Zarate 1

Donald Zarate

Matthew Pelle

English 1A

21 July 2016

Organized Shame

Inside of a civil state, transgressions committed are looked at as a betrayal. Other times,

these offences are seen as sheer deprivation of personal responsibility. In either case, the

question would be asked, in what manner may these transgressors be punished justfully. At the

same time, many methods thereof are put into question. It is to the highest regard that public

shaming would be known as a morally degrading and archaic manipulation of human nature, but

one that could be utilized as a tool in the criminal justice system.

In medieval times, the range of capital punishment was much more extensive and far

more intense than what is seen today. In this era, they believed that having people fear being

physically punished was the best deterrent of crime. This most commonly exercised in what was

called torture. According to an article on Medieval Life and Times, these punishments could

include, although were not limited to, subjection to various torture devices, thumbscrews, water

torture, and death by various means. Many of these were used in tangent with public humiliation

- including the “Scold's Bridal” (Bridle). In this particular punishment, the victim’s face would

be caged in a metal muzzle with an insert lodged in their mouth. Often times this was in

combination with a bell, and it was in this set up, they would be forced to patrol the city

(“Medieval Life and Times,” 2016).

Even though this notion of public shaming is indeed immoral and overly harsh, it is

possible to modify this punishment to be merited just as, if not more effective, without the use of
 Zarate 2

such unnecessary or rash techniques. In a column on the LA Times, contact reporter Patt

Morrison was asked the question, “Is public shaming fair punishment?” to which Morrison

explained that, according to, “Daniel Markel...if these punishments didn’t have some efficacy,

‘there probably wouldn’t be much resistance.’” In the plainest terms, shaming and humiliation,

does its job very well. It accomplishes what it intends to do with ease and resilience. However,

despite the effectiveness, the greatest stance against this notion is the claim that it is too

effective. In an article,“The Psychology of Humiliation,” Neel Burton says, “Humiliation is

traumatic and often hushed up,” which, although may not always be the case, does have a hint of

truth.

If the actual intentions of a justice-based organization, such as the criminal justice

system, are called into question, it may be found that their goals are quite simple. According to

the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice website, their institution claims, “We work to protect

the public and reduce reoffending, and to provide a more effective, transparent and responsive

criminal justice system for victims and the public,” in addition, according to the United States’

Department of Justice, their purpose is, “To enforce the law...ensure public safety...seek just

punishment for those guilty...and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice...” In both

of these statements, the general concern of the system could be understood in three parts: to

prevent crime, to punish those who commit crime, and to protect the public. These are

commonsense appeals and are not often questioned by the public.

However, what is often debated is the manner and execution of these goals. In the case of

public humiliation, there must be made a proper understanding of the different types thereof. In

Jon Ronson’s book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, he describes the accounts in detail of

various people who have in some degree, experienced just that; however, the difference here is
 Zarate 3

the medium of suffering. Just as Jacqui Shine suggestsin her article, "This Public Shaming Is Not

Like The Other,” internet-based public shaming is not like a capital-based one; that is, shaming

done through an governing entity. One of the distinctions Shine makes in review of Ronson’s

book is that it, “...relies on a series of false equivalencies and muddy distinctions in order to

evaluate being shamed on social media…” This is a strong point to make because in the end,

being the ‘hot’ topic on 4chan, being fired from a job, and receiving death threats (however

terrible these may be), do not equate to real world lashings at town square or being set to hang at

the cage. It still must be understood that these sort of punishments are not the same as the actual

exposing of someone, especially on a personal and private level. Lindsay Armstrong was forced

to do just this, which ultimately intensified her traumatising experience and resulted in her

suicide. This is a form of unwarranted and unreasonable shaming. As such, these sorts cannot be

understood to be any form of punishment, but instead an extension of trauma.

Because of this type of circumstance, it would be appropriate to distinguish the

variations. The first could be understood as humiliation commenced by the masses; the next is

that as done by the state; finally, the former in a virtual setting. In both cases of humiliation

offered by the masses, whether real world or virtual, they can be understood as inherently

unconstructive. With this distinction in mind, the remedies to these concerns could easily be

solved. They are often times rash, disproportionate and severe. However in the remaining form,

one commenced by the state, the only real defence against this type of justice is in two parts.

Initially, the associated fear of shame and humiliation taking toll on the actual psyche of the

defendant, and secondly, the fear of degrading society to barbarism. In the course of this

argument, it would appear that the only solution of these would be impossible to dismiss by fact,
 Zarate 4

as there are so few opportunities to provide evidence-based understanding except the case studies

conducted by particular judges and particular defendants.

Civil society ruled that public humiliation as a form of punishment was simply dreadful.

Burton describes, in the same article, the effects of humiliation from a psychological perspective,

claiming that, “Severe humiliation can be seen as a fate worse than death in that it destroys our

reputation as well as our life…” He claimed that this, as a form of punishment, is simply too

harsh to be capitalized on, as it could lead to suicidal tendencies (As shown with Armstrong).

Society knows that embarrassment and shame does lead to a self-loathing state and internalizing

pain; however this is in a private and personal setting. It is unknown whether or not the same

could be claimed in a judicial court. In the article, “The Problem with Public Shaming,” even

Cole Stryker explained, “Unlike institutionalized forms of punishment, public shaming can spiral

out of control...” But then again, it must be understood that this is given the circumstance of

unregulated, nonjudicial, mob-rationalized hysteria. In a well maintained, regulated, and

reviewed system, public shaming could be considerably productive, if not well-rehabilitating to

offenders. In either case, these two forms can not be equated, and therefore their results have the

potential to differentiate.

