achieved at once. But an offender must feel some effect from the shaming process in order for it to be functional. According to Douglas Litowitz and his article “Shaming Offenders”, any for of public humiliation serves all four goals of corrections consecutively. The rehabilitation process is met by the admission of the offender’s guilt. Restitution is achieved by having the offender publicly apologize for the wrong doings that have been committed against the general public. The goal of deterrence is met by the humiliation of the shameful act that must be performed by the offender. Protection of the public is made visible to all in society by the shameful act being visible to all those around. If the shaming of an offender carries out one of the four purposes listed above, then it has done its job. Or has it? There are many people out there that feel that shaming does not help reduce crime and the recidivism rates of criminals. In the Litowitz reading, it says that the shaming of an offender will only work if the offender knows what shame is. It is a case of a person possessing the concept and emotion of shame. Those who have it or know what it brings can be deterred from the shaming experience. But for those who are foreign to shame, the process of shaming is of little to no use. Offenders who do not know what shame is are more likely to exhibit ulterior emotions such as frustration and anger when undergoing the shaming process. Their conscience cannot process the ideas of embarrassment and guilt. Therefore the process of shaming that particular non-emotional offender would not be of use. Plus, it is almost impossible to tell which offenders possess a conscience and emotions and which do not. How does a judge know which offender to impose shaming on and which not to? What is good for one client is not always good for the other. As stated above, the same shaming process that was used in the late 18th century is stil...
