Unusual punishments for crimes

[jsiv]

Not to pull an Oliver or anything, but from time to time I see variations on stories like this in the American media.

PAINESVILLE, Ohio -- Three men convicted of solicitation will not face a traditional punishment.

Instead, Judge Mike Cicconetti will sentence the men to each wear a chicken suit and carry a sign for three hours at the PMC parking lot on Richmond Street.

At first it may seem funny, but how do people here really feel about these kinds of punishments? I know the laws over here in Norway explicitly prohibit degrading punishments, and I believe the Declaration of Human Rights does the same.

Personally I would certainly consider this degrading, but I'm unsure what the courts think, especially in the United States. Has something like this ever made it to court?

The article is a little short on details, but even if this was part of some sort of plea bargain and the guy also had option of going to jail instead, I still don't see how this could (or should) be acceptable or even legal.

Sorry if this has been discussed before.

 

[Tony]

I guess it depends on how this compares to the traditional punishment for solicitation. Personally, I'd rather wear a chicken suit for 3 hours than be forced to pay a fine or spend time in jail. Atleast I can have fun dressed as a chicken.

 

[MWare]

Judges in Painesville are elected. While this judge probably feels that making the punishment match the crime in this manner is in some way effective, at the end of the day these are just cheap stunts (which have gotten him reelected until 2011)

Some quotes of his from wikipedia:
“When you engage people and praise them for their good behaviour, not unlike children, it helps their self-esteem. My judicial philosophy is really not that much different from a parental philosophy.”

“I have five children. You can paddle them or spank them but what do you gain? Most people want to be good but for little obstacles or habits. We have to change the habits and remove the obstacles. That’s our job.”

The American justice system in large part revolves around discretion. The police, the prosecutors, and the judges have discretion in determining how far a particular case progresses in the process and then what punishment is to be meted out if the defendant is found guilty. While you've cited an example of judicial discretion at one extreme at the spectrum there is another extreme at the other end where judges are bound to sentencing mandates. For example, the "three strikes rule" often will send non-violent offenders away for extreme periods of time because there are mandatory penalties to the third offense. It doesn't matter how minor that offense really is.

So in terms of the question: should it be legal for a judge to sentence a man to wear a chicken costume, well, I don't think it is a valid punishment when compared to more standard punishments, but there can certainly be times when a judge's discretion regarding sentencing (being aware of all of the facts and laws concerning a particular case) should be given weight.

Since you are not American, let me assure you, the vast majority of convicted felons face standard punishments.

ETA: Despite the common misusage of the term, I would classify this as an "activist judge".

 

[jsiv]

I guess it depends on how this compares to the traditional punishment for solicitation. Personally, I'd rather wear a chicken suit for 3 hours than be forced to pay a fine or spend time in jail. Atleast I can have fun dressed as a chicken.

Maybe, but if the normal punishment is a month in jail and you are given the option of either doing this or serving a few weeks in jail, they are essentially forcing you to pick the former.

Courts do (or should) not have the right to force people to humiliate themselves in public. People do have a right to dignity. Even criminals.

 

[marksman]

Public shame is often more effective at rehabilitation than incarceration or fines. Fines are anonymous. You can almost feel like you just got a bill for a crime. Incarceration for minor crimes seems like overkill.

They have mixed records of success. They generally work best on minor crimes with people who have a reputation in the community they need to preserve. If these men are married and/or have jobs in the area, it could be a very effective punishment. If these guys have few ties to the community, it might not do much at all.

 

[jsiv]

So in terms of the question: should it be legal for a judge to sentence a man to wear a chicken costume, well, I don't think it is a valid punishment when compared to more standard punishments, but there can certainly be times when a judge's discretion regarding sentencing (being aware of all of the facts and laws concerning a particular case) should be given weight.

But I take it the judge only has so much discretion. I mean, he has to stay within the laws.

Article five of the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Couldn't this be argued to violate that? Are there not an American laws that draw similar lines of what is acceptable?

Since you are not American, let me assure you, the vast majority of convicted felons face standard punishments.

I understand that, but I'd argue that even one is too much.

 

[jsiv]

Public shame is often more effective at rehabilitation than incarceration or fines. Fines are anonymous. You can almost feel like you just got a bill for a crime. Incarceration for minor crimes seems like overkill.

I don't dispute that it could be effective.

They have mixed records of success. They generally work best on minor crimes with people who have a reputation in the community they need to preserve. If these men are married and/or have jobs in the area, it could be a very effective punishment. If these guys have few ties to the community, it might not do much at all.

But isn't this kind of public humiliation exactly what the UDHR is intented to prevent?

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe, but if the normal punishment is a month in jail and you are given the option of either doing this or serving a few weeks in jail, they are essentially forcing you to pick the former.

Well, no. No, they're not.

 

[MWare]

But I take it the judge only has so much discretion. I mean, he has to stay within the laws.

Article five of the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Couldn't this be argued to violate that? Are there not an American laws that draw similar lines of what is acceptable?

I think a case could certainly be made on that point. Of course, as has been stated above, I think this degrading punishment was preferable to the standard punishment (to the defendant at least) and therefore he would have no interest in arguing that point.

Also, this isn't a forced punishment. The defendent seems to have been given the option for standard punishment instead. For this reason, I don't think that the declaration here has been violated.

Finally, the above declaration you cite has no basis in US domestic law and would have little or no bearing here. The relevant statute would be the US Constitution's 8th amendment which says pretty much the same thing, but very recently the US Supreme Court has stated that international laws or standards should have no impact on domestic law (I don't necessarily agree with this).

