August 10, 2004

• It's certainly unusual...
• Also seen here, in the form of "I stole gas."
• I thought this was going to be in some backwoods town in Pennsylvania where the judge personally knew the defendant, but San Francisco??
• I think yes... and no. NOT a sociology fan (instead a psych geek) but one thing I picked up that really made sense to me was the theory of primary versus secondary deviance. Take some guy that cheats on his taxes (but doesn't get caught). He probably thinks of himself as a banker, a barber, a baker, what-have-you, that occasionally cuts corners. Not a fraud. That is not his role, just something he does. Same with the secretary who steals office supplies, or the kid who smokes a bit of pot. Then catch them and make an example out of them. The theory is that public villification may turn the person from what they were, a primary deviant, to that of the secondary deviant, who begins to identify with the role that everyone else ascribes to him or her -- not a salesperson or librarian, but a thief, a drug addict, a vagrant. Add to that the greatly diminished legitimate opportunities available to those with criminal records, and you may have successfully turned the person into a full-time criminal. I've seen a lot of post-conviction treatment that doesn't make me believe that we actually believe in rehabilitation or will give it half a chance. In fact, I think we often do just about everything possible to type-cast the person in the one role we've decided it is their destiny to play: that of a criminal. The difference between our forms of villification and that of tribal villages (where shaming is very effective) is that part of the ritual usually involves forgiveness or intentional forgetfullness, where you've done your due and no one thinks differently of you after that. When I hear about neighbourhoods plastered with notices of the newest "sex offender" in the neighbourhood, I often wonder if it isn't kinder to keep the person in jail.
• Why would you want to be kind to a sex offender?
• Off topic: There is a hilarious Mr. Show sketch about this from their fourth season.
• The punishment of sex offenders is always a hot button issue. It's interesting to see how many people don't view the concept of "time served" as just punishment for sex offenders (particularly when children are involved). At what point do you draw the line and say "OK, this person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the community?" or is that ever a possibility? And if it isn't, is it "right" that a sex offender has to be exposed to the possiblity of persecution and "vigilnte justice" for the remainder of his or her life?
• *dreams about dubyuh, chained to a lampost and wearing an "I CHEAT, LIE, STEAL AND KILL!"*
• Bit of a topic in rehauling the Canadian Human Rights Act -- the ability to hold certain (presumably irrelevant) personal characteristics against someone. In this case, criminal record, with regard to, say, potential employment. At what point is the risk too great? First you carve out general exceptions, where any breach of trust might be too great a danger (eg: national security). Then the specific exceptions, where a particular kind of crime may make you ineligible for protection against discrimination for *similar* kinds of situation (eg: child sex offender wants work at a daycare -- duh). But I've noticed a great reluctance to permit *any* kind of protection for convicts on any charge. There are a lot of throw-away-the-key types out there. As for sex offenders particularly, I wasn't trolling. It just seems like such a hideous double-standard and self-fulfilling prophecy. If the person isn't safe on the street, why let them out? If they are, why torture them? (or more to the point, who has the right to torture them) Add to this our overly broad definition of what a sex offender is (urinating in public is sometimes included, and with the widespread use of "sexual assault" we don't know if the offender is a rapist or some guy who pinched a woman's bum while in line at McDonald's). It just seems like a recipe for disaster, not to mention wholly unjust.
• I think that sex offenders draw special attention due to the idea that while the crimes are considered especially heinous, the punishments are in the same light considered somewhat lax, more so when an increasing number of sex crimes are falling under the rubric of mental illness (drawing seeingly less onerous punishment, and having the cultural baggage of the 'insanity' defense) rather than outright crime, and the level of recidivism is high. There is also the natural protective feelings that parents have for their children. Honestly, as a parent, I'm continually amazed at how *little* vigilatism takes place. It really is a tribute, in my opinion, to the law-abidingness of the average parent, that the country's hinterlands are not filled with deep holes occupied by newly-released child sex abusers. I have no statistical evidence, but it would seem that far more child sexual abusers die in prison than out.
• Sentences seem to be a spotty road map regardless of the crime (but draw more outrage when it comes to sex offences). I rather find pervasive the attitude that sex offenders cannot help but reoffend -- a twisted take on being victims of biochemistry or abuse. I can't count how many times I've heard "yeah, but you can't stop a sex offender from reoffending. it's not like other crimes." In that sense, I agree, it belongs in a special category, if only because of people's attitudes toward it. As for shaming in general, I still say secondary vs. primary deviance, except where there is some explicit, real mechanism for forgiveness or foregetfullness (reminds me of the cultural role of drunkenness in Japan -- you can go out with coworkers and after one SIP of beer, act crazy in pretty much any manner you choose. all will be forgiven the next day. an obvious societal pressure release valve) Without forgiveness, there is no such thing as shaming. Only witchburning in gradual steps.
