The Politics of Public Punishment

• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Author: Sarah Esther Lageson
• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12392

POLICY ESSAY

CONFIDENCE IN THE POLICE, DUE

PROCESS, AND PERP WALKS

The Politics of Public Punishment

Sarah Esther Lageson

Rutgers University—Newark

Public declarations of punishment are purportedly satisfying for onlookers, codifying

good police work and providing confirmation that justice has been served. But media

consumers today,in an age of declining punitivity and increasing skepticism toward

traditional media and criminal justice institutions, might not see the value in this charade.

Plus, in an age of digital media, publicity is far reaching and accusations are harder than ever

to shake. An examination of “perp walks” provides a salient example: Although criminal

justice administrators tout the desire of the people to see an arrested person walk in shame

from police car to courthouse, new evidence shows this may not be the case. Indeed, in their

public opinion survey, Shanna Van Slyke, Michael Benson, and William Virkler (2018, this

issue) find that less than one third of respondents support the practice of perp walks that

deliberately publicize an arrest, especially in a coordinated, stunt-like effort between media

and law enforcement. It may be time, caution Van Slyke et al., for police to reconsider this

practice, especially if their underlying goal in orchestrating a perp walk is to garner more,

not less, public support.

Although important for police policy, this study by Van Slyke et al. (2018) is also

significant to researchers because it is rooted in a broader sociological question: Why do we

crave public punishment? Van Slykeet al. rightly point out the emotional salience of highly

visual, public shaming. Trailing an uptick in the past several decades to frame criminal

punishment in emotional terms, perp walks surely serve a much stronger symbolic, rather

than a practical, function. This shift in the form of criminal justice policy from bureaucratic

management to tolerated spectacle may more rightly reflect the complex emotions of crime

control, but it might also lead to unrelenting stigma, stereotyping, and a scarlet letter the

“perp” is stuck with forever (Van Slyke et al. citing Bottoms, 1995; Braithwaite, 1989;

Karstedt, 2014; Pratt, 2000; Sherman, 2003). The opinions measured here reveal that it

might be time for researchers and policy makers to reframe the purported social and political

Direct correspondence to Sarah Esther Lageson, Center for Law & Justice 547, Rutgers University—Newark,

123 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102 (e-mail: sarah.lageson@rutgers.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12392 C2018 American Society of Criminology 635

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 3