1. Is this punishment effective? Why or why not?
2. Do you think this punishment was more effective in the time period of The Scarlet Letter or now? Why?
3. Do you think that a parent is justified in using public humiliation as punishment?
If you were in a situation where you were punished by public humiliation, how much would it affect you? Would it affect you to a point that you'd never commit the "crime" you did in the first place again? When do you think a person has reached their limit, if they have any, to use this punishment?
LINK:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/april-mathison-teen-punished-sign-for-smoking-pot_n_1833253.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. No, this form of punishment is not effective because it only puts parents into the limelight and gives kids a new way to avoid punishment from things frowned upon by parents.
ReplyDelete2. I think this form of punishment is more effective throughout the times of The Scarlet Letter because the whole town believed in the public humiliation rather than just two adults towards their own child.
3. Yes, I believe that parents are justified in public humiliating their kids. This doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. However, if this form of punishment works for the eyes of the parents, then they certainly have all the right to proceed.
If I were in the position of being publically punished, I wouldn’t really know what to do. I definitely would be angry with the people punishing me but I would also be very confused as to why the punishment had come down to being public. It does, of course, matter as to which the crime was, however. On the other hand, the French used to guillotine as public punishment. This ended in death in and a very public and grimy setting which we look upon as repulsive and disgusting. As for committing the crime a second time, I don’t believe I would. I would most likely learn my lesson after the punishment and not proceed to do it a second time. I would have reached my limit as soon as I was being punished to a higher extent than necessary and I believe many people would too. I would begin to question what I had done to deserve such a straight forward public announcement. Therefore, I do not believe people have a limit towards punishment rather it’s in the depths of a modern day house, the guillotine in the French courtyard or the setting of The Scarlet Letter.
1. I believe that public humiliation is not a highly effective form of punishment in today’s society. In order to truly repent for your crimes you must find redemption within yourself, not endure embarrassment publicly. This form of punishment often will cause the person being punished to feel anger rather than shame and not feel any actual remorse for their actions. Thus, there will be no change in their behavior and this form of punishment is ultimately ineffective.
ReplyDelete2. In the Scarlet Letter, this form of public shame is much more effective because it causes Hester to feel remorse for her sin. Because she is forced to wear the scarlet letter “A” all her life, Hester is judged by the whole town and constantly reminded of her sin. The continuous reinforcement of her guilt and shame not only prevent her from committing another crime, but serves as a warning to all of the consequences of adultery.
3. I do not believe that parents are justified in taking this action. First of all, it’s ineffective. Most kids don’t respond well to public humiliation as a form of punishment and it will foster resentment between parent and child rather than bring about change. If I was publicly humiliated as a form of punishment I would certainly be angry and would most likely not feel actual remorse for my crime. The problem with public humiliation is that it makes kids focus on the consequence rather than the course of action taken to arrive at that consequence. Kids wouldn’t learn not to repeat their same crimes, just to avoid getting caught. True redemption must come from within and must incorporate full acknowledgment of one's sin. Hence, parents who implement public humiliation as a form of discipline are utterly mistaken in their course of action.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1: This form of punishment may be effective the first time it is administered. The crime the child may have committed, of course, has a direct relationship with the humiliation experienced by the punishment. If this punishment is administered multiple times, however, the effect on the child may become less and less every time, as the child becomes desensitized more or less.
ReplyDelete2: The punishment of public humiliation, in my belief, was more potent during the era The Scarlet Letter took place; the ideology of Boston at that time was much more homogeneous and religious (following Puritanism), rendering crimes more striking to the populace, and more humiliating for the committer of said crimes.
3: The parent has the power to use public humiliation as a punishment, but may find that it may not always be the right path to take. The parent must think through the lasting effects of the reputations of the child, the parent him/herself, and the family wholesale. The parent must also think through the overall effectiveness of public humiliation, as the effect on the child may be much different than the onlookers with regards to deterring the crimes the parents wish not to occur again. The parent may or may not be justified in such action with regards to varying circumstances.
1. Public humiliation may be affective for detering people from commiting a crime. This is because they do not want to end up as the one who is being humiliated. However, the person being punish will not alter their morals and would continue to commit the crime. They have already been humiliated and being humiliated a second time would not affect them enough to be an effective punishment.
ReplyDelete2. Public humiliation was more effective in the time period of the novel, because a person's reputation could affect or possibly end their life. In a puritan society, unlike ours, perfection was a goal that was expected of members. Today, people would not necassarily be seen negatively for commiting a crime. A person today could possibly take pride in it.
3. A parent is not justified in using public humilation because the means do not justify the means. If a kid is put on a street corner with a sign, his/her reputation in school, his/her social standing, and possibly his/her life are threatened and there is a small possibility that he/she will learn not to do the bad deed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNew Question:
DeleteThis type of punishment would only work once at best. If I was punished like this, I would purposely do the crime again and refuse to wear the sign. I would either rewrite the sign or throw it on the ground. For example, Hester did not have to repeativly wear her A for everyone to know what she did and over time her society judges her less and less based on her A.
1. I believe that this punishment can be effective on some ways, but most of the time not. In the stories in the article, most of the "crimes" the children committed were small, minor, age appropriate things. I don't feel this punishment would be effective because it just make the parents look foolish for do it to their child, and makes the child more willing to do it again, out of spite.
ReplyDelete2. I think that this punishment is much more effective in the era of the Scarlet Letter. In such a religious time period, anything wrong that is made public us taken as a big deal. Also, many people just conform to one idea, so if it is seen wrong in one instance, then everyone sees the crime as wrong. The puts more humiliation on the person the committed it.