• Rocket88, not all sex offenders are child rapists. That's just part of this whole discourse that's been ratcheted up to the extreme. In fact, a minority of sex offenders are child rapists. Child rape is exceedingly rare. Many sex offenders have been charged with victimless crimes, for example men who have consensual sex with other men in public places. (Yes, I'm sure you could argue that the 'public' was the victim in such circumstances.) Those types of 'sex-offenders' are hardly a threat to school children. The problem is the obsession with punishment in the first place. That's an archaic concept. No amount of punishment will ever reverse the tiniest of crimes. It's impossible (at this stage) to go back in time. Certainly, steps can be taken to mitigate damage and even correct damage, depending on the circumstances. There are only two purposes behind punishment: deterrence and vengeance. The effect of deterrence is questionable. Certainly, it is relative and depends on the type of crime committed and the criminals involved. As for vengeance, it can be as nasty as the original crime. Do not confuse vengeance with justice, either. Justice is about fairness and balance, which is why Lady Justice is always shown wearing a blindfold and carrying scales. All people should be judged equally when placed on the scales of justice.
• Shame and the law.
• I think the sex offenders that are targeted by the poster campaigns are, in fact, convicted child sex offenders. If they aren't, then the poster campaigns are unwarranted. As for the claim that sex offenders (pedophiles, particularly) can't help it, based on their biochemistry or past abuse, I don't buy it. Everyone has the power of choice over their actions and the power of will. If acting on my own sexual urges was socially unacceptable, or criminal, or hurtful to others, I'd keep it in my pants. So can they.
• Oh, the vigilante poster campaigns are most likely targeted at the child rapists, I'm sure. Sex offender registries, however, are generally for any and all sex offenders in a jurisdiction. Therefore, you may get a letter from your local sherrif telling you that a sex offender has relocated to your charming little neighborhood and freak out, when in fact some guy who was caught masturbating at the side of the road in his car is the only thing you have to fear.
• This has been a problem ever since they put all of these crimes under the "sex offender" umbrella. Calling a rape a "sexual assault" and grouping it with ass-slapping only serves to lessen the severity of actual rape in the public eye. Child rapists should be charged with child rape and then when the convicted child rapist wants to live in your neighbourhood you can convince him not to. The roadside masturbator is free to live wherever he wants.
• To rerail (if we may), shaming only works as an effective punishment if the people who are being punished actually *feel* ashamed. And while in the past, social status in the community, personal honor and reputation, etc held a place in most people's list of important p[ersonal attributes, I don't think this is the case today, esp. with those who would be likely to end up in a court. Subsequently, a punishment would seem to only generate amusement, and thus fails to do it's job, which is to punish.
• I've heard of these "alternative" punishments before, but they have always been subject to the approval of the convicted (i.e. They choose these punishments instead of a prison term). In this case, it seems, the unorthodox punishment is being imposed by the judge, and the convicted mail thief is appealing it. I'm not comfortable with judges having that kind of power. Most laws come with minimum and maximum sentences, and the judges work within those limits. Allowing a judge to invent his own punishment goes too far.
• Fes -- experienced that problem in youth probations, which made extensive use of alternative measures. We got a good feel, though, for those that were scared by the system and would take it as a second chance, versus those who'd at 14 had "seen it all" and considered it a joke. This stuff comes up in Pre-Sentence Reports, but judges are free to disregard them. This is also a Canadian perspective. Not familiar with the inner workings of sentencing in the U.S. What seems clear, though, is that the scared 1st-timer who winds up doing custodial time comes out thinking it's all a joke. Best to avoid that mistake. We do have many new sentences handed down in what's been called "sentencing circles" for aboriginal offenders, getting back to that community punishment idea. There is some controversy surrounding this, also.
• I think that what the SF judge, and other US judges, are doing is a form of, or an attempt at, restorative justice (which is the Term Of Art for sentencing circles, alternative measures and community shaming dealies). With this, the 'shaming' only works if there is shame to be felt, which is premised on the idea of a community which the offender has deviated from, but can still return to (forgiveness). Hence being piloted in the rural or small primarily aboriginal communities in the North and West in Canada, with some luck. There is also a judge in Texas who sentences offenders to wear a variety of coloured caps (pastel blue=petty theft; pink=DWI; yellow=vandalism, etc.) It does raise the question of what "unusual" means. Generally, the goal is proportionality (everybody gets the same time for the same crime, otherwise it isn't fair). I actually prefer restorative-motivated sentences over the rigid grid model, which dictates min/max sentences with little ability to tailor sentences to the particular offender.
