Ohio Judge: Solicit Prosititutes, Wear a Chicken Suit

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

BBC NEWS VIDEO

AP NEWS VIDEO (scroll down, third or fourth choice)

Ohio: Three men convicted of soliciting sex from prostitutes were ordered to wear a chicken suit and hold a sign that says "No Chicken Ranch in Our Town". The men's names have been published in a Cleveland news paper. The judge is known for unusual punishments, such as ordering a man to carry a pig around and a sign that said "This is no a policeman" and ordering a woman to spend the night in the woods alone without food or water who abandoned a litter of kittens.

 

[Steve_Arm]

Yeah I saw it on TV. Very humiliating.

 

[Huy Vu]

I wonder if eventually some of these defendant will sue because it's "cruel and unusual" punishment.

 

[ugafan]

hilarious punishment. if i were a judge, i would make people wear more animal costumes also.

 

[Steve_Arm]

I wonder if eventually some of these defendant will sue because it's "cruel and unusual" punishment.

You rather get some prison time and pay for a bail? Or clean the trash of the town like that singer did. Give me the cow custome.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I'm not sure if I have a problem with it or not.

If the names were not published then I think I would probably have no problem with it. I think the worst someone could say is "slightly amusing and unusual punishment" in that scenario. Given the choice between night in jail and (anonymously) wearing a chicken suit for three hours in front of a court house - that's an easy choice - chicken suit all the way.

Given the choice between wearing a chicken suit (for a crime like this) and having my identity published in the paper, or quietly doing jail time, I would take my risks in a cell.

It's the fact that their names are known which complicates things. Like I said I am not sure what to think about this but it seems like it could set a bad precedent ... I mean what's next? Stockades, scarlet letters?

I do whole heartedly agree, however, with making the woman who abandoned her kittens spend the night in the woods with no food or water.

 

[Steve_Arm]

If they names weren't known it wouldn't not be humiliating. But this kind of psychological punishments makes you rethink your actions.

 

[ugafan]

it's a matter of public record. newspapers are free to publish their names.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

If they names weren't known it wouldn't not be humiliating. But this kind of psychological punishments makes you rethink your actions.

Yeah, obviously, if there names weren't known it wouldn't be as humiliating.

But the fact that the explicit goal of the punishment is to humiliate and not to rehabilitate, or deprive of time, money, or freedom - the usually accepted ends of punishment in the modern judicial system, that makes it at least questionable and open for attack, whereas it would be more defensible if their identities were not published.

Again, I am not arguing either way. Just stating why I think it is controversial. I would imagine since this has gotten international attention that the judge will come under attack at some point. Again, not saying he should or shouldn't, just that it seems likely to happen.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

it's a matter of public record. newspapers are free to publish their names.

I never said that Newspapers should not be allowed to publish their names.

But it is the fact that, that will inevitably be part of the bargain which makes it a questionable approach to begin with. And again not one that I necessarily disagree with, it's just a new, somewhat gray, albeit interesting, area.

 

[ugafan]

I never said that Newspapers should not be allowed to publish their names.

But it is the fact that, that will inevitably be part of the bargain which makes it a questionable approach to begin with. And again not one that I necessarily disagree with, it's just a new, somewhat gray, albeit interesting, area.

the judge has no control over whether or not newspapers choose to print their names. granted, putting a guy in a chicken suit is more interesting than sending someone to jail, but ultimately it is the decision of the media as far as what they want to cover.

 

[Steve_Arm]

I know that you are not arguing and as I said the judge's approach is that an action on a psychological level is more effective. On the other hand it is a crazy world we live in. Consider also that we are talking about people who are fdoing illegal actions.

 

[Huy Vu]

Consider also that we are talking about people who are fdoing illegal actions.

No one is disputing that, but criminals have rights too. I think it's wrong to design punishments to humiliate instead of instruct. Eventually a line is going to be crossed. And note that psychology is not an exact science and the judge isn't exactly a trained professional.

What if something had happened to the woman while she was left alone with no food or water? Would the judge be liable for legal action? It's easy to be on the outside looking in and dismiss these punishments as amusing, but it's a slippery slope.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

the judge has no control over whether or not newspapers choose to print their names. granted, putting a guy in a chicken suit is more interesting than sending someone to jail, but ultimately it is the decision of the media as far as what they want to cover.

Right ... and ... ?

Maybe you are just clarifying things in general as to how it works?

But I have never meant to imply that the press did not have a right nor even that they shouldn't publish it. It is a matter of public record and it is news.

The judge has no control over the laws of physics either but if he sentences a guy to stand in front of a wall where a firing squad is going to fire their guns, the inevitable result will be death.

Sentencing a guy in to walk around under these circumstances, the Judge could reasonably assume that the press would pick it up and run with it and at least local humiliation would ensue. The fact that the press have a right to do it doesn't mean the judge has no responsibility since he knows they have the right to do it and will gladly do it because he has hand delivered an out of the ordinary story.

