to think that community service should not be about humiliation?

[lecce]

We went for a walk in a local park today and I was shocked to see lots of people gardening in bright orange jackets that said, in huge letters, COMMUNITY PAYBACK.

I thought it unecessary and inappropriate. Why should the public see that? Why should such people have to endure people staring and, I should imagine, comments being made by some people?

If people feel humiliated then surely that is far more likely to lead to their feeling angry and defensive rather than remorseful. If punishment is supposed to be partly about rehabilitation then I do not see that humiliation has a part to play at all.

Moreover, it is simply no one's business who is a convict and what their punishment is. It made me feel really uncomfortable, reminding me of The Scarlet Letter, Dunce hats and other old-fashioned and, I had thought, obsolete practices.

Oh, and I dont like the word 'payback' either, what was wrong with 'service'?

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.

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.

ALaska, I have been trying to make the point that humiliation does not work in reforming criminals but most people on here don't want to know. They want revenge. It's like going back in time, maybe we should bring back the stocks.

Someone, sorry typing with one hand bf so hard to check who, made the point that the jackets will appease Daily Mail readers who may otherwise see community service as a 'soft' option. Why must we worry about appeasing the lowest common denominantor? 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? Off topic, but imo that was half the problem with the last government, instead of being honest they always had one eye on middle England and a lot of opportunities were lost. I don't care what DM readers think.

Takver, I agree with you about motorists and the orange line does seem tempting! But as you say, you can't pick and choose who should be humiliated. Humiliation is not a part of justice.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"No evidence why should there be"

Er, because what is the point in doing it if it doesn't deter criminals or, worse, makes the problem worse - makes people feel more alienated from the community. I thought the idea was that community service fostered a sense of belonging and acheivement that people would not have experienced before. I think is was Alaska who mentioned some fantastic sounding projects where this had been done.

The jackets, or boiler suits ffs, surely do the opposite. What a knee-jerk response, how would it be a lovely day out without the jackets?!

It is so easy and lazy to say "they are criminals, they deserve whatever they get," and much harder to look at the reasons fot their crimes and try and address those. There doesn't seem to be much apptetite for the latter.

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.

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.

That post was to lecce btw

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.

Violet, of course a huge part of rehabiitation is acknowledging that you have done wrong but I don't see that this needs to be made public unless the person concerned wants it to. Surely it is betwwen them and their conscience, their families, any involved professionals and, sometimes, their victim. It is no one else's business. I think publicising could interfere with this process and lead to resentment.

I know the public need to know that sanctions are in place but we do, we don't need to make a spectacle of people.

To be seen by wardens couldn't they all wear a polo shirt of the same colour? Really hat the word payback.

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

hate, not hat.

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

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?

word 'payback'

lecce are you joking!

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

some counselling and dietary care???

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.

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.

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?