to think that community service should not be about humiliation?

lecce - 'What about reality, if the jackets cause more problems than they solve, and I knoiw I have no evidence on that, then who cares what DM readers think? '

• That's probably the single most pertinent sentence on the thread. The point is, there is no evidence that the jackets cause more problems than they solve, whereas there are sound, practical reasons as to why they are a good idea - easy for whoever is supervising the group to keep tabs on them, fulfils the requirement that justice is seen to be done etc. Justice being seen to be done is not about humiliation - it's a basic tenet of the society we live in. The deterrent aspect is also a basic tenet. Frankly, if someone convicted of an offence objected to the general public seeing that they had done so, I would question whether that person really understood the impact of what they had done. Surely part of successful sanctions, and rehabilitation, is the offender actually acknowledging that what they have done is seen to be wrong.

If there were compelling evidence that the jackets actually didn't work, and for instance, caused an increase in re-offending, then of course most right-minded people would want a stop to them. Because most people are actually concerned about living in a safer environment. There will always be the element of Daily Mail readers, who would like to see people strung up, even if it caused an increase in crime, but I think you should credit most of the population with more intelligence than that.

It reassures people that the criminal is being punished. At school one wears a uniform, some people wear uniforms to work, do you think thats humiliation, its so people know who you are.

You're focussing on the criminal instead of the victim. I don't see how punishing someone at the expense of increasing the number of victims can ever be justified.

No no evidence why should there be, offenders are there for a reason, they have committed a crime not to have a lovely day out. Its part of their punishment to wear a uniform. If they dont want to, then they should not commit crimes, next time mabey they will think again.

pigletmania - and your evidence for the efficacy of this is....?

Sorry op but you are in the minority on here and too right too.

No lecce its not about revenge, its about punishing the criminal and seeing justice being done. I feel that those doing community service should wear not necessarily a jacket with a slogan on the back, but a uniform (boiler suit, orange top and bottoms) so that they stand out from other innocent people doing work in the community who have not committed a crime.

I agree, Coraltoes, that a crime should be adequately punished. The contentious issue though is what is considered "adequate".

Out of touch judges and outdated laws mean that some offenders are serving longer sentences than others, for what I would consider to be a more minor offence.

I think all violent and sexual crime should carry a minimum term jail sentence. Sadly that's not always the case.

The other concern with a corporal punishment system is that the government in control changes and suddenly with it do the values by which we judge a crime.
Have you not read about the poor women in Iran being stoned for alleged adultery? buried to their chests in the ground and STONED to death, do you agree with that?! For in their country, they have supposedly commited a crime. Hows about the people on death row who havent had what any sane courtof law would consider adequate access to defence lawyers and are sentenced to death? Where many are actually mentally ill but sentenced to the chair for their crimes instead of provided with proper help? Or hows about Guantanamo? Is that the right way to detain prisoners? Without access to legal help, denied their human rights?

People like you really make me lose hope in the sanity of our society. We have one of the more forward thinking judicial systems in the world, with legal aid, appeal courts, education opportunities in prison, young offenders institutes, community service systems...all of which should work towards not only a fair trial, but a fair outcome, a chance of rehabilitation, of reduction of drug dependency, increased sense of worth, whilst protecting the more vulnerable criminals (such as the young) and providing them a space in which to learn. Yes they have comitted crimes, but many can be rehabilitated given the right tools. Surely that is better than slaughtering the lot.

onagar...execution works in 100% of the cases...isn't that just becuase the dead can't reoffend?! quite a niche statistic there.

I am totally anti corporal punishment. You only need to see the abuses of justice around the world where such systems exist to realise the real impact of such a punishment. i do however believe that a crime should be adequately punished not only so the victim has the comfort that their suffering was for nothing, but also to make the perpetrator think "shit...this really was a mistake, i hate doing this community service/prison sentence/ whatever and need to sort myself out". We have to make people feel the consequences of their actions, and i really believe a bit of community work is a positive way of making that happen.

As for chopping hands off etc...well that is plain bonkers.

"When you commit a crime you set yourself aside from society. "
I can't better Alaska's point here:
"its people like your brother who got too drunk and hit someone when he was out, or your alcoholic sister who cant remember not to drink and drive"

I was thinking about this one last night - I feel pretty strongly about driving offences (speeding, parking on yellow lines making it impossible to cycle safely etc). So, we could for example have a rule that anyone who commits a driving offence has to have orange lines painted on their car (or stick on magnetic ones) so that everyone could see.

Given that 'respectable' people often commit car crimes, the humiliation aspect might be even more to the point. So I was trying to decide if I thought it would be a good idea. I still don't think it is really, I'd much rather that people were (as they are I believe) obliged to go on repeat driving courses, sessions about the dangers of speeding/see videos of parents whose children were killed etc, or for repeat offenders have to have a speed limiter on their car (I know that doesn't happen now).

I think the jackets are to say 'LOOK! We are doing something about crime! Now don't worry yourselves about if it will work or not, it's more important that you be impressed by the fact that we are doing SOMETHING! ANYTHING!'

I think the orange jackets is to warn potential offenders and to inform the general public that people are being punished by serving their community. The offender gets to be out in the fresh air and enjoying relative freedom which has to be better than prison. Our judicial system serves the whole community and not just those penalised, I think it's good.

Is there any evidence that the mild humiliation of wearing hi-vis jackets while doing Community service reduces offending? Because if there is we should do it, and if there isn't we shouldn't.

If there isn't why not? It is very simple to run a study to determine this.

As I keep saying. If you try to humiliate them they wil simply
refuse to do it and go for s short prison term instead

Why should they not stand out, they have committed a crime and that's part of their punishment. So what! They have chosen by committing a crime to set themselves out from the rest of the law obiding citizens. As I said you are talking about them as if they are children and are vulnerable and defenceless and we should cut them some slack and feel sorry for them, these are adults who chose to commit a crime so therefore it has consequences such as wearing those jackets whilst doing community service. Perhaps the thought of humiliation might put them off committing a crime in the future.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code

Onagar - and what happens then is that conviction rates for the last chance plummets as juries and judges don't WANT to kill someone for a minor offence, and so undermine any deterrent effect. Same as in the States, criminals don't have to worry too much about parole violations as there isn't enough space to send them back to prison.

onagar, I think you are nuts. Even in victorian times it was recongised that having hanging for over 200 offenses did not work. How would you feel if your child was excuted for a repeat offence?

It meant that someone mind commit murder to avoid being caught for stealing a piece of bread. In the days for hanging for almost any offence there was just as much crime.

A rapist would be insane not to murder their victim if the they were going to be hanged.

I have no idea what is the best way of punishing offenders. Its complex.

YABU.

What human rights lecce, the jackets do not take away any human rights fgs. You would not be saying that if YOU were the victim of a crime that one of these in the hi vis jackets committed. We are not talking about children here, but adults who have committed crimes, they knew what they were doing when they robbed or mugged or assaulted someone, when they took away the victims rights, they should be punished.

There are non criminal volunteers who do similar work those who serve their time doing community work, why should these criminals be allowed to blend in with innocent people doing community work!

They are there for a reason, because they have committed a crime, thats what you get when you break the law, totally agree sorry!