Shamed into change

September 8, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
One judge in Ohio thinks shame is the way to curb crime, so he’s ordering some criminals to wear bright T-shirts stating their crime.

The T-shirts, obnoxiously neon yellowish-green, say things like, “I’m a thief” in big, block letters. The “criminali-tees” must be worn while performing court-ordered community service work.

The judge decided to impose the fashion statement in hopes that shame will deter shoplifters from repeating their crimes. Western District Court Judge Jeff Robinson noticed an uptick in shoplifting cases in the community and thought if those convicted suffered a little bit of humility for their crimes, they wouldn’t steal again.

Another example: “I starved my horses to death.”

Those convicted have to make sure the shirt is visible and must return it in good condition. They aren’t allowed to lend it to someone else to wear as a prank or to a party, according to a release form.

Humiliating? Sure, but these people did commit crimes and proceedings in these kinds of criminal matters are public record. It’s like a modern day “Scarlet Letter;” instead of an “A” for adultery, people will instantaneously known you stole something, hit someone, drove drunk, or other offenses. You bet people will judge those wearing the T-shirts differently than if they were just wearing a bright orange jumpsuit or even regular clothes. It’d be even more shameful to have to wear those shirts for an extended period of time out to work or to the store.

Is shame enough to deter crime? Maybe for some, but those likely to steal again or drive drunk again will do so, regardless of whether they are wearing a loud T-shirt announcing their crime.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT