Political Science

Tovia Smiths article (2010) entitled Companies Named And Shamed For Bad Behavior is an analysis which seeks to circumscribe the diverging opinions and reactions raised in respect to what Smith herself pertains to as the growing number of mea culpas being ordered by courts, as a peculiar way of rectifying errors committed by certain companies in their otherwise proven malicious conduct of enterprise.

Two chief streams of thought have been raised in Smiths article. On the one side of the spectrum, Smith argues that court-sanctioned rectification, which includes shame campaign, helps appease public sentiment lamenting strongly against wrongdoings committed by large companies, whether unwittingly or unwittingly. Under normal circumstances, criminal-justice courts demand erring companies to issue public apologies in major broadsheets circulating the affected area.  And Smith further states that, on account of the need to deter further insults into the injury which has been wrought by erring corporations, people(are) more moved by the price the company is paying in reputation (Smith, 2010, n.p.).

On the other side of the spectrum, Smith also presents telling opinions raised against the practice of corporation apologies, citing a good number of legitimate reasons. For one, Smith writes that, while public humiliation is part and parcel of what may be called as fair punishment, there are those who cast doubt over the real motives behind such a cruel and unusual punishment (Smith, 2010, n.p.). The dissenting opinions against shame campaigns can be summarized into two major premises first, that the real motives behind public humiliation is, in fact, more leaning towards the desire to seek retributive justice  or vengeance  rather than deterrence of future crime and second, that there are good reasons to doubt the tangible relevance and concrete beneficial effect of the said campaign.

Smiths article, it is quite understandable, is limited in the treatment of the issue. In fact, it is very restricted so that it tried to cover only the essentials and representative opinions for and against the issue of public humiliation. At the very least though, what Smiths article was able to achieve lies in the fact that the two sides of the heated debate have been presented in a manner being succinct yet thought-provoking (i.e., owing, of course, to its relative briefness). Thus, Smith article is elucidative in that it leaves the issue open for inasmuch as there appears to be no clear line which separates the correctness andor wrongness of the policy, the fact that human sensitivities are violated on either side, makes the issue even more in need of deeper public scrutiny, if not of scholarly works done to shed light on the matter.

Smiths article exemplifies, more than anything else, the essential limit impinged upon new article or write-ups, owing from the need to cover only the essentials, yet leave the audience wanting for more. Be that as it may, I would have to say that an issue as divisive as public humiliation must be treated in greater length, or in a relatively exhaustive inquiry (which may be divided into subtopics), so as to sufficiently cover not only public opinions raised in support or against the issue, but also the cultural, legal, as well as moral ramifications of the same.

The collateral damages which the practice of public humiliation engenders not only on the corporation itself, but also on its human workforce  as well as, logically, their families  benefitting directly from it, could have been given greater emphasis in the article. True, Smiths article briefly delved on this specific facet. But the larger nuance of the issue is palpably lacking. Specific incidences relative to the ugly consequences of having a company issue a public apology could have been cited. For if in the process of rectifying corporate errors, the ill-consequences public apology seems to be far greater than its supposed benefit, then there appears to be no point at observing the practice all together. The end, after all, does not justify the means.