I understand that, but I'd argue that even one is too much.

Good to hear. Some others on this forum have sometimes taken unusual news items like this and tried to argue that these types of things are standard. I certainly agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but by the fact that this judge has won reelection, it seems that the majority of his constituents do not agree.

I now digress and let someone who actually knows something about law speak

 

[casebro]

What public humiliation- the convicts will be wearing a disguise! That makes it pretty useless 'punishment'.

But I suppose it is legal, unless the convicts appeal. I can't see it being up held on appeal. But if the convicts like it instead of jail time...

 

[TonyL]

Article five of the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Personally, I don't see how this is degrading. To classify a punishment a "degrading" should require a bit more than simple embarrassment. Saying this is degrading is like saying that sending someone to prison (thereby confining the person to a small cell with only periodic exercise and dining breaks) for several years is cruel and inhuman.

 

[jsiv]

Well, no. No, they're not.

Effectively they are.

 

[Tony]

Courts do (or should) not have the right to force people to humiliate themselves in public. People do have a right to dignity. Even criminals.

Would you call having your freedom taken away, possibly paying a fine and being put in a cage more or less dignified than being forced wearing a chicken suit?

 

[jsiv]

I think a case could certainly be made on that point. Of course, as has been stated above, I think this degrading punishment was preferable to the standard punishment (to the defendant at least) and therefore he would have no interest in arguing that point.

Right, but the only reason he won't have any interesting in arguing it is because the alternative is far worse. That doesn't mean he finds the punishment acceptable. He could still find the dressing up extremely traumatic.

Also, this isn't a forced punishment. The defendent seems to have been given the option for standard punishment instead. For this reason, I don't think that the declaration here has been violated.

The consequences of picking the "standard" punishment would likely affect the person's life so much that he is effectively forced to pick the easier way out.

Personally I'd argue that even offering it as an option is taking things too far.

Finally, the above declaration you cite has no basis in US domestic law and would have little or no bearing here. The relevant statute would be the US Constitution's 8th amendment which says pretty much the same thing, but very recently the US Supreme Court has stated that international laws or standards should have no impact on domestic law (I don't necessarily agree with this).

I see. I figured it wouldn't. I see the eight amendment says "cruel and unusual punishments," and not degrading or humilating (although that may be how it's interpreted, I don't know.) The two aren't really the same.

Good to hear. Some others on this forum have sometimes taken unusual news items like this and tried to argue that these types of things are standard. I certainly agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but by the fact that this judge has won reelection, it seems that the majority of his constituents do not agree.

Nah, I don't think it's representative of how things are normally done. I also recognize that the US is a different society with different customs. Not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Personally, I don't see how this is degrading. To classify a punishment a "degrading" should require a bit more than simple embarrassment. Saying this is degrading is like saying that sending someone to prison (thereby confining the person to a small cell with only periodic exercise and dining breaks) for several years is cruel and inhuman.

It is a modern day laughing stock. We got rid of them because they were degrading. Imprisonment, while technically cruel, is not considered a violation of human rights.

 

[Tony]

Imprisonment, while technically cruel, is not considered a violation of human rights.

I consider imprisonment a violation of human rights. A chicken suit? Not so much.

 

[jsiv]

Would you call having your freedom taken away, possibly paying a fine and being put in a cage more or less dignified than being forced wearing a chicken suit?

Yes. More.


However, I'd still pick the chicken suit because it's an easier out, and because I personally feel that I could handle the humiliation both during and following it. But that may not be the same for everyone, nor do people necessarily know how it will affect them after the suit comes off.

 

[jsiv]

I consider imprisonment a violation of human rights. A chicken suit? Not so much.

Well, you certainly have a right to your personal opinion. The only thing that really matters though, is what the rest of the world and the laws say. Imprisonment following a fair trial is not considered a violation of a person's rights in any country or international convention I can think of.

Laughing stocks on the other hand, are a bit of a gray area.

 

[Tony]

Yes. More.

More? More?

Sorry dude, but you're wack. Bing put in a cage and having your freedom taken away is much worse than wearing a chicken suit. I'd almost call imprisonment the ultimate humiliation.

But that may not be the same for everyone, nor do people necessarily know how it will affect them after the suit comes off.

You can say the exact same thing with imprisonment. Which do you think would be more tramatic to the average person? Prison or chicken suit?

 

[Beerina]

You can say the exact same thing with imprisonment. Which do you think would be more tramatic to the average person? Prison or chicken suit?

Reminds me of Australia or New Zealand ruling that a dwarf couldn't be employed as a Dwarf Tossee for Dwarf Tossing contests at bars.

They were preserving "his dignity", which he had a right to.

It never occurs to them that by telling him he doesn't have their benighted permission, and that he's too stupid to realize what's best for him, endignity-wise, that he might lose far more dignity being treated as an owned child of the omnipresent state.

 

[BPSCG]

Maybe, but if the normal punishment is a month in jail and you are given the option of either doing this or serving a few weeks in jail, they are essentially forcing you to pick the former.

Do what, now?

How is being given a choice of penalties where none existed before "forcing" a choice?

People do have a right to dignity. Even criminals.

They do? So if you humiliate me on this thread by eviscerating my arguments through the overwhelming power of your logic, your encyclopedic command of the facts, and your Shakespearean prose, can I sue you for depriving me of my dignity? I have a right to my dignity. How dare you deprive me of it?

Insert smartmouth remark about how BPSCG has so little dignity to begin with, he would be lucky to be awarded 17 cents in damages, even were he to prevail...