Should the government embarrass criminals as a punishment?

[jthm_nny]

I personally think all jails should change the prisoner's clothes to be pink with little tiaras on them. The jails should even team up with Matell to get the Barbie logo also. No one would want to do any crimes if it meant picking trash up on the side of the road in cute little pink Barbie jumpsuits. I'm not even kidding or trolling about this. I think it's perfect. I mean there's already a jail with PLAIN pink jumpsuits.

[HystericalParoxysm]

No one would want to do any crimes if it meant picking trash up on the side of the road in cute little pink Barbie jumpsuits. I'm not even kidding or trolling about this.

http://i46.tinypic.com/sfaul5.jpg

[whiterider]

Oh, so in other words you want to use gay stereotypes to ridicule criminals, thereby labelling camp men as ridiculous; and into the bargain, reinforcing the idealisation of macho in order to give certain criminals impetus to engage in the manly arts of violence and disregard for others?

What a stonking idea. I'm sure that'll advance society greatly.

[crocobaura]

What's so embarassing about pink? :rolleyes:

[Rawra]

Would you stop making absolutely POINTLESS threads in which you present false things made up by you? You don't even respond to these threads, what's the point? :|

[Phoeberg]

Frankly I think if the threat of the death penalty/life sentences and having to spend the rest of your life in jail before dying there hasn't stopped people from committing crimes, then pink barbie jumpsuits isn't going to cut it. You know, kind of "I was going to murder you when all I'd have gotten was a possible life sentence in jail, but god, I don't think I could live with myself if I had to wear this hideous bright pink jumpsuit which totally clashes with my skintone! So I guess I'll just put this gun down and back away instead." :lol:

[BlakeS5678]

For the love of freaking god, just because you ask a question does NOT automatically presume it as a debate.

Would you stop making absolutely POINTLESS threads in which you present false things made up by you? You don't even respond to these threads, what's the point? :|

Let me spell out what she means, because you didn't seem to get it the first 15 times.

http://i1250.photobucket.com/albums/hh528/BlakeS5678/Stop.jpg

[pinketamine]

I don't see how pink suits are more embarrassing than the orange ones they wear on films.
That said, I don't see how public embarrassment would stop criminals committing crimes.

[fraroc]

Crime will always exist no matter what, unfortunatly. Embarrassing them might turn some criminals off of doing it, but it won't stop crime as a whole at all.

[BlakeS5678]

What's so embarassing about pink? :rolleyes:

I guess, according to the OP, dressing in pink and princess like, (A gay stereotype) seems to be the worst, most embarrassing thing there possibly is. The OP also suggests that they find it so horrible it should be a punishment to those who commit heinous crimes. I don't know if the OP wasn't thinking, the same way a 5 year old is rude without intentionally trying to be, or if the're really THAT inconsiderate. Not only is this thread pointless, it's rude.

@ the jthm_ny; By the way, what the hell does Barbie have to do with this? Barbie is a doll for children, not the symbolism for all things "gay" and embarrassing. And, what do you suppose to do with female criminals, or are you too stereotyped, to even consider that? I'm 95% sure that while you were thinking of this little "punishment" of yours, you envisioned a macho man with scars and tattoos. Because the're the only people that commit a crime, right? (Not right) I would also like to question why you think ALL prisons should do this, in case you weren't aware, people in prison, aren't allowed to leave until their times up. Shocking right? So what giving them jumpsuits accomplish if NO ONE in the outside world saw them? And, even if people did, how would this affect our children's minds? Showing them gay stereotypes as a bad thing, via seeing criminals being one. Don't we have a homophobia problem already? Or are you stereotyping that the gay community is already evil in itself? If you put an ounce of thought into what you're posting you'd find that it's flawed in almost every way imaginable.

[iCad]

Of course, you're assuming that criminals are males who would object to wearing a pink jumpsuit and a tiara. There might be some guys who are perfectly OK with that. There are also many female prisoners who probably wouldn't have a problem with pink jumpsuits.

Now, as to the more serious question at hand. Humiliation's already been tried as punishment. Doesn't anyone remember the concept of stocks, where prisoners were publically bound and passersby could throw stuff at them and hurl insults or what-have-you. Also, has no one ever read The Scarlet Letter? (It was required reading when I was in junior high. :lol: ) Even now, convicted sex offenders (in the US, at least) have to register and anyone who wants to can look at the register and see where they live and what they were convicted for and sometimes their picture. That can be pretty darn embarrassing. Still, sex offenses happen quite often. So, it seems to me that humiliation doesn't work well, not in the "good old days" and not now. Plus, prisoners still have rights to privacy and all that stuff -- unless you're a sex offender, apparently -- nowadays.

