that public humiliation is not an appropriate means of punishing criminals Public humiliation is a cruel, unnecessary, and degrading means (method) of punishment that is not only ineffective but also wrong. It brings a lot of unnecessary publicity to the law offenders and can sometimes lead for people to get an exaggerated version of events. Public shaming should be something beneath one’s dignity, beneath OUR dignity. It is of the opinion of my colleague and I that public humiliation is an inappropriate means of punishing criminals. The idea that public shaming can psychologically induce and change criminals to improve their behaviour is apt to result in the opposite. It is highly unlikely that someone who has been publically humiliated would reform their ways. This kind of punishment can damage the victims psychologically, scarring them for life. The offenders may also develop feelings of resentment, defiance, anger, low self-esteem and/ or alienation. Becoming socially disgraced by one’s own community could lead to devastating consequences such as suicide. It is also probable that shame punishment actually overlooks the real problem and does not address the real issue or motivation behind an offense. What if a person who stole did so due to a drug problem? And should the law take emotions into consideration? Also, public humiliation would not work if the offender just did not care how others sees and thinks about them. Even if the criminals do change their behaviour and reform their ways, the public will not be welcoming because their reputation is broken.
Public humiliation can negatively affect the public and the community. Suppose a man is walking with a sign that says that he killed a family of four while driving drunk and is confronted by mob of angry friends of the victims. He will likely get beaten up on the spot. In this case, most people would not see that the criminal has been sufficiently punished for their stupidity of drunk...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document