← Back to context

Comment by Svip

3 days ago

This is probably also an instance of a significant cultural difference. Continental Europe generally believes in rehabilitation, whereas the Anglosphere - and the US in particular - strike me more as having a vengeful justice system.

Public shaming of people at trial is incompatible with the belief in rehabilitation.

Shame of being convicted of a crime and rehabilitation are separate issues and this is not a cultural difference between continental Europe (which isn't even an homogeneous entity) and the "Anglosphere", either per se.

  • In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a punishment itself.

    Being labeled as "a criminal" for sure hinders rehabilitation. It reduces opportunities and probably affects identity.

    Based on how crime and offenders are publicly discussed in the US, it seems there's very little interest in rehabilitation, except if the person is of high status. Per my common sense the US culture is often just plain cruel with people revelling in others' suffering if they are labeled as "outsiders".

    • > In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a punishment itself.

      This is to some extent true in the UK as well. Pubic figures are likely to lose their income if convicted of a crime, whereas someone in a less visible or responsible profession is more likely to be able to continue working immediately after serving their sentence (or during, if the sentence is non-custodial). This is therefore considered a mitigating factor during sentencing.

      One result of this is that the law can sometimes appear to be more lenient on celebrities or other notable individuals, but it is really just making the system equitable so that the sentence has the same effect regardless of the criminal's personal situation.

      1 reply →