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'?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Violethill - No - the only purpose of the Justice system is to reduce offending. There are two reasons for giving murderers who are not likely to offend long sentences:-

a) It is a detterent to others who might otherwise commit those offences.
b) It asserts the role of the state in administering punishment, reducing the risk of further offences being committed in revenge for the initial offence, even if there would be no risk of this in a particular instance.

Read the aims of the criminal justice system. Reducing crime is one of them. There are others, including the need for public confidence that sanctions are carried out with fairness.

The other aims are there to support the main one which is to reduce offending. Without public confidence that sanctions are carried out with fairness you would see a rise in vigilantism and a loss of support for the system, leading to more crime over all.

What is the POINT of "public confidence that sanctions are carried out with fairness" otherwise?

The 'mission statement' of the CJS is "The purpose of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent."

The other aims are steps to that. But we are splitting hairs really.

I think that if there was a case where a decision needed to be made between reducing offending and justice being seen to be done, we would both go for reducing offending, while in practice justice being seen to be done reduces offending.

It may be splitting hairs, but the aims don't state: 'to reduce offending through the other aims'. They are clearly stated as separate aims.

How about a murderer who reaches his parole date after 20 years, is judged to no longer be a risk to the public, and there is judged to be no risk of crimes of recrimination? Now, what if the same situation had been true after 10 years? Why isn't the criminal released then, thereby saving public funds? If there is no longer a risk of reoffending, or other crimes being committed as a reaction to it?

The reason is precisely because there are other elements to the criminal justice system, such as punishement, and maintaining public confidence.

No, the aims are basically like KPI's - you need to read it like a statement of business goals.

We want to do X.

We will do this by doing Y which is measured by Z, A which is measured by B etc.

Punishment and maintaining confidence are tools in reducing offending.

In your example the judgement is that if the murdered was paroled after 10 years, this would not be seen as sufficient punishment, so it would undermine trust in the system increasing the risk of people going outside the system to inflict punishment themselves and so increasing offending as we move back to a self-dispensed system of feuding.

I'm not arguing that the other aims are unimportant - but they all contribute to the main aim.

What is the point of massive public support for a system that increases offending?

What is the point of punishment that increases the number of victims?

The only one that can stand on it's own is reducing offending, and that is the terms in which we should be conducting the debate.

To return to the original question....!!!!..

YABU to transfer your own perception that the jackets worn are for the purpose of humiliating the offenders.

Once you get past this particular block - because I really do not believe this is about humiliation, it's about practical reasons, and also defining what the individuals are there for - then really, I can't see what the issue is.

If people wearing the jackets reduces offending, then great, that's an important aim. If it makes no difference to offending rates, but serves the purpose of getting purposeful jobs done in the community, and exposing the offenders to productive work situations, and raising public awareness of this, then great, that's important too.

There is certainly no evidence that wearing the jackets will increase offending - so what's the problem?

That this WHOLE area is insufficiently evidence based

But to return to the OP....

YABU - unless you can show that this causes more harm than good.

Community Payback is probably a better name as many people provide service to their community without having committed offences.

they did something wrong

they get punished

justice is seen to be working flourecently!

if you can't do the time in an orange jacket, dont do the crime

jeez, i'm pretty liberal but c'mon 'lets not hurt the feelings of petty criminals becuase they wear an orange jacket' ....really?

to be fair i look awful in orange...

I absolutely agree.

Clearly the mums on this thread have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up in an environment where crime is normal and almost unavoidable. Its their socioeconomic class and relationship with the government (which treats the poor like shit) which leads to these people committing crimes, certainly not them being "scumbags".

Also if people think the humiliation aspect "deters" them from re-offending, they are idiots. This labelling as a criminal to be humiliated almost seals their fate as someone who hates the criminal justice system, and rest of society - that is why there is such a high reoffending rate for those who take part in community service.

There was also an idiot who said that they deserved to have their human rights infringed - comm. service is a punishment for things like graffiti or pissing in a bush, these are not things that should have someone be humiliated for hours every week for a year.

It is also the way you have all reacted to people doing "community payback" that shows, precisely, the reason this humiliation is truly awful. You all called these people scumbags and twats, how does that make them feel about the public? These people, after being humiliated, know that the public hate them and this feeling becomes mutual, making their reoffending almost certain.

Have some compassion and be more aware that not everyone is as privileged as you.

Saying "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" is so obnoxious, it is not their choice to do the crime but the societal effects that cause them to do this.

If your rich ah instead grew up with one mum, a dad in jail, a terrible school, addicts for friends and alcohol as a hobby, you would do the crime.

Yeah but these people don't wear hi-vis jackets when they do it.

I'm not against the fluorescence, but rather the label.

Also, it does more harm than good lol, YOs have a 77% reoffending rate for services 6 months or less. Do you not think that's because the first sentence creates ruptures between them and society and that leads them to having no choice but to commit crimes?

Statistically, longer sentences lower reoffending rates, so that's all you can go off lol, don't be silly

Your just wrong too,

Purposes of punishment are

Protection (doesn't fall under reoffending)

Retribution (doesn't fall under reoffending)

Rehab

Deterrence