Why “American Thieves” May Be Paraded in the Streets

According to a Oct. 13 report in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, a man in Texas who took advantage of his position to steal money from his victims has been ordered by a court to spend every weekend for the next six years standing on a busy street corner, with a sign saying “I am a thief” hanging around his neck.

Many Internet users following this story find it inconceivable that such a thing could happen in America. With the judge doling out such a humiliating sentence, what has happened to the talk of human rights? In China, a mass public arrest is likely to cause a torrential outpouring of public comment, and people have been taken to court for beating or shaming criminals in the heat of the moment. Surely America, which extols the virtues of human rights day in and day out, cannot be worse off than us?

In actual fact, such a comparison between China and the U.S. is not really valid, as, given the nature of the American state and its particular legal traditions, ordering an “American thief” to parade himself on the street is not in violation of the U.S.’ commitment to human rights, but may even be seen as the very way in which human rights should be upheld.

First, this parading of a prisoner is the result of a legal trial. This is fundamentally different to the arrest and subsequent humiliation or maltreatment of thieves, or even officially sanctioned public arrests and trials in China, as the latter lack the requisite legal founding. Beating and reprimanding a thief in anger is illegal and a form of “trial by public opinion.” And while public arrests represent justice for some people, a criminal can only be a suspect before a legal trial and should have the same rights as a normal person. In other words, the humiliation of criminals, that occurs in China before legal sentencing is passed, is related to a sense of righteousness; [this recent incident of] humiliation in America occurred after legal sentencing — hence, it is a legal action. It is obvious who is right and who is wrong.

As for how such a sentence could be passed under American law, this is related to the nature of the American state. One issue is that each state of the U.S. has its own constitution and laws, with large discrepancies between them. Another is that American judges have a relatively large degree of discretionary power — so much so that, provided they do not go against legal principles, they may create any number of “precedents” for punishments, of which the case in question is clearly an example. What this boils down to is that this is all supported by the law. The law is a manifestation of the will of the people, and therefore, to honor the law is to honor the will of the people, and it is also the only way to guarantee human rights.

Furthermore, it was the choice of the person involved to accept this sentence. According to local law, this case could also have been punished with several years’ imprisonment, and the judge’s order for the offender to be “paraded” was an unconventional sentence. If the person involved had not accepted the sentence, he could have appealed, although under normal circumstances, he would be judged according to the law even after appeal. Hence, the relevant party decided to drop his appeal, explaining that he had accepted the ruling. Despite being a criminal, he may still be given a great deal of choice within the scope of the law, and his right to choose is fully respected; this may well be an alternative method of respecting human rights.

In this light, this decision to parade a prisoner through the streets was taken within a legal framework and respected the choices of the person in question; it most certainly was not a breach of human rights. This most “uniquely American” of punishments may hold a few useful revelations for us, but there is no way we could replicate it exactly.