One of the very few judges to partake in these particular incidences that utilize public

shaming, is Judge (now representative) Ted Poe. Poe calls these acts of justice, ‘public

punishment,’ (as expressed in Kate Shatzkin’s article “Humiliation”) and in essence, do exactly

that: punish people on the grounds of the collective population. Him, being a judge at the time,

had the authority of the United States, and the government, by virtue of the Social Contract, is

authoritated by the consent of the whole. Therefore, it is not so much a judge conducting a

punishment, as much as it is the people of the United States punishing offenders. Likewise, it is
 Zarate 5

not so much a judge individually calling for the shame of some person, as much as it is the

public calling for the punishment of a transgressor. However, there is controversy that these

judges are not actually trying to do as they should, but instead are more concerned with seeing

themselves in the media (David M. Reutter, For Shame! Public Shaming Sentences on the Rise).

This can be remedied by simply being more particular of who may become judge. Which is not a

new issue by any means and cannot be understood as a single argument against public shaming,

but instead a cause against the current judicial system.

In the end, the nature of sentences come down to the appropriateness relative to the

crimes committed. In a 2013 NPR podcast hosted by Scott Simon, guest speaker Jonathan Turley

had argued against judges making shame-based sentences, saying that those judges are

essentially becoming, “little Caesars,” having the unfortunate do their bidding in whatsoever

manner they please. Unintentionally, he aids the understanding that these sort of sentences are

properly utilized in minor offences. Turley said, “People aren’t taking a murder and saying, ‘I

want you to bark like a dog in my courtroom, and I’ll let you off for murder.’” and continues to

say that, “These are relatively small offences, and many of them would not result in

incarceration…” This understanding has much more than the idea that a murder ‘deserves worse’

as it were, and has to do with the integrated notion that simple punishment is not enough for the

likes of them.

Of the three considerations the justice system facilitate, the villainous nature of a crime

ties in with their purpose. It could be understood, from Peter Moskos in the same podcast with

Turley, that prisons have three intentions. The first of these, being to rehabilitate offenders. The

second is to separate truly dangerous, untrusting, or otherwise psychotic people from the rest of

society. The third and final reason is to punish. Now, understand crimes as they are -
 Zarate 6

transgressions of one person against another - then it could be seen that all crimes must be met

with some degree of punishment. Alas, not all crimes are understood to result in the absolute

confinement and separation of the offender from society. It must be shown that the people who

are released from captivity early on the case of parole are evaluated as being trusted, redeemed,

and no longer require separation. People convicted of prison for life, with no chance at parole, or

even sentenced for execution, are thereby understood to forever require separation but cannot be

seen to be capable of rehabilitation.

In contradiction of this, people convicted of minor crimes are subject to (although a still

relatively large variety of punishments) superficial penalties. According to the Community Legal

Information Center (CLiC), the types of punishment can range from mere fines, to community

service, compensation orders, and even to actual forfeiture of ill gotten gains. These penalties are

not necessarily punishments as they are reparations for transgressions; they are, without using

their official names, simply temporary confinement, returning of stolen goods, forced

counselling, etc. For modern times, these are the extent of criminal prosecution, aside from

actual imprisonment. Even more so, if someone were to be convicted for whatever reason and

they cannot oblige by the other forms of penalties, then by default they are sentenced to the very

same punishment of prison time - thereby placing upon them punishment and separation, where

only punishment is necessary.

In this systematic, organized and judicial manner (not subject to the mob), the true nature

of public shaming can be seen (as Moskos puts it): society’s expression of disapproval.

Therefore, it could be understood that this goal, and the goals of prison in general - prevent

crime, punish criminals, and protect non offenders - could effectively be achieved by utilizing

shame. This is a power that is often misused by the masses, but if the official state were to
 Zarate 7

acknowledge this form of punishment as a legitimate section, then it could be utilized for the

good of society. Unfortunately, another concern which cannot be addressed is the fear of

corruption. That is people in state, misusing this form of punishment to essentially force people

into conformity. There is no response to it because there is no merit to this argument. There is no

way to measure the state’s intentions wherein this would happen. Considering anything is

possible, it may not say that this argument is impossible, but it can be said that this argument is

based on conspiracy theory and not anything constructive.

 Zarate 8

Works Cited

"About DOJ." U.S. Department of Justice. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 July 2016.

Alchin, L. K. "Medieval Torture and Punishment." Medieval Torture and Punishment.

Siteseen Ltd, n.d. Web. 21 July 2016.

“CLIC - Police and Crime: Criminal Liability and Types of Penalties - ‘What Types of

Penalties Are There for Committing a Criminal Offence?’" N.p., n.d. Web. 21 July 2016.

"Ministry of Justice." Www.gov.uk. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 July 2016.

National Public Radio (NPR). Http://www.npr.org/. N.p., 24 Aug. 2013. Web. 20 July

2016.

Neel Burton. "The Psychology of Humiliation." Psychology Today. N.p., 27 Aug. 2014.

Web. 21 July 2016.

Ronson, Jon. So You've Been Publicly Shamed. New York: Riverhead, 2015. Print.

Shine, Jacqui. "This Public Shaming Is Not Like The Other." BuzzFeed. N.p., 15 Apr.

2015. Web. 21 July 2016.