Public Shaming
Public shaming and dishonoring a person is a practice which has been used for a very long time by humans. Public lynching, for example, was a way of both shaming someone and sending a message to others that certain behavior would not be tolerated by those who held the political and legal power. Although it is no longer legal to lynch someone and even the death penalty has been outlawed in many places, public shaming continues to be an accepted part of the so-called judicial system.
Publicly listing of names of both suspects and those convicted of a crime is common in the United States and many other countries. For many years’ newspapers and radio were the primary means of dissimilating this information to the general public. More recently many have access to social media, cell phones and other means of “getting the word out”.
There has, from time to time, been suggestions or recommendations that names of suspects not be published until and unless someone is convicted of a crime. I can find very little evidence of individuals or groups suggesting that names of those convicted of a crime not be made public.
I do suspect that there is a great deal of public benefit to having legal proceeding in the courtroom open to the public. It would seem a good argument can be made to keep court proceedings open to the public to prevent using the legal system to silence political opponents or others. Obviously, it would be difficult to keep the names of all those involved in public court proceeding private.
Yesterday, I argued in my blog against the Roman Catholic Church publishing the names of those priests and other staff credibly accused of sexual abuse of children for the past 50 years. I was not surprised that some individual strongly disagreed with me. Some even feared I was being supportive of those who sexually abuse children and, thus, indirectly supportive of sexual abusers.
I was a bit surprised that some of those arguing in favor of the public release of the names are familiar with and appreciative of the steps of AA, NA and the related 12-step programs. Those programs all use the same basic 12 steps which stress being honest with self and sharing with at least one other the exact nature of how one’s past behavior has affected oneself and others. It also stresses, when it would not cause further harm, making direct amends to the individuals previously harmed. Additionally, there is a clear commitment to do what one needs to do to refrain from abusing self and others in the future. There is no recommendation that one publicly admit “the exact nature of one’s wrong”. Neither is there reporting of past deeds to law enforcement. Obviously, if a child or another adult is currently in danger there needs to be action taken to protect the child. Even then there is no intention of shaming the person who poses potential danger.
The goal of 12 step model, as I understand it, is always healing for both the addict who may have been the perpetrator and the victim of any abuse. The assumption is that addiction and other possible co-occurring illnesses affect how the brain function and thus the behavior of the individual. No one is judged based on the worst thing they ever did. Most can heal if they accept the help they need both within the context of the 12-step program and professional help for other illnesses/brain dysfunctions. For those whose brain cannot heal and function there needs to be other kind, secure options.
I understand why there is some mistrust of many religious institutions including the Roman Catholic Church. Not every official or diocesan official has held every abuser accountable or gotten them the help they needed. The church, as an institution. has not faced the systemic nature of the problem of abuse. Religious groups must commit to being accountable. There may need to be lay groups or even outside groups overseeing their process. At the same time, I see nothing to be gained by publicly shaming individuals by making their names public. Personally, I feel the same way about the sexual offender list. It does not make the community safer. In fact, if anything, the public is less safe. No one heals as a result of being treated as less then. Some may heal in spite of being treated as less then but, in general, the worse we treat people the more likely one will seek some relief in behavior which gives temporary relief.
I would argue that release of names in the name of total transparency results in shaming and not in identifying and healing of underlying issues. There are never any winners in treating anyone as less then.
Written October 27, 2018
Public shaming and dishonoring a person is a practice which has been used for a very long time by humans. Public lynching, for example, was a way of both shaming someone and sending a message to others that certain behavior would not be tolerated by those who held the political and legal power. Although it is no longer legal to lynch someone and even the death penalty has been outlawed in many places, public shaming continues to be an accepted part of the so-called judicial system.
Publicly listing of names of both suspects and those convicted of a crime is common in the United States and many other countries. For many years’ newspapers and radio were the primary means of dissimilating this information to the general public. More recently many have access to social media, cell phones and other means of “getting the word out”.
There has, from time to time, been suggestions or recommendations that names of suspects not be published until and unless someone is convicted of a crime. I can find very little evidence of individuals or groups suggesting that names of those convicted of a crime not be made public.
I do suspect that there is a great deal of public benefit to having legal proceeding in the courtroom open to the public. It would seem a good argument can be made to keep court proceedings open to the public to prevent using the legal system to silence political opponents or others. Obviously, it would be difficult to keep the names of all those involved in public court proceeding private.
Yesterday, I argued in my blog against the Roman Catholic Church publishing the names of those priests and other staff credibly accused of sexual abuse of children for the past 50 years. I was not surprised that some individual strongly disagreed with me. Some even feared I was being supportive of those who sexually abuse children and, thus, indirectly supportive of sexual abusers.
I was a bit surprised that some of those arguing in favor of the public release of the names are familiar with and appreciative of the steps of AA, NA and the related 12-step programs. Those programs all use the same basic 12 steps which stress being honest with self and sharing with at least one other the exact nature of how one’s past behavior has affected oneself and others. It also stresses, when it would not cause further harm, making direct amends to the individuals previously harmed. Additionally, there is a clear commitment to do what one needs to do to refrain from abusing self and others in the future. There is no recommendation that one publicly admit “the exact nature of one’s wrong”. Neither is there reporting of past deeds to law enforcement. Obviously, if a child or another adult is currently in danger there needs to be action taken to protect the child. Even then there is no intention of shaming the person who poses potential danger.
The goal of 12 step model, as I understand it, is always healing for both the addict who may have been the perpetrator and the victim of any abuse. The assumption is that addiction and other possible co-occurring illnesses affect how the brain function and thus the behavior of the individual. No one is judged based on the worst thing they ever did. Most can heal if they accept the help they need both within the context of the 12-step program and professional help for other illnesses/brain dysfunctions. For those whose brain cannot heal and function there needs to be other kind, secure options.
I understand why there is some mistrust of many religious institutions including the Roman Catholic Church. Not every official or diocesan official has held every abuser accountable or gotten them the help they needed. The church, as an institution. has not faced the systemic nature of the problem of abuse. Religious groups must commit to being accountable. There may need to be lay groups or even outside groups overseeing their process. At the same time, I see nothing to be gained by publicly shaming individuals by making their names public. Personally, I feel the same way about the sexual offender list. It does not make the community safer. In fact, if anything, the public is less safe. No one heals as a result of being treated as less then. Some may heal in spite of being treated as less then but, in general, the worse we treat people the more likely one will seek some relief in behavior which gives temporary relief.
I would argue that release of names in the name of total transparency results in shaming and not in identifying and healing of underlying issues. There are never any winners in treating anyone as less then.
Written October 27, 2018
RSS Feed