Shaming as an alternative punishment keeps cropping up, invariably raising controversy.  Doc Berman found an instance in Florida, and raises it as an example of a sound approach to punishment:

As detailed in this local Florida story, headlined “Teen Forced To Carry ‘I Am Stupid’ Sign After Speeding Ticket,” a mother recently made headlines by imposing a shaming punishment on her reckless son.  Here are the basic details:

Adam Clark was pulled over going 107 mph in a 55-mph zone; neither the police nor his mother were pleased.  Adam’s mother, Heidi Wisniewski, not only took his car away, but also made him a sign to show outside of his school every morning and every afternoon.

He was forced to hold a sign reading, “I was stupid. I drove over 100 mph and got caught. Thank God!  I could have killed me and my friends.”  Adam said he got some strange looks and laughs from classmates at Orlando’s Merritt Island High School, but said he accepts his punishment. Despite the humiliation, he said he isn’t mad at his mother….

Wisniewski said her son would be in front of the school before and after school for a month, and added that she didn’t think the punishment is over the line.  “I love my son very much,” she said.  “I think more parents need to be tougher on their children.”…

Adam said the punishment worked. “I’ve learned my lesson,” Adam said.

Doug, who has some  curious theories about why alternatives to incarceration meet resistance, clearly favors shaming as a viable option.  Unlike forfeitures, shaming has greater merit as an alternative, though it is not without its problems in execution.

For example, one comment raised a proposed California brainstorm :

[P]proposed legislation by California State Senator (15th Dist.) Abel Maldonado to “require sex offenders to be identified on their vehicle license plates, like modern-day scarlet letters, pointing to statistics that show such criminals frequently use their cars to commit crimes.”

The commenter asked whether this would also be viewed as a fine option.  There was no response.

From my experience, I can think of plenty of defendants who would have happily accepted a shaming punishment in lieu of incarceration.  For the most part, these defendants couldn’t have cared less about the shaming aspect, and simply preferred not being taken off the streets to ply their trade or away from their families.  Would shaming have served to deter them?  There’s no general answer.  It’s a person by person determination.

Shaming is a psychological punishment; For those who care about being shamed, it should have an impact.  Others with more sociopathic tendencies may be harder to shame, since they don’t really care a great deal about what others think and, in a strange way, may even view the shaming as a badge of honor.

The problem with shaming is that it’s efficacy is based upon projected assumptions.  You and I may feel the harsh impact of public shaming, but then you and I aren’t out there committing crimes.  We assume that those who do will feel the same way that we do.  Whether this is true is up in the air.

But shaming also takes us further down the road of creating a permanent underclass of certain types of “criminals” that creates another set of problems with which we are ill-equipped to address.  For example, the sex offender registry is largely shame-based, allowing the general public to identify sex offenders so that they can make sure that they have no viable future in society.  The public, with torches and pitchforks, can march on their homes and jobs to assure that they will be perpetual social pariahs.  This leaves people on the registry to do what for the rest of their lives? 

Then there’s the problem of overbreadth, where there are people on the registry who are devoid of the moral culpability that is assumed, but are still there and will be there forever.  Consider the high school senior convicted of statutory rape of his girlfriend, who he later marries and with whom he has 4 kids.  He cops to probation and is a sex offender for life.  Who have we saved?

But between these extremes, there may well be plenty of room for shaming as an appropriate penalty, provided that it is indeed in lieu of incarceration (one of my constant problems with newfound punishments, which are too likely to be used to pile-on rather than as a substitute).  Yes, it is painfully paternalistic for government to treat citizens like children, but it may well be more effective, far less costly and, in the long run, more acceptable to defendants than a vacation at Club Fed.

The question remains, who’s to choose when shaming is a good idea or a disaster, and how much shaming serves its purpose and how much is creates improper harm?  The quick answer is the same judge that decides how may months or years one spends in the clink.  But prison covers certain legitimate sentencing functions that shaming does not.  For example, shaming does nothing for rehabilitation, a critically important function for many defendants who need education and substance-abuse rehab to function in society.

While shaming should not be dismissed out of hand as a potential substitute for incarceration, it is similarly no panacea and has significant limitations and problems that will have to be worked out before it can be accepted as a real substitute.  The problem is that it is unlikely to receive this vigorous scrutiny, as demonstrated by the knee-jerk SORA-type legislation, that makes great political headlines and works huge unintended harm.