to think that community service should not be about humiliation?

pigletmania - Can you explain what you mean by putting themselves outside society? As the only legal thing that I can think of that is comprable to that is Outlawing:-

"In the common law of England, a "Writ of Outlawry" made the pronouncement Caput gerat lupinum ("Let his be a wolf's head," literally "May he bear a wolfish head") with respect to its subject, using "head" to refer to the entire person (cf. "per capita") and equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law: Not only was the subject deprived of all legal rights of the law being "out"side of the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he was a wolf or other wild animal. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw had only himself to protect himself, but it also required no enforcement on the part of the justice system. Compare "Outlaw" to Ostracism in Athens, which was a similar concept."
(From Wiki)

Which I don't think is what you mean. Do you mean that if someone is convicted of a crime they forfeit ALL human rights?

What are the implication of them 'being outside society'? What is is that you want to do with them that they need to be outside society to do, and why do you want to do it?

No, the issue of re offending is not the only aspect of the criminal justice system. There are a number of elements to it, including the punishment aspect. Not all people who commit murder, for instance, will commit another crime, particularly if the crime involved family members only, and the offender has no psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies and presents no
Risk to the general public. However, the offender is given a life sentence and often incarcerated for many years as punishment, not because they are likely to reoffend. I realise this debate is about less serious crime, but the principle remains the same: the justice system IS broader than
Simply reducing crime.

How is it moronic coalition! By committing the crimes these people have put THEMSELVES outside society! Yes they do need rehabilitating, and part of that is to know that they have done wrong and the impact of their crimes on people. They have put themselves it that situation, if you want humiliating then look at the Penal system of other countries such as China, the Middle East, whereby a woman who has committed adultary would be stoned to death, than I think that wearing a simple uniform on community service isen't so bad.

Perhaps the fact that community service IS being seen will be a deterrent to those who are on the edge of criminal activity. If you look at why the majority of people don't commit crimes it comes down to
a) morality. They know it's wrong.
b) motivation. They have no need to steal/vandalise/mug someone.
c) fear of punishment.
I think it's human nature to want to see punishment meted out. Public executions used to be regarded as entertainment. I'm not saying this is a good thing, it's not. But the public have a thirst for justice to be seen to be done. It sends a message to the rest of society; this is what will happen if you commit a crime.

I was hoping that someone else would confound my expectations and engage on a more rational level - so I was trying to give the foaming at the mouth contingent a chance to actually look some stuff up.

I disagree that is a broader debate than reducing offending. That is the only purpose of the Justice system. If it makes us safer (reduces offending) it is succeeding, if not it is failing. Justice being seen to be done is a tool to achieve this (people are more likely to obey the law if they see it operating, and more likely to co-operate with it if they perceive it to be fair), not an end in itself.

Do Criminal Penalties Prevent Unsafe Acts?

It's a second hand source but it's better than anyone else supporting the policy could come up with - most useful stuff seems to be behind paywalls and there is a lack of more accessible sources summarizing on analysing research as the research has no effect on policy, as that is made entirely on prejudice.

I don't understand what you are trying to do Coalition. If you have evidence to support an argument, then put it forward - don't wait for someone else to present it!!

I totally agree btw about the moronic level of some of the debate, but it seems a strange way to enter into it by not telling us the evidence you have located!!

I wasn't aware of evidence either way (increasing or decreasing offending) which is why I didn't put any forward. I did, however, outline the other, perfectly valid, reasons why wearing the jackets are a good, practical measure. The point you seem to miss is that this is a broader debate than whether offending is likely to increase or decrease (though of course that's a central element).
For example, I have no idea whether my local paper naming offenders plays a part in reducing the risk of offending or not, but I do think that the tenet of 'justice being seen to be done' is really important, so therefore reporting is justified.

Anyway, now that you have located some evidence, can you reference it please, as they may help to raise the level of the debate.

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Simple .

What I am trying to get someone to do is say that there IS evidence that this will reduce offending rates - because there is. The moronic level on which this debate is conducted means that it's difficult to find good data, and I haven't, but the consensus from a few things I was able to find is that what reduces offending is the perception of the risk of being caught and punished and not the severity of the punishment. So punishing people in public contributes to that perception and should help reduce offending rates.