(Note: In case the above came off wrong: I don't think registering sex offenders is a bad thing, in general. However, I DO think the "sex offender" label is applied a bit too liberally. For instance, an 18-year-old who has sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend will get the label, if they are convicted of statutory rape. I think there's a big difference between a guy having entirely consensual sex with his girlfriend and a guy who lures 10-year-olds into his van and sexually assaults them. Yet, they're one and the same, according to the registry. I don't think that's right at all.)

[BlakeS5678]

(Note: In case the above came off wrong: I don't think registering sex offenders is a bad thing, in general. However, I DO think the "sex offender" label is applied a bit too liberally. For instance, an 18-year-old who has sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend will get the label, if they are convicted of statutory rape. I think there's a big difference between a guy having entirely consensual sex with his girlfriend and a guy who lures 10-year-olds into his van and sexually assaults them. Yet, they're one and the same, according to the registry. I don't think that's right at all.)

You can also be labelled as a sex offender for taking a piss at a park, even at night, while no children are present.

[iCad]

You can also be labelled as a sex offender for taking a piss at a park, even at night, while no children are present.

That, too. I guess the message is, "Keep it in your pants, guys." :)

[Phoeberg]

Of course, you're assuming that criminals are males who would object to wearing a pink jumpsuit and a tiara. There might be some guys who are perfectly OK with that. There are also many female prisoners who probably wouldn't have a problem with pink jumpsuits.
Certainly preferrable to orange anyway!

You know, a lot of criminals probably don't think of the consequence when they commit a crime anyway. I'm no expert, but I'm assuming that many murderers, particularly serial killers, probably have serious psychological problems. They're not committing crimes for a particular gain, they usually target total strangers. It's probably about whatever kind of thrill or gratification they get from the crime. I can't imagine that public humiliation would have deterred say Ted Bundy or Charles Manson. Some serial killers are so arrogant and deluded that they probably think they're invincible, on the same level as god in their heads, and that they'd never be caught or sent to jail, like the Zodiac killer. And then there are 'crimes of passion', when you probably give no consideration to anything past the moment of killing.

Sadly there's probably nothing in this world that would deter absolutely everybody from committing a crime.

[TheSimaniac]

Perhaps I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but there wasn't any mention of homosexuality or gay stereotypes in the OP (unless it's been edited and there's some way to hide that fact, I'm afraid I don't remember if that's possible on these forums). I don't think it's fair to accuse him of homophobia, he didn't make a connection between pink outfits with tiaras and gay people.

I don't suppose it matters too much, the idea's flawed for many other reasons. I highly doubt many would-be criminals are likely to be perfectly happy to risk going to jail until they discover they have to wear pink clothes there, and inviting provocation of criminals through mockery (which is the whole idea) can only lead to trouble.

[iCad]

Certainly preferrable to orange anyway!

I don't know...I'm one of those strange people who looks better in orange than she does in pink... :lol:

You know, a lot of criminals probably don't think of the consequence when they commit a crime anyway.

Yes, you're right. Violent crimes are often committed in a fit of passion, without forethought. People don't stop to think of the consequences when they're overwhelmed with emotion. And sociopaths do indeed believe that they are above the law, often to the point of taunting law enforcement, challenging the police to catch them. That sort of mindset has no thought about consequences. Other crimes are committed out of desperation -- like a person who steals money, perhaps, in order to feed or house themselves. If you're at that point, you're thinking more about immediate survival than about long-term consequences.

Sadly there's probably nothing in this world that would deter absolutely everybody from committing a crime.

True. Particularly because crimes are committed for so many different reasons.

[BlakeS5678]

True. Particularly because crimes are committed for so many different reasons.

Which is exactly why the "Jumpsuit Punishment" will accomplish almost nothing. It seem that this is supposed to be a threat, as in "Don't commit this crime or else you'll have to wear silly jumpsuits in prison. It's just more of a punishment, nuisance really, and finance to jails. If you make the pink jumpsuits a norm than it really isn't a threat at all, because jail in itself is supposed to be the threat in the first place. Might it keep people from becoming repeat defenders? Most likely not. Because the simple things in life, like buckling your seat belt and what not, don't get you in jail in the first place, and only small crimes like that would be avoided by something insignificant like pink jumpsuits. As far as I've seen, prisoners, (More of ones with families) are already ashamed as it is, and jumpsuits that are supposed to cause embarrassment feels like a sick, immature joke.

[kiwi_tea]

Oh. This argument. I've been here before, had a scrap with (then) major political advertising guru online as he advocated this poppycock. Here is a sample:

Advertising Man: "I wouldn’t mind betting that twice as many young vandals (and they’re the only ones who matter here – the taggers themselves) associate pink with girls than with gays.

