The Arizona State Journal will soon publish an article written by Dan Markel, D’Alemberte Professor at Florida State University College of Law and Scholar in Residence (2011) at the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law. Professor Markel clerked for Judge Hawkins during the 2001-2002 term.
The article examines the difference between judicially-ordered sanctions designed to humiliate or degrade an offender, as opposed to the incidental experience of shame one may feel upon enduring a non-shaming punishment, such as fines or non-visible probation conditions. The article highlights the well-known case, United States v. Gementera,[1] and more precisely, the dissenting opinion authored by Judge Hawkins, which argued that such purposeful shaming has no place in the halls of justice.[2]
Professor Markel concludes by stating that he is comforted by “knowing our blessing to have judges like Judge Hawkins, judges for justice—who remind us of the reasons we adopt laws to guide officials as much as citizens: because they are the ‘wise restraints that make men free.'”
[1]. 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004).
[2]. Id. at 610–12 (Hawkins, J., dissenting).