Lacking Jail Space, "Family Courts" Turn to Public Shaming

What are they going to do with the jails now overflowing with men who have been victimized by the courts? Start in again with lock-stocks in the public square like jolly old Massachusettes in the 1600s?

Let's face it, if you're not a deadbeat dad, you could still be an alcoholoc or drug addict. If your not one of those you could still be a serial killer waiting to shoot up a school. Or, speaking of schools you could also be a pedophile (better not try to become a teacher young man), or heaven forbid you ever pissed on a tree as that will land you in the same predicament (on the sex offender registry) as some one who had sexually abused a child). Or maybe you are a terrorist, we all know that they are not just islamic extreemists. I could go on and on but I think you get the point.

All the worlds evils are thought to be almost exclusively the fault of men and under the current system all you need is an accusation of any of those things to be publically shamed to the point of ruin.

Any "character flaw" is considered a warning sign of the evil monster that society believe lurks within the souls of all men and "handle extreme prejudice" is the common way to "cure" male deviant behavior. Shame them until they behave. Once they behave continue to shame them as you may never trust that male again.

Earlier this year, I read a small blip in the paper. In Chicago there was a job fair held exclusively for convicted criminals. 250 employers were invited to attend. 10 showed up. 20000 people showed up looking for work from all over the eastern United States. So much for a second chance once they've paid their debt huh? What gender do you think a group like that would consist almost exclusively of? I'll give yo ua hint, it wasn't women. What gender lives in the most poverty again?

And people wonder why prisons in America are overflowing and the USA has a larger prison population then Communist China. In the current social climate of "all men are potential threats" there is no such thing as a second chance in "The Land of Oppertunity"

So public lock-stocks would be reasonable solution in the current social climate. Nothing beats a good detterent right? I mean isn't it true that the higher the punishment for crime the lower the crime rate? Would anyone from Texas care to comment? Florida?

I'm not sure what kind of a reply you're looking for or why you singled out Texans and Floridians. Why do you prefer our opinions on this subject over those of all others on this website?

What I don't understand in this article is how this guy is supposed to find and work at a job while at the same time that he's required to sit under a sign at a government building for specific periods of time during each weekday.

I don't think it's a bad idea. It's certainly better than the alternative. I assume the guy doesn't get an arrest or jail on his record which is an improvement. Maybe now that they've ratcheted down the severity of the punishment, maybe we'll see a bit more equality between the sexes in the passing out of such punishments. Don't think so? Maybe, maybe not.

Anyone is free to comment as usual. I just picked a couple of States that demonstrate that no matter how hardline the approach to crime that crime still occurs at as high a rate or higher then states that have lesser punishments for crime.

Texas has the strctest penalties for criminal acts in the United States. Texas alone executes more people every year then most other countries in the world that have the death penalty. There is a point when strict penalties actually seem to have the opposite affect. In other words, once all crimes become punishable by rediculously high sentances then the disincentive becomes motive to commit the crime in an act of protest against the punishment. Or, it becomes motive to commit a much more serious crime as the consiquences would be the same as a lesser crime. Three strikes rules create more violence in this way. If some one with two strikes thinks they will go down for a third strike anyway, they are not inclined to show any restraint whatsoever with the nest crime they commit.

Florida has some of the strictest laws in the country involving sex offenders. In fact Mark Foley helped enact those strict laws against sex offenders. Ever notice it's the people who live in glass houses that like to cast the most stones? Ever notice the first people to grab their torches and pitch forks when the latest witch hunt is called are the ones who have the most to hide? Yet, despite the ass backwards efforts of those trying to deflect attention away from their own crimes by declaring war on others who have commited the same acts, these crimes never seem to go away? Florida also has stricter penalties for crime then most states generally, that was just one example.

The point is, one day in prison or the death sentance makes little difference in the crime rate for any given crime. Why? Because like anyting else in life, crime is not about what is to lose from the act but what is to be gained by it. People intent on commiting crimes are not concerned with the punishment they are only focused on what they think they will gain from whatever act they commit. It is extremely rare for some one to commit a crime with the intention of getting caught and punished. They simply are not thinking about it. Consiquences only scare people who would have never commited the crime in the first place.

I had almost completed a long reply to your comments, agreements and disagreements, but then I tried to copy into memory the thing to protect myself from losing what I'd done prior to hitting the preview button when I pressed a wrong button and the entire thing disappeared! Damn!

There's no way I could redo all that. Sorry. It just took too long to create.

Needless to say, I agree with a lot of what you've said but not all, especially that stricter laws don't deter. Over the past years, it seems that bureaucrats throughout the U.S. have been consistently making our laws stricter and stricter and crime statistics throughout the U.S. have been consistently going down over that same period. All criminals aren't deterred, but many people are. We can't measure what doesn't happen.

As far as the death penalty not deterring, there has never been a case where an executed murderer (every execution in the U.S. has been for murder) has reoffended. But only the particularly heiness murderers are given the death penalty. All others are given life in prison or some lesser punishment. I say this because you seem to be against the death penalty. By the way, I don't believe the primary purpose of the death penalty is deterrence, but punishment that befits the crime.

Damn! What a waste of all that previous time and effort! So much to say, just too much time and hassle to recreate!

P.S. I don't believe your assertion that Texas has the strictest laws considering all states have thousands of laws, all written differently at different times by different people. How could anyone accurately compare them? I suspect that you just assumed this based on Texas executing far and away more murderers than any other state. I checked it out and second place, Virginia, isn't even close. In fact they're not even in the same ball park! But I don't believe that the way Texas chooses to treat heiness murderers has anything to do with the strictness of its laws.

I indeed am against the death penalty. For dozens of reasons it makes absolutely no sence to me on a logical level. On an emotional old testiment kind of way sure it seems like the right thing to do, but just because vengance feels good doesn't make it the right thing. But that's not really the point.

I would argue the drop in crime ove the last few decades has alot more to do with greater education, greater opertunity, and more choices in people's lives then anything to do with any laws punishing crimes.

Like I said, crime is no different from anything else anyone does in life, it's all about what you get out of it. So if more people see that there is more to be gained from legitimate options in life then criminal activaties then they will choose not to commit crimes and you will get an over all reduction in crime.

Of course there will always be individuals who commit crimes anyway for some kind of deviant pleasure or whatever, but those people are the exception not the rule. Most "criminals" are just people who saw more to gain out of a life of crime then any other options available.

I'm not defending murderers and real rapists and whatnot, those people deserve severe punishment. But I am also aware that the primary purpose of our system is punishment. It always has been. Despite what lawmakers and police preach all the time about public safety and detterance, these things are beyond the ability of the law.

The law does not protect anyone because the movie Minority report was a work of fiction. No one can stop a person intent on commiting a crime before that person acts. Prevention is impossible legislate. The law takes action only AFTER THE FACT. For good reason to. You can't punish people for evil thoughts. Individual awareness is the only thing that can help people avoid being victims.

Detterance? Ask any unknown person you run into in your daily activities what the punishment is for any random crime. They won't know. They'll quess. They might be in the ballpark, but as far as knowing what the law lays out for guidelines they wont have the first clue. In otherwords, it make no difference what the law says because people don't read laws and they don't know what the laws are. So I just cannot agree with the argument that strick laws serve one bit of good as deterrence for the general public.

High profile cases serve the example and get the message out? I doubt it. People remember high profile cases for a few days after the verdict and then they move on with their lives. Plus, really high profile cases are not an accurate representation of the average case regarding any crime anyway. They serve to further dissillusion people more then anything.