Again ... not saying he was wrong or right. But clearly he has a responsibility.

I only ever said the fact that the publicity would inevitably be a part of it may make it a flawed approach ... an approach meaning from the judges standpoint, or at least it makes it questionable. If three guys get pinched soliciting prostitutes and do some time or pay fines, there will be no news story unless the guys are famous. Should ridicule be a consideration when sentencing Hugh Grant? No. He is a public persona AND the judge is proscribing an accepted and well precedented means of punishment with fines or incarceration.

I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but the public humiliation makes it at least different from what we normally accept as OK - that's all I'm saying ... if that were not a part of it then I said it would be more defensible ... meaning it would be harder for someone (as in someone besides me) to form an argument that it was inappropriate ... that's all.

• Resolved: The press have a right to publish the names.
• Resolved: It would be less humiliating if the names weren't published and would thereby defeat the purpose of the punishment. So maybe there would be no point in doing it then.

• Unresolved: Does a judge have the right to make up punishments with no precedent (I'm guessing the guys had an option of choosing this with probation vs. jail or fines)
• Unresolved: Is humiliation cruel and unusual
• Unresolved: If humiliation is inappropriate, should the judge be responsible for engineering a punishment where that will be the primary goal and result (due to the press correctly and rightly carrying out their normal constitutional assured duties).

It was not reported in anything I saw as to whether the guys had a choice of doing this or picking jail or a fine, but like I said I imagine that was the case. If the sentenced party chooses it over more conventional punishments then maybe that puts all arguments of inappropriateness to rest ... dunno.

 

[ugafan]

No one is disputing that, but criminals have rights too. I think it's wrong to design punishments to humiliate instead of instruct. Eventually a line is going to be crossed. And note that psychology is not an exact science and the judge isn't exactly a trained professional.

What if something had happened to the woman while she was left alone with no food or water? Would the judge be liable for legal action? It's easy to be on the outside looking in and dismiss these punishments as amusing, but it's a slippery slope.

your posts raises several questions.
1. what is the role of the state in regards to criminal behavior? is it to punish? to protect? to rehabilitate or instruct?
2. what i the relationship between committing a crime and being locked in prison? should length of stay be the only variable? or should we explore other avenues that have a more causal connection to the crime?
3. where are the boundaries? is it acceptable for state to put someone to death?

*opens bag of worms*

 

[JasonFox]

I'd like to see the ACLU lawyer arguing that their chicken-suited client should've been allowed to go to a regular prison where other, regular prisoners would perform regular bitchifications on their client. My name's John Johnson, but everyone here calls me Vicky.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I know that you are not arguing and as I said the judge's approach is that an action on a psychological level is more effective. On the other hand it is a crazy world we live in. Consider also that we are talking about people who are fdoing illegal actions.

Right, but by that logic cutting off people's hands for shoplifting, as it is done in some countries, would be ok because we are talking about criminals.

I don't think people are forgetting that we are talking about people who have broken a law. Even if it is for something that is legal in some states and many countries.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I'd like to see the ACLU lawyer arguing that their chicken-suited client should've been allowed to go to a regular prison where other, regular prisoners would perform regular bitchifications on their client. My name's John Johnson, but everyone here calls me Vicky.

:laugh:
haha, :grin:
this is a much heavier conversation than I expected, especially since I find this more amusing than anything else.

My fault though, since I am obsessed with rhetoric.

 

[ugafan]

• Unresolved: Does a judge have the right to make up punishments with no precedent (I'm guessing the guys had an option of choosing this with probation vs. jail or fines)
• Unresolved: Is humiliation cruel and unusual
• Unresolved: If humiliation is inappropriate, should the judge be responsible for engineering a punishment where that will be the primary goal and result (due to the press correctly and rightly carrying out their normal constitutional assured duties).

1. yes.

2. depends on the level of humiliation. in this case i think the punishment is acceptable.

3. humiliation should not be the ultimate goal. but i believe it can be an appropiate means to an end.

on a side note, and unrelated to your initial post...i don't think the judge is making these sentences just because he has a sense of humor. i believe he is making a statement about our common methods of punishment and the need to reform our penal system.

 

[Steve_Arm]

I'm not aware of the incident with that woman. Besides this guy and the prostitutes do you believe that an actual criminal could be instructed?

As you correctly point the outside looking in cliche, I will expand on that and say that if a criminal had done something to a relative or friend of mine, no I wouldn't give him any rights.

No one is disputing that, but criminals have rights too. I think it's wrong to design punishments to humiliate instead of instruct. Eventually a line is going to be crossed. And note that psychology is not an exact science and the judge isn't exactly a trained professional.

What if something had happened to the woman while she was left alone with no food or water? Would the judge be liable for legal action? It's easy to be on the outside looking in and dismiss these punishments as amusing, but it's a slippery slope.