4 ms·
I've often wondered whether penalties should target reputation more than they do, which would affect all classes of criminal including upper class. For example,
by jkaplowitz 6y ago
I've often wondered whether penalties should target reputation more than they do, which would affect all classes of criminal including upper class. For example, as part of the sentence for violent crimes, the government could mail official press releases about the crime to all households in the area periodically for a certain amount of time after the conviction, or put up signs, at the criminal's expense (with a government cost-sharing for poorer criminals beyond whatever cost society would view appropriate to fine them - but mail and signage aren't that expensive). And companies convicted of a crime might have to fund government notifications of their crime to their customers and store/office visitors.
Details might need tweaking, but a version of this could really work.
- surfsvammel 6y agoI see what you are getting at. Do you think it could go a bit overboard though? That it makes people kind of take the law into their own hands?
- jkaplowitz 6y agoThere's a risk of that, yes. As I said, the details need tweaking. It would be especially helpful for wealthy, powerful, and/or corporate criminals who are probably paying for good private security regardless of their criminal record/sentence or lack thereof.
- luckylion 6y agoI do believe that the shame-feeling part of society is generally less likely to commit crimes. That is, it would work on them, but it wouldn't work on someone who does not care what their neighbors think of them.
- jkaplowitz 6y agoA lot of companies and businesspeople care what their customers and the general public think, at least.
- LeanderK 6y agoor teenagers/young adults in a rebellious state of mind. If you like to provoke and your circle of friends feels the same then you're not shamed.