The 'thief' forced by his boss on a walk of shame through town

[damyanti]

A boss who suspected a worker of theft decided to make an example of him - and throw political correctness out of the window at the same time.

Simon Cremer and three of his employees allegedly wrestled Mark Gilbert to the ground, tied his hands behind his back and bundled him into a van.

They then drove him to the town centre where he was made to wear a sign naming him as a thief. He was paraded in front of startled shoppers before being frogmarched 350 yards to the police station, where he was arrested on suspicion of theft.

Some might approve of the medieval approach to justice, which is reminiscent of the days when suspects were named and shamed by being sent to the village stocks or tarred and feathered.

But the stunt backfired on the accusers after they were arrested on a range of charges, including false imprisonment.

The extraordinary scene unfolded on Friday last week when 39-year-old Mr Gilbert was dragged out of the van in a busy shopping street in Witham, Essex.

He was then escorted by Mr Cremer and another man around the corner to the police station. Slung around his neck on a piece of cardboard was the message: 'THIEF. I stole £845. Am on my way to police station.'

Mr Cremer, 41, who runs In House Flooring of Witham, said that Mr Gilbert had been at the company for six months and earned around £1,000 a week.

He has been accused of taking a business cheque and making it out to himself. Mr Cremer was contacted by the Cash Converters company after the cheque apparently bounced.

Mr Cremer said he had no regrets about the way he treated his employee, despite having to spend a night in a police cell and being given three months' notice to move by the owner of the warehouse where his business rents space.

Full article and pics here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063933/Pictured-The-thief-forced-boss-walk-shame-town-guess-ended-arrested.html).

What do you think?

Frankly, I think such punishment is much better deterrent for future acts and much more cost effective (in every way). Of course, there remains that pesky issue of "innocent until proven guilty" and public taking law into their own hands.

[lucy]

Frankly, I think such punishment is much better deterrent for future acts and much more cost effective (in every way). Of course, there remains that pesky issue of "innocent until proven guilty" and public taking law into their own hands.
In the case you posted there also remains the questions of who is sentencing an alleged criminal and who's carrying out the sentence.

Then there is the question of what is a crime. Six women have been buried alive in Pakistan recently because they refused to marry their chosen partners. In my book, not marrying a guy i don't want to isn't a crime.

And then there is the final question of how far it should go: Should it stay with naming and shaming, tarring and feathering or do we go all the way and "hang 'em higher"?

All in all, i think the way justice is carried out nowadays in most western countries has proven to be the a good way. Even if it's very expensive and not very effective.
However, sometimes i think the law could be a bit harsher where i live.

[damyanti]

[CODE]
In the case you posted there also remains the questions of who is sentencing an alleged criminal and who's carrying out the sentence.


Which is why I said:

Of course, there remains that pesky issue of "innocent until proven guilty" and public taking law into their own hands.

It is clearly a matter for the courts.


[CODE]
Then there is the question of what is a crime. Six women have been buried alive in Pakistan recently because they refused to marry their chosen partners. In my book, not marrying a guy i don't want to isn't a crime.


You are trying to murky the waters, lits, lol. What is a crime is pretty clear - theft, murder, rape- look into the penal code of your country. How did you make a jump from theft in a western country to forced marriage issue in a country that is democracy only on paper.


[CODE]
And then there is the final question of how far it should go: Should it stay with naming and shaming, tarring and feathering or do we go all the way and "hang 'em higher"?

How far it should go? Common sense and some sense of justice. I am against violence and aggression and criminal corporal punishment. I am strongly against capital punishment.

But here, in Europe, I think we have went a little too far on the lenient side. The worst prisons look like B star hotels. There is no shame.

So no, I wouldn't "hang" them, but a healthy dose of humiliation...yes, I think it would at least make them think twice.

A bit of humility never killed anyone.


[CODE]
All in all, i think the way justice is carried out nowadays in most western countries has proven to be the a good way.


[CODE]
Even if it's very expensive and not very effective.
However, sometimes i think the law could be a bit harsher where i live.

You contradict yourself!

First and foremost, I am for the creation of the economical and social atmosphere where there is no cause for petty crime. But, on the other side, how many people (I am talking "western societies") are forced to steel for food? How about taking drugs?

I think, for first time non-violent offenders, humiliation would be a suitable punishment - if they have children (to support) they are not made secondary victims, they don't lose their job, time and money isn't wasted on keeping them in prison which leaves more room for violent offenders and makes sure they don't (by going into prison) learn how to become true hard core criminals.

Why cant there ever be a middle? In U.S. they hand out the death penalty with horrifying regularity, and here, four years in prison for rape is considered strict sentence. And why there isn't a life sentence for pedophiles?

[lucy]

[B]
[COLOR="Magenta"]It is clearly a matter for the courts.

Ok, now it is clear enough even for me. I thought you were proposing to reinstate lynch mobs.




How far it should go? Common sense and some sense of justice. I am against violence and aggression and criminal corporal punishment. I am strongly against capital punishment.
Hmm, looking at the history of the human race i kinda have a real hard time believing that common sense exists on a large scale. But it sure would be nice if it worked.


But here, in Europe, I think we have went a little too far on the lenient side. The worst prisons look like B star hotels. There is no shame.

So no, I wouldn't "hang" them, but a healthy dose of humiliation...yes, I think it would at least make them think twice.

A bit of humility never killed anyone.
Agreed.

And no, i didn't contradict myself. I just stated that the power to sentence people and carry out that sentences should be with the state and not with a lynchmob. And i further said that criminals should be punished harder here than they are now.

In the end i think i'm pretty much of the same opinion as you are. Now that i understood yours :d


(Now what i am really wondering is how that multiquoting works without having to copy/paste the tags myself :) )

[damyanti]

In the end i think i'm pretty much of the same opinion as you are. Now that i understood yours :d


Lol, :d. I dread the mob mentality. I cant step on an ant without feeling guilty, let alone organize a lynch mob.



(Now what i am really wondering is how that multiquoting works without having to copy/paste the tags myself :) )

If you figure it out, be sure to let me know, lol. :wave:

[Ragoczy]

I think the folks who did this were wrong, for exactly the reason you pointed out: innocent until proven guilty. Though I am a strong supporter of judicial "creative sentencing"; unfortunately, judges who undertake that here in the States are frequently made mockery of in the press.

I think jail time is pointless in a lot of cases -- hell, in some communities it's considered a badge of honor. But take those same people and make them do something beneficial to society in a humiliating way? That'd have more impact that jail.

I'm also a supporter of monetary penalties instead of jail time. Yes, it allows the wealthy to "buy their way out of jail", but if the monetary fine is hefty enough, punishment is satisfied. Say someone with a very good job, upper 5% of income earners -- $150,000 a year, commits a non-violent crime and doesn't present a danger to others. If you put that person in prison, he may be the sole support of his family, so they're punished too, and tax dollars are spent to support him -- I say put him on house-arrest aside from work, let him keep earning, and take 50% of his income for twice the number of years someone would be jailed. More if he's single.