But instead we get all this 'put themselves outside society!', 'done wrong so should be punished!', 'Cut their fucking bollocks off and kick them to death!' BULLSHIT.

Lecce you are missing the point, they are there for a reason, because they have committed a crime, part of their punishment is wearing a uniform, how the hell is that humiliating. You are the one that is finding it humiliating, have you talked to people on community service about it! I don't mean wearing clothing with slogans on, just community service. They are not there for a good time, but to serve their time.

I never said there was evidence that wearing the jackets reduces offending rates Coalition. It seems that there is no evidence either way. However, there are sound, practical objectives for wearing the jackets - ie: easy visibility for the supervisor, enabling the public to see justice being done. That last point is not about humiliation btw - justice being seen to be done is a central tenet of our justice system. Just as offenders are often named and identified in the local media. It's about society having a right to certain knowledge (unless of course, there are specific reasons why an offender cannot be identified, such as risk to their safety).

I don't actually understand where the idea of 'humiliation' has come from, except that the OP transferred her own feelings and decided that she thought it might be humiliating. I see it more as defining the situation to the public.

VioletHill - what is the evidence that it HELPS reduce offending rates though? Should we humiliate people on the off chance that it's going to do some good to should we maybe, you know, work out if it works and stuff?

As far as I'm aware, a lot of community punishments are given to allow people to keep their jobs instead of going to prison. OK, a lot of people who are made to do these punishments are ASBO types, but a fair few are people who have made one mistake, or, say, have been found over the drink drive limit the morning after and given this as well as a ban (yes, I know, not saying this is OK). Many of these people have been given a community punishment because they have been given references to read in court from their employer saying they are willing to keep employing this person and have been given these sentences because it is better to keep them in employment (and their kids and spouses in mortgage payments).

Their employer might not keep them on, or might lose business, if they have to be paraded about like this.

OP - you are being unreasonable.

Offenders need to understand that what they have done is shameful. And not just to the victim, but to society as a whole.
We all need to stand together and say that some things are plain wrong.

Yes, of course some people are brought up in difficult circumstances, but those people still need to know that it's not okay to commit crime.

lecce are you joking!

what do you want to happen to criminals????

some counselling and dietary care???

word 'payback'

But this is still about your personal viewpoint lecce. You don't like the work 'payback', but for other people it wouldn't be a problem - it simply defines what the offenders are doing. And tbh, if the group all wore polo shirts of a particular colour, it would quickly become obvious to the public what the group were there for.

There is no evidence that publicising the facts interferes with rehabilitation. Also, where would you draw the line with this? Should the local newspaper not be allowed to name convicted offenders, on the basis that the offender's wish to not be known, trumps the righs of the general public?

There is legislation in place anyway to prevent individual offenders from being named anyway, in particular circumstances, due to age etc, so why not leave it in the hands of the legal professionals to make these decisions?

Actually sod it, I'd vote for that regardless of the effect on offending rates.

FellationNelson - so you would have them do it nude while doing the teapot dance?

YABU. The more humiliating the better. Depending on the level of crime obviously. Countries that really shame their petty anti-social criminals have much lower crime rates on the whole.

That post was to lecce btw

What is the evidence that wearing the jackets makes the offenders feel more alienated, or humiliated?

The only evidence you seem to have is totally subjective - ie, that you are transferring your assumptions onto these people. You are thinking, 'Goodness, if that were me, I'd feel so awful doing the gardening wearing that jacket'.

Sorry, but that's not evidence, it's just a personal opinion. The community service work will be part of a process. The offenders will have sat through meetings, and explanations of what it involves, what they will wear, the reasoning behind it, etc. By this point, they may well understand more about the impact of their offending. If their attitude is simply 'Oh bloody hell, I don't want to wear that jacket because I don't want people knowing Ive committed an offence', then I would maintain that they probably are not being successfully rehabilitated anyway.

pigletmania - I'm not bothered about humilation I'm bothered about whether it works. If you support it because you think criminals should be humiliated that is a deeply unpleasent point of view. If you support it because you think it will reduce offending that is a valid point of view - and one that can be tested.