Post by NewsHound on May 13, 2005 21:55:07 GMT -4
Public humiliation in the form of shaming sentences seems to be one of the latest theories resurrected from the seventeenth century to attack youth crime in the United States. Offenders convicted of crimes including shoplifting, solicitation, prostitution, buying drugs, and drunk driving etc. are being given sentences aimed at humiliating them in front of their communities. As Russell (1997: 103) describes, these lawbreakers have been ordered to take out ads in their local paper apologizing for their crimes, march around downtown with sandwich boards proclaiming their misdeeds, have their names printed in huge type on billboards above the cities highways, perform their community hours with a fluorescent orange vest with a neon yellow band and black bold letters on the front and back that read: probationer at work, or post signs on their front lawns warning passersby of their violent or deviant nature.. As Russell (1997: 103) illustrates, the shaming sentences have been very productive in cases where you are sentencing first-time offenders to probation especially if you combine it with rehabilitation programs. For example, Russell (1997: 104) describes where a youth and four of his friends in Eastern Texas teamed up one night to smash the front windows of six local schools. Of the five, only one turned himself in and another was arrested. Stevens who turned himself in was sentenced to pay $ 5000 to help pay for the damages, and return to the six schools and apologize to the students. To say the least Stevens has not been in any trouble with the law since. As Russell (1997: 103) illustrates why shame? And why now? Well, people fondly remember a time in small-towns when everyone knew each other, and honor and shame were powerful social sanctions. So, district attorneys and judges are looking for new ways to send a strong message to the public and a cheap alternative to prison are trying to make offenders feel the heat of public scorn.
Another theory regarding social sanctions is to make offenders feel the heat from the public by reintegrative shaming. As Siegal (1996) argues, crime control can be better achieved through a policy of reintegrative shaming ‘in which disapproval is extended to the offender’s evil deed, while at the same time they are cast as respectable people who can be re-accepted by society’ (p.127). Siegal discusses how a very important aspect of reintegrative shaming is when the offender realizes his or her mistakes and begins to castigate one’s self. For the shaming to be reintegrative it must be brief and controlled and then followed by ceremonies of forgiveness, apology and repentance. For reintegrative shaming to be a success society must encourage it. As Siegal (1996: 128) describes, attempts at this reintegrative shaming theory are being made with juvenile offenders in Australia. One program has brought the offenders together with the victims, (so they can experience the shame) and with close family members and peers (who help the reintegration. As Siegal (1996) describes ‘efforts like these can humanize a system of justice that today relies on repression and not forgiveness...’ (p.128).
I would also like to take into account my own personally preferred proposal for dealing with youth crime which is the form of reintegrative shaming taking place in Shawnigan Lake. As Swanson(1997: 13) describes, one group in South Cowichan may have found a solution to our overloaded court system.
The South Cowichan Community Police Advisory Committee in partnership with the Shawnigan Lake RCMP have launched an alternative to sending kids to court that involves the community and has both young people and their victims satisfied with results. There are no court appearances, no lengthy delays, no opportunities to shift blame, and no court records. Based on a restorative justice program, the Shawnigan Lake Youth Diversion Program invites young offenders, victims, and their respected supporters to sit down with a volunteer facilitator to share feelings and find a mutually accepted disposition. This system makes youth own up to their mistakes and make them take responsibility in their own community. Swanson (1997) offers some clarification by describing how ‘Police officers initially decide whether a youth would be a suitable candidate based on the seriousness of the crime, a previous record and the offenders willingness to participate in the program. If the teen agrees to take part, a resolution conference is called within two weeks’ (p. 13). Once everyone has given input, participants reach agreement on appropriate compensation and sign a contract listing the conditions and a specified time frame for compensation. Penalties vary based on the crime. As Swanson (1997:28) mentions in the examples, three youths who stole native carvings from the Mill Bay Community Centre were presented with wood pieces and tools by the artist George Norris and asked to return with their completed work in a month’s time. The trio also volunteered to help out at two community picnics. Another two youths who stole food from a mobile home apologized for their behavior, reimbursed the owner and performed six hours of community work.
Swanson (1997: 28) describes the goal of the diversion program is to arrive at suitable compensation, not punishment. Since the program began in June, eight youths have taken part. None have reoffended. And in addition, diversion is freeing up precious court time, reducing police costs and increasing efficiency because matters are only dealt with while officers are on duty.
