Monday, April 13, 2015
Putting Shaming to Shame
Shaming's place in law is brought up again in chapter 4. Kahan argues for shaming "because of its expressive power: no other mode of punishment as vividly and surely expresses society's disapproval of the offender" (175). There are various reasons why shaming does not belong in law enforcemetn. Shaming is public humiliation and it affects more people than the perpetrator. It also has an effect on the onlookers. This is especially true if children are onlookers to this behavior. Children are very impressionable and they may see this public shaming and copy it in their daily lives. Seeking out shaming other people could result from this and children could find it okay to humiliate regular people. A similar case can be seen in witnessing violence at a young age. A child's exposure to the father abusing the mother is the strongest risk fact for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next (American Psychological Association, Violence and the Family: Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family,1996). Male children who witness the abuse of mothers by fathers are more likely to become men who batter in adulthood than those male children from homes free of violence(Rosenbaum and O'Leary, "Children: The Unintended Victims of Marital Violence," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1981). While saying these effects on children definitely will be a consequence of public shaming is committing a slippery slope fallacy, it should be recognized as a possibility and either way there will be associated harms to the onlookers of public shaming. With shaming the punishment could also no longer fit the crime. In the example given of a man being forced to clean the street with a toothbrush because he was tried with public urination, that punishment could get out of hand by onlookers. People' reactions when witnessing this punishment are not controlled by law enforcement. This man could lose his job or his landlord could evict him if they see him. This is a much harsher punishment than is deserved for public urination and the public's actions simply cannot be predicted. The 8th amendment to the US constitution guarantees that a punishment fit a crime. With public shaming it is impossible to assess if it will so it should therefore not be legal. Shaming could also simply not be effective and could not be achieving what was hoped. Studies show that publicly humiliating a person triggers anger, defiance, and anti-social behavior. shaming as a form of punishment could therefore be contributing to the problem instead of ending it. Shaming could also put family and friends at risk of being shamed even though they are not at fault. If I associate Lily with Sam and I see Sam being publicly shamed for being a drunk driver I could associate Lily with drunk driving as well. Lily would then have to also bear the burden of that shaming as well even though she did nothing wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you that shaming is problematic for use in the law. I think on top of the reasons you mentioned, shaming is also harmful because of the unhealthy social distance it creates between those being shamed and those shaming or the onlookers of the shaming. I agree with Nussbaum when she points out that shaming can act like a sort of defense mechanism in which the shamers aggressively put down those being shamed in order to confirm to themselves and to others that they are in the “normal” group. Furthermore, by grouping others into a shameworthy position and implying that they are somehow fundamentally different, the shamers also dehumanize those who are shamed. This creates further distance between the shamers and the shamed. Not only is this a problem when the shamed are those like the disabled and other minority groups who have no reason to be shamed, but I think it is also a problem when the shamed may in a way “deserve it” (i.e., when the shamed actually did something wrong like drunk driving). I feel that it is mistaken to see such people as less human or in a completely different shameworthy category, as if similar moral imperfections do not lie in the shamers as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that shame does not solely affect the perpetrator of an act is deemed worthy of shame—oftentimes, innocent friends and family of such a perpetrator are also affected. Ironically, such a case is going on in my high school at the moment. Today, several articles were posted by various news sources about a very well-known and well-liked biology teacher. The articles revealed that he has been accused of exchanging sexually explicit e-mails as well as having a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old student (who consented, but is not legally able to consent). My immediate reactions were disappointment in the teacher and pity for his wife, who likely feels as much shame as he does. She will now be known as the poor wife who married a sex offender and was either too naïve to realize or too weak to leave. Though she will never be seen as the monster that he is, she will always be associated with him.
ReplyDeleteI think one important point that you didn’t really touch on was that shame already is embedded in the legal process—not clearly and tangibly, but subtly and consistently. When someone is suspected of a crime, it becomes public knowledge immediately—arrests and court trials receive lots of media attention, friends and relatives are interviewed, details about personal lives are dug up. Whether or not the court of law ultimately decides that you are guilty of a crime, you are still subject to shame by the court of public opinion. Plenty of people found innocent in court are still associated with the crimes of which they were accused for the rest of their lives—exonerating evidence is not always enough to put riled-up news viewers at ease. I think you are certainly right about excluding shaming from legal punishment practices. However, on the same train of thought, it seems backwards to protect criminals from shame when we do not extend the same courtesy to suspects. Perhaps measures must be taken to preserve one’s privacy while being accused or indicted for a crime, and identities should only be revealed if necessary for the safety of the public.