Have to agree, shame plus jail time. Though, in this case at least, if I had to pick one or the other, shaming them publicly would have been my choice.

*Sigh* Where are the stocks and pillories when we need them?

I agree with the punishment also. Shame may not be a big deterrent to people that would steal from a nine year old to begin with.

They may have gotten over on the judge on this one.

4 Hours and I'm on to my next crime.

4 Hours and I'm on to my next crime.

Too true, Davind M. What will the judge do the next time these two whack jobs are in front of him? Because there will be a next time, you know. People like that don't change how they operate when they just get a slap on the wrist.

Sorry about the extra letter, David. My fingers get ahead of my brain sometimes.

I doubt these 2 women are capable of shame, so they pretty much just got off scott-free. Asshats. I'm with Amy-shame AND jail, for every crime.

Ditto to mof4's comments. The double whammy of embarrassment plus having to pay a physical price would likely have more of an effect than the just the shame.

It's so nice when everyone is in agreement. Somebody needs to play devil's advocate, just for one, but it won't be me.

I agree with old RPM daddy. I've been in favor of bringing back the stocks since before Madoff. (I'm also in favor of bringing back dueling grounds for gangs and individuals to kill each other without the innocent bystander factor.)(But that's just me.)

"Shame AND jail - for every crime"

I agree 100%, and here's a perfect illustration of that principle in action:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1195008/Is-embarassing-mugshot-Drug-dealer-arrested-nipping-barbershop-mid-visit-deal.html

I wish they would have had to do their sign carrying in front of the Wal-Mart instead of the courthouse. Wal-Mart would be way more public and they probably would have encountered more people. Much more satisfaction...

Sorry about the extra letter, David. My fingers get ahead of my brain sometimes.

Posted by: Flynne at December 17, 2009 5:06 AM
------------------------------------
Flynne- No worries. I'm the king of mispellings, fumbly fingers, and poor punctuation.

Public shaming used to be the prefered method of punishment up to about 200 yrs ago. Not sure if it is very effective today, where fame and infamy are both considered good press.

In a small local comunity it may still be effective, since if tried and jailed for a short time, most won't know what you did or that you did anything. Rumors may abound, but mant don't believe half of it as anymore than gossip. But public shaming, is half about guilting you and half about telling the community to be aware that you can't be trusted.

In some ways it is better than having to feed clothe the criminal while they lay about in jail.

That being said 4 hours seems too short a time. Add in some work or jail to it too.

"I like it until the "no time behind bars" part."

No, I like that too. Why should we cut off our noses to spite our faces, why should we pay and pay and pay to jail people? But Joe is right; four hours is too short a time. They should ahve had to put a sign on their cars for six months too. Cornerdemon is on to something too.

I find that I have to disagree about shaming and jailing. Obviously these people are already spending some time in jail awaiting their trials, especially those too poor to afford bail, and the point of shame punishments to begin with is to save the State the cost of incarceration (in ancient times families of those jailed bore the cost of feeding, other than a survival ration). So shame punishments should be reserved to new criminals, not those already habituated to a criminal life.

I'd actually take it further and re-introduce corporal punishment: public whipping. Thus you have a tiered punishment system, with jail/imprisonment reserved for habitual offenders and more serious crimes.

See, this is where its good to be a capitalist.

I see a sign like that, I'm going right to the grocery store, buying tomatos and eggs, and I'm selling them for 50 cents a throw right at their lying, thieving, scum bag faces.

I agree that the women deserved jail too, or work time, or a shaming of longer duration. But I think the shaming alone could still be an effective deterrent to future theft in this case. I could be wrong, but it seems that the women had no prior record, and their form of theft--snatching the cards after the 9 year old left them unattended on a shelf--seems more along the lines of keeping money from a found wallet, or the $20 that someone dropped in front of you, than, say, pickpocketing. I am not excusing any of these acts; they're all theft, and just as wrong as any other form. But I would say that such acts are justified in the thieves' short-on-ethics minds by the convenience of doing the wrong thing, with apparently no shameful consequences. Put some public shame in the equation for a thief of convenience and their incentive to steal is pretty much gone--unlike, a pickpocket, who goes to a lot more trouble to steal and is, for lack of a better phrase, more active in their shamelessness.

Another thing that comes to mind--do we know if they knew the cards belonged to a 9 year old? Did they actually see the person who put them down? Again, not excusing. It is equally wrong to steal from an unattractive 40-something, a cute 9 year old on her birthday, or someone you can't see at all. But, as shown by this experiment, people confronted with photo of babies, puppies, and families were more likely to do the right thing, as opposed to photos of elderly people, or no photos. The wording of the punishment signs capitalizes on the apparently increased shame in wronging a child--just think, the ladies wouldn't seem quite as despicable if their signs said "I stole from a 35-year-old man" or just, "I stole."

Even if they DID see the kid before swiping her cards, we can hope that being forced to publicly declare their act, universally seen as quite low, will prove a strong deterrent to stealing in the future.

They might have been caught on video.
They might have stolen gift cards that had the giftee's name on them.

There are a number of ways the theives might have been caught, I couldn't guess just how without seeing the court transcripts. But if they were found guilty, the evidence must have been compelling.

People might lose it over certain more emotional crimes like child molestation...but in the case of theivery...well people are more rational.

One, they should have be trialed first.

Two, Bill Higgins, the attorney, "was dogged by allegations of adultery and having sex in the very courthouse where he paraded Border and her daughter. Though he faced a criminal complaint and admitted to adultery, no one is calling for Higgins to wear a placard as an adulterer."
(http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/17/shaming-undermines-justice/)