There are many willing to criticize the Young Offenders Act. Yet evidence does not agree with the commonly held perception of the YOA as being the problem. The public’s concerns regarding the YOA are the apparent increase of violent crimes, the seemingly high youth crime rate escalating out of control, and why the YOA (Young Offenders Act) is ‘soft’ on crime are not vindicated. How well these matters are supported by evidence concerning the extent of youth crime is obscured in a media induced, ‘moral panic’. Is getting tough on youth crime the answer? It is has been addressed through specific deterrence, incapacitation, and transfer to the adult system. Theories regarding solutions to youth crime encompass a more narrow set of legal rules, shaming sentences, and reintegrative shaming. My personally preferred proposal for dealing with youth crime was the diversion program in Shawnigan Lake. It is from these key issues addressed in this paper, with regard to a careful examination of the evidence that suggests that the public impressions are considerably exaggerated by the mass media regarding youth offenders and the treatment young offenders received through the YOA is effective, fair, and justified. I personally believe that the YOA has done a great job of rehabilitating our youth rather than merely incarcerating them. Although the YOA has room for improvement it is by no means the source of the juvenile delinquency in our society.
Another theory regarding social sanctions is to make offenders feel the heat from the public by reintegrative shaming. As Siegal (1996) argues, crime control can be better achieved through a policy of reintegrative shaming ‘in which disapproval is extended to the offender’s evil deed, while at the same time they are cast as respectable people who can be re-accepted by society’ (p.127). Siegal discusses how a very important aspect of reintegrative shaming is when the offender realizes his or her mistakes and begins to castigate one’s self. For the shaming to be reintegrative it must be brief and controlled and then followed by ceremonies of forgiveness, apology and repentance. For reintegrative shaming to be a success society must encourage it. As Siegal (1996: 128) describes, attempts at this reintegrative shaming theory are being made with juvenile offenders in Australia. One program has brought the offenders together with the victims, (so they can experience the shame) and with close family members and peers (who help the reintegration. As Siegal (1996) describes ‘efforts like these can humanize a system of justice that today relies on repression and not forgiveness...’ (p.128).
I would also like to take into account my own personally preferred proposal for dealing with youth crime which is the form of reintegrative shaming taking place in Shawnigan Lake. As Swanson(1997: 13) describes, one group in South Cowichan may have found a solution to our overloaded court system.
The South Cowichan Community Police Advisory Committee in partnership with the Shawnigan Lake RCMP have launched an alternative to sending kids to court that involves the community and has both young people and their victims satisfied with results. There are no court appearances, no lengthy delays, no opportunities to shift blame, and no court records. Based on a restorative justice program, the Shawnigan Lake Youth Diversion Program invites young offenders, victims, and their respected supporters to sit down with a volunteer facilitator to share feelings and find a mutually accepted disposition. This system makes youth own up to their mistakes and make them take responsibility in their own community. Swanson (1997) offers some clarification by describing how ‘Police officers initially decide whether a youth would be a suitable candidate based on the seriousness of the crime, a previous record and the offenders willingness to participate in the program. If the teen agrees to take part, a resolution conference is called within two weeks’ (p. 13). Once everyone has given input, participants reach agreement on appropriate compensation and sign a contract listing the conditions and a specified time frame for compensation. Penalties vary based on the crime. As Swanson (1997:28) mentions in the examples, three youths who stole native carvings from the Mill Bay Community Centre were presented with wood pieces and tools by the artist George Norris and asked to return with their completed work in a month’s time. The trio also volunteered to help out at two community picnics. Another two youths who stole food from a mobile home apologized for their behavior, reimbursed the owner and performed six hours of community work.
Swanson (1997: 28) describes the goal of the diversion program is to arrive at suitable compensation, not punishment. Since the program began in June, eight youths have taken part. None have reoffended. And in addition, diversion is freeing up precious court time, reducing police costs and increasing efficiency because matters are only dealt with while officers are on duty.
There are many willing to criticize the Young Offenders Act. Yet evidence does not agree with the commonly held perception of the YOA as being the problem. The public’s concerns regarding the YOA are the apparent increase of violent crimes, the seemingly high youth crime rate escalating out of control, and why the YOA (Young Offenders Act) is ‘soft’ on crime are not vindicated. How well these matters are supported by evidence concerning the extent of youth crime is obscured in a media induced, ‘moral panic’. Is getting tough on youth crime the answer? It is has been addressed through specific deterrence, incapacitation, and transfer to the adult system. Theories regarding solutions to youth crime encompass a more narrow set of legal rules, shaming sentences, and reintegrative shaming. My personally preferred proposal for dealing with youth crime was the diversion program in Shawnigan Lake. It is from these key issues addressed in this paper, with regard to a careful examination of the evidence that suggests that the public impressions are considerably exaggerated by the mass media regarding youth offenders and the treatment young offenders received through the YOA is effective, fair, and justified. I personally believe that the YOA has done a great job of rehabilitating our youth rather than merely incarcerating them. Although the YOA has room for improvement it is by no means the source of the juvenile delinquency in our society.