The shaming of offenders has been in existence since the late 18th century. Offenders who had committed crimes against person or property were likely to be handed a sentence of shaming. In lieu of serving a sentence in a cell or incapacitated place, an offender could be sentenced to some degree of public punishment that would attempt to reform the offender and help him see the errors of his ways. Popular methods of late 18th century shaming included “the whipping post, the pillory, stocks, branding, banishment, the dunking stool (involved tying the offender to the chair or plank and submerging them briefly in water, as a reminder, to “keep your mouth shut”), and the use of the brank, a metal ma

Shaming punishments have been challenged in the appellate courts on three fronts: (1) that they violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, (2) that they violate the First Amendment by compelling defendants to convey a judicially scripted message 9in the form of forced apologies, warning signs, newspaper ads, and sandwich boards), and (3) that shaming punishments are not specifically authorized by state sentencing guidelines and therefore constitute an abuse of judicial discretion. The first two challenges might appear stronger since they have a basis in the Constitution, yet they have proven less successful in the appellate courts. (Litowitz, 2002, p.304)

Sociologist John Braithwaite has suggested one avenue in this direction by making an important distinction between “reintegrative shaming”: and “stigmatizing shaming.” Writing in The British Journal of Criminology, Braithwaite argues that the first type of shaming might work, whereas the second type will fail:

Judges who impose shaming penalties make the false assumption that criminals share the average person’s view of the legal system. Since the average person would feel shame at being publicly humiliated for breaking the law and would adjust their behavior accordingly, judges presume that criminals will react in the same way. Yet this is wrong – many criminals (especially in urban areas) believe that the legal system is illegitimately biased against them and that they were forced to break the law because of their circumstances. Such people are impervious to public humiliation because they see it as another piece of confirming evidence that the entire system is corrupt and cruel (Massaro, 1991, 89) If these people are to be reached, it cannot be done with new and bizarre punishments, but only by measure taken before the crime is committed, by instilling enough values in the criminal that he or she has a sense of shame in the first place

Some topics in this essay:
Ga App, Miller Tangney, Douglas Litowitz, , Springer Maury, Professor Kahn, Supreme Court, Law School, Eighth Amendment, Casare Beccaria, public shaming, shaming penalties, litowitz 2002, public humiliation, shaming sentences, sense shame, shame guilt, publicly apologize, drunk driver, shaming punishments, shame guilt embarrassment, litowitz 2002 pg, illinois supreme court, probation condition requiring, litowitz 2002 p304,