3. A parent is not justified in using public humiliation as a punishment. By putting your child's wrong-doing out a public display, that will start with them into their future, and will effect the way people perceive them later on. It also just makes the parents look foolish.
- depending on what crime i committed it would effect me differently. If it was something small and meaningless to me, i would no be phased by the humiliation, and just make a mockery out of it. If i did something that i was not proud of, and my parents made me stand out with a sign on me, i probably would be embarrassed and never do it again. The limit of this punishment would be when it personally effects their reputation and how other people see them. For example, later in like it would catch up with them.
If I was in a situation where I was publicly humiliated I do not think that it would affect me very much. I think at first I would be embarrassed but once it was over I wouldn't be bothered anymore. Public humiliation would probably not be a good to make me not commit the "crime". I would just try to be more careful and tell my parents that other people thought that the idea of public humiliation was bad and they probably wouldn't do it anymore. I think public humiliation is a last resort. It's not really effective. I think that you should first try to take something away and if the child isn't listening then you could try it.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that, in some cases, public shame is an effective punishment, although I believe this example would not be very effective in deterring any future “temptations” these children might have. A poster attached to oneself is quite impersonal, I believe if the child told a few individuals whom they greatly respected the internal shame would act as enough of a deterrence.
Delete2. Although we can say that the puritans punished Hester in an extreme and permanent way we can also see that her label has set her free from the restrictions of the society, which is the opposite intention of the town, they want others to fear sin and rules, to follow, but instead of fearing condemnation Hester chose to embrace her individuality.
3. As a parent I do believe they were justified , this is not that sever of a punishment as corporal punishment. We have to remember that not too long ago children were beaten with a belt if they defied their elders, even in the simplest degree. The child’s parent pays for all of their possessions, taxes, education etc. the parent must have surely thought the child would benefit from this punishment and that it would save them from making dangerous mistakes in the future. So yes I do believe the parents had a right to do what they did and that It was in the best interest of the child to learn their wrongdoings
I think that during the Puritan era, people took judgements way more seriously than they do now, so being publicly humiliated now, doesn't really do anything because most of the time the child would just think of it as a joke and not take it seriously. Also, I don't think that a parent is justified by using public humiliation because it's a family matter, so to be completely honest, I, and most other people wouldn't care at all about a kid holding up a degrading sign in the middle of an intersection.
ReplyDelete1) I do not believe that Public Humiliation is an effective form of punishment. While it may scare the child for a short period of time, I believe that it will just make the child sneakier and better at not getting caught by his or her parents. I think that considering in most of the cases seen the children only committed minor wrong doings that this form of punishment makes the parents look foolish and creates a feeling of spite in the child. Shaming a child will only create anger, not remorse.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that Publicly shaming somebody was more effective in the Puritan Era then in today's society. The puritan society was much more based upon how you were viewed, making your public image a top priority. In today's world we are much more preoccupied with our daily lives in order to pay much attention to say a child on a road holding up a sign.
3) Parents are not justified in publicly humiliating their children. It not only makes that parent look foolish but it also is a bit pointless. A child's future could be affected by one picture that happens to land on the internet of a parent forcing them to stand on a highway with a sign. It makes no sense to jeapordize a future when in all reality the ends do not justify the means, because most children would not learn from this punishment at all. The only thing Public Humiliation does is create resentment in the child, therefor creating more problems for the parents.
4) I personally would be negatively effected by Public Shaming. Instead of it helping to teach me a lesson I would just become angry at my parents for making me do such a thing. The resentment, anger, and spite it would create would much outweigh the feeling of remorse one may get when humiliated. I think if I was faced with this problem I would most likely rebel, and make a joke out of it in order to show others how foolish my parents were being. In order to learn from a mistake I must feel remorse for what I have done, and this form of punishment does not install that.
1. I believe that this type of punishment has potential to be effective, but the majority of the time, it is ineffective and does more harm than it does good. Public humiliation may have been effective in the Puritan era, but now it does not work the same. I think that the child who is punished in this way will feel angrier that redeemed and will be sneakier instead of nixing the sin.
ReplyDelete2. In the time of The Scarlet Letter, I think this form of punishment was very effective because the Puritan society was mainly based on how you are viewed, which makes your reputation and public image a big deal.
3. I think that in some cases, a very small amount, public humiliation is effective but only if the child is set on having a good image and a good reputation. But going against it, public humiliation also makes the parent, or parents, look bad and, in addition, ruins their image and their reputation too.
4. I think that if someone publicly humiliated me, I would be very angry and seek revenge. I would not want to deal with that person anymore and would cause me to create a sin much worse than the previous sin.
1. No, it's not an effective form of punishment for children at all. Though it is very effective in "The Scarlet Letter" the situations are significantly different.
ReplyDelete2. It was definitely more effective back in the time period of the book. People back in that time lived in small communities where everyone knew each other, and cared much more what their peers thought of them. Today, no one cares whether or not some kid did something wrong like smoke weed or steal. They'd only pay attention if it were something more serious, and that would be something he'd be in prison for. Someone wearing a sign that says "I smoked weed" isn't going to feel ashamed, because neither society nor his peers think of it as such a horrible crime. Furthermore, nowadays communities are far larger, so people wouldn't care as much simply because they wouldn't know him.
3. Yes it is justified, but only because it's their right as a parent to raise their kids however they please as long as it's legal. Though it may not seem fair to the kid, or a good idea at all it's still justified.