• Sex offenders are targeted because they are a safe target. Everyone is afraid to appear as if they are standing up in favor of child rape. Even other prisoners tend to abuse sex offenders so they can feel better than someone. If someone has done their time, they've done their time. These neighborhood watch people never seem to care if a mass murderer might be moving in next door. FACT: the world is full of people who have committed crimes and are no longer in jail. Live with it.
• One of the problems, at least with California's system of sex offender registration, is that it doesn't differentiate between a serial child rapist and someone convicted of indecent exposure, as PigAlien noted. Another problem is that it is a lifetime registration. When I was a public defender, I had a client who was convicted of flashing when he was about 19 years old, and was required to register. A few years later, he moved away from California. 20 years later, when he returned to California, some "well-intentioned" citizens found his name on the registration list and proceeded to follow him around, wrote "molester" on his car, and put fliers on neighbors' cars stating that he was a child molester. When he called the police to complain when two of these neighbors were following him in his car, he got arrested (and thus became my client) for failure to register (even though he'd obviously registered, or else the neighbors wouldn't have found him on the list). His life was a nightmare because of this requirement, even though he had stayed out of trouble (in California and the other states he'd lived in) for 20 years. The reason I think this relates to shaming and normative punishment (and why I don't really think the turn this thread has taken is that bad of a derail) is that under this kind of system, the registration requirement serves a shaming purpose. Of course, when properly used it alerts people to the presence of people who may have a greater danger of re-offending than other criminals (although no one in this thread has cited any statistics either way, I'll grant it for the purposes of argument), and therefore may pose a risk to the community, for people like my client, who have a relatively minor offense, lifetime registration ceases to serve any purpose but shame, and most likely does create Rorshach's "secondary deviance." He has since moved away from California again, leading me to suspect that the registration requirement is really intended to create a defacto system of bansishment. A return to the "old ways," indeed.
• Thanks for the concrete example, flagdecal. My bone of contention is that: a) molestors of any stripe should be punished indefinitely, and b) that punishment (shaming, or what have you) should be decided and administered *outside* of the justice system. I'll add that a lot of people don't seem to care if an offender is at risk of re-offence. The "vengeance" motive in our society is still *very* strong.
• I'm glad you brought up shaming and aboriginal society, Rorschach. I'm a retired police officer/chief, and the small towns in which I used to work would have benefitted from this kind of sentencing on occasion. Now, however, I live in a big city and I can't see that shaming would work here. I'll wager that I could stand outside of my post office all day and not encounter a single person I know. Where's the potential for shame in that? I'd also wager that 3/4 (or more) of the passerby would assume I was involved in a piece of performance art or some sort of stupid marketing gimmick to sell them something. For shaming to work effectively, the offender must be in a smaller, more well-connected community. Another problem: I doubt that many of the people sentenced in this way would really mind. The idiocy one sees on court drama tv and in other forums shows that far too many people really have no shame. Our societies are at least partially composed of people who honestly seem proud of their transgressions. Exactly what would be the effect upon them if ordered to wear a sign proclaiming their crimes? I think some of them would be happy to be so 'punished'. As for sex offenders -- there are those who would reoffend, and those who likely would not. Personally, I'm opposed to the registry because I see it as an infringement upon the civil rights of an individual. If a person has been convicted and served his time, that should be enough. If the crowd wants more punishment, they ought to pressure lawmakers to change sentencing guidelines to include (entirely subjective) the potential for longer sentences. Keep in mind that rehab/therapy is a much more effective way to reduce recidivism with sex offenders, so more prison time doesn't really make sense.
• It is true that for a shaming to work, they would have to be at the centre of your village. But in urban places, there are village-like places, where you see people you know - a school, an office building, - my university has about 10,000 students, but that is still small enough that your guarenteed to see someone you know everyday if you are in certain areas. As for people without shame - I think that may be exagerrated by that kind of tv - I think they would feel like they had to bluff their way as shameless. And they would probably be more likely to feel shame infront of people whom they respected and who mattered to them - family, friends, etc.
• another important concept in restorative justice is respect: a person the offender respects speaks about how and why the actions were offensive/illegal/cruel, etc. and leads the 'shaming' process. This person is frequently a family member, a mentor or friend. This is what differentiates it from cruel public humiliation and turns it into a process of reintegration into the community. (in theory)