But that’s not the point anyway. The point is that wearing pink does embarrasses them, not whether it should or shouldn’t embarrass them. And if macho young hoods don’t like wearing pink, make ‘em wear pink.

If the cop put them in a tutu, would [NZ Green Party MP] say he was anti-ballet?

If humiliation works – and I understand Napier have a similar punishment there where taggers wear fluorescent overalls – then it’s well worth doing.

If it doesn’t, bring back the stocks and let the public spray the taggers with the liquid of their choice."

Kiwi_tea: "So you’re just an unprincipled opportunist to whom the ends justifies the means?"

This wound on a long, long, long time. I don't really see there's much value in this debate. Here's why:

"What I think [politician] is missing here is that these pink vests are not so much anti-gay, as anti-effeminancy. Not all gay men are effeminate, and plenty of straight men are, so she’s confused on that count. The vests imply feminity and reinforce the notion that there is something weak and wrong about the feminine. I’m not at all interested in gender theory, but this seems quite a clear-cut case of reinforcing negative stereotypes." What HP said. What whiterider said. It covers the matter soundly enough and I haven't seen a solid argument to the contrary.

This debate flared up on NZ's political blogs after a businessman used a kitchen knife to kill a young man who *might* have been about to tag his fence. The cops advocated parading taggers around in pink hi-vis vests. As you can imagine, the media were quick to demonise the young man (who was Polynesian, allegedly quiet, and lived caring for his wheelchair-bound father, tagger or not) and many of them actually defended the murderer.

[BlakeS5678]

"What I think [politician] is missing here is that these pink vests are not so much anti-gay, as anti-effeminacy..

Either way it's anti-something. And, it's best to be anti-nothing (Unless it harms others.)

I really can't see any good that could come from this. And, it's really starting to feel like a one sided debate.

[paksetti]

@Blake

could you have possibly found a lower quality photo? enough with the memes already, jesus.

[piggypeach]

oh hell no. not another one. no.

[BlakeS5678]

@ Justin Bieber Worshippers (JBW); Oh, you two know I like to kid around. Yes, I've gone MORE than enough with the meme's, and no I will not post another one. Even if it would be evilly delicious. I'll be nice and spare your eyes. For now...

could you have possibly found a lower quality photo? enough with the memes already, jesus.

Yes, yes I could have.

[piggypeach]

haha, that's really funny because I was talking about another post by jthm_nny! Am I a little late?

But I have to admit that you have gone a little meme-cray-cray lately.

[ButchSims]

In Arizona, they already put criminals in pink jumpsuits, only serve Baloney sandwiches, and force them to work long hours, in public, wearing the those pink jumpers. You know what? They still have criminals in Arizona.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

criminals embarrass themselves, by being criminals.

i think blake got lost on his way to 4chan.
multiple times.

[please_dont_crash_my_game]

In Arizona, they already put criminals in pink jumpsuits, only serve Baloney sandwiches, and force them to work long hours, in public, wearing the those pink jumpers. You know what? They still have criminals in Arizona.
I'm from Maricopa County, AZ, and I wish Joe Arpaio would kindly hang up his hat and let someone else try being sheriff for a while. Whether or not Arpaio has driven down crime rates is impossible to tell, but he sure isn't helping our state's public image. Just saying.

In any case, I would never support humiliation as a way of preventing crime.

[kiwi_tea]

The craziest elements of NZ's media LOVE Joe Arpaio, and during the example I gave in my last post they cited him as a great example of what they wanted to see in our corrections system.

[please_dont_crash_my_game]

Great... Arpaio has a fan club from halfway across the world in addition to the one the Tea Party has for him here. :rolleyes:

Sheriff Arpaio's methods can get far more nasty than the pink jumpsuits. "Tent City" wouldn't be as grievous if it wasn't routinely 120 degrees Fahrenheit during the summer.

[kiwi_tea]

I have no difficult whatsoever believing the allegations of human rights abuses leveled against Arpaio and his colleagues, and I pretty firmly believe that's where the "embarrass prisoners" attitude leads - to casually dehumanising them. It's also without any obvious benefits.

[Shoosh Malooka]

No, the government em-bare-ass criminals as a punishment.

[KKiryu007Joker]

Make em pole dance! On tv!

[Volvenom]

It would be more embarrazing to pinky girls. I've always secretly hoped for a law saying all humans have to use those Gillette razors on their head, wouldn't be embarrazing at all to have a bad hair day.

Governments have tried most things through the ages, didn't seem to work a bit. Like the pillories from 1700 pictured in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6l6mwabhMU).