Public shame is a weirdly powerful tool. It’s primal. Honestly, when we think about the modern justice system, we usually picture sterile courtrooms, dry legal briefs, and the slow grind of bureaucracy. But there is a growing movement—often called the ridicule law and order approach—that suggests we might be missing a trick by ignoring the social power of embarrassment. It’s not about the stocks and pillory of the 1600s, but it’s definitely a cousin of that mindset.
Is it effective? Or is it just cruel?
The core idea here is that traditional punishments like fines or short jail stints sometimes lose their "teeth." If you’re a billionaire, a $5,000 fine is basically a rounding error. It’s just the cost of doing business. But if you have to stand on a street corner holding a sign that says "I stole from a local charity," that hits differently. That is the ridicule law and order philosophy in a nutshell: using social standing as a lever to enforce compliance and deter others.
Where Ridicule Law and Order Actually Works
You’ve probably seen the viral clips. A judge in Ohio, Michael Cicconetti, became famous for this. He didn't just throw the book at people; he got creative. He once ordered a woman who skipped out on a cab fare to walk 30 miles—the distance of the cab ride—instead of going to jail. In another instance, he made a man who called police officers "pigs" stand on a street corner with a real pig and a sign.
It sounds like a joke. It isn't.
Cicconetti’s "creative sentencing" is a prime example of how ridicule law and order functions in the real world. The goal is to make the punishment fit the crime in a way that actually leaves an impression on the offender's psyche. Does it work? Cicconetti has claimed his recidivism rates were significantly lower than the national average. When people are laughed at, they tend to remember the lesson much longer than when they just write a check to the clerk's office.
But there is a dark side.
✨ Don't miss: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
Social media has turned this local phenomenon into a global spectator sport. When a court uses ridicule today, it doesn't stay on that street corner. It goes to TikTok. It goes to X. It lives forever in a Google search. That raises a massive ethical question: is the punishment proportional if the "ridicule" lasts for the rest of the person's digital life?
The Psychology of Social Compliance
Why do we care what people think? Evolutionary psychologists argue that being cast out of the "tribe" was once a death sentence. We are hardwired to avoid social stigma. This is why ridicule law and order is so polarizing. It taps into a deep-seated fear of being an outcast.
Take "Johns TV" programs. In some jurisdictions, cities have experimented with broadcasting the names and photos of people arrested for soliciting prostitutes on local access channels. The logic is simple: the threat of your spouse, boss, or neighbor seeing you on TV is a bigger deterrent than a night in a holding cell. It’s a high-stakes game of chicken with a person's reputation.
However, critics like those at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) often argue that these tactics can bypass due process in the court of public opinion. If you’re shamed before you’re convicted, the "order" part of ridicule law and order starts to look a lot like mob rule.
Does Shaming Actually Lower Crime?
The data is, frankly, a bit of a mess.
Some studies suggest that "reintegrative shaming"—a term coined by criminologist John Braithwaite—can actually be helpful. This is where the community expresses disapproval but then provides a path for the person to earn their way back in. Think of it like a "tough love" intervention.
🔗 Read more: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
On the flip side, "stigmatizing shaming" just pushes people further away. If you make someone a pariah, they have no reason to follow the rules of a society that hates them. They might just lean harder into criminal subcultures. It’s a fine line to walk.
The Modern Pivot to Digital Ridicule
We have to talk about how the internet changed the game. Before the 2000s, ridicule law and order was a local affair. You’d be embarrassed in your hometown, but you could move three towns over and start fresh.
Not anymore.
Today, "doxing" or public "call-outs" function as an extrajudicial form of this concept. When a video of someone acting poorly in a grocery store goes viral, the internet enacts its own version of ridicule law and order. They find the person's employer. They demand they be fired. They harrass their family. This isn't coming from a judge; it's coming from the "digital crowd."
This shift is actually forcing legal experts to reconsider what "punishment" even means in 2026. If a judge gives someone community service, but the internet gives them a permanent "unemployable" status, the balance of justice is totally skewed. We are seeing a weird trend where the legal system is actually becoming the "tame" one, while the public uses ridicule as a primary weapon.
Real-World Examples of Modern Shaming
- Environmental Violators: Some cities publish the names of the biggest water-wasters during droughts.
- Tax Evaders: Several countries, including Greece and certain U.S. states, publish "Top 100" lists of delinquent taxpayers.
- Corporate "Wall of Shame": Regulatory bodies often use press releases specifically designed to tank a company’s stock price as a form of "regulatory ridicule."
The Legal Limits of Embarrassment
Can a judge just do whatever they want? Not really. The Eighth Amendment in the U.S. protects against "cruel and unusual punishments."
💡 You might also like: How Old is CHRR? What People Get Wrong About the Ohio State Research Giant
Most of the time, ridicule law and order survives legal challenges because the "shame" is offered as an alternative to jail. The defendant "chooses" the sign-holding or the public apology to avoid a cell. Because it's voluntary (sorta), it often bypasses the "cruel and unusual" argument.
But it's a slippery slope. If a punishment is designed specifically to cause psychological trauma rather than restitution, the courts tend to step in. The goal should be correction, not just entertainment for the masses.
Actionable Steps for Navigating Shaming Culture
If you're looking at how to apply or respond to the principles of ridicule law and order in a professional or civic context, keep these points in mind:
For Civic Leaders and Business Owners:
If you're considering "shaming" as a deterrent (like posting names of late payers), ensure there is a clear, fast "exit ramp." If people don't see a way to fix their reputation, they won't change their behavior; they'll just become more resentful and litigious.
For Individuals Facing Public Scrutiny:
Understand that the digital footprint of a public "lesson" is permanent. If you are ever in a position where a "creative sentence" is offered, weigh the long-term SEO impact of that photo against the short-term benefit of avoiding a fine. Sometimes, the boring, quiet punishment is actually the "cheaper" one in the long run.
For Policy Advocates:
Focus on "reintegrative" models. Shaming works best when the community is ready to welcome the person back once they've made amends. Use the power of the crowd to encourage better behavior, not just to build a permanent underclass of the "canceled."
Justice is evolving. We are moving away from purely physical or financial penalties and back toward the social currency we traded in for thousands of years. The ridicule law and order trend is just a symptom of a world that is becoming more connected—and more judgmental—by the second. Whether that leads to a more polite society or a more vengeful one depends entirely on whether we use shame as a bridge or a wall.