If distasteful remarks caught on recordings were against the law rather than simply being offensive and outrageous, what would be
Markel and I were talking about public humiliation and creative sentencing as an aspect of criminal law (for a future column; stay tuned). What might a Sterling-shaming comeuppance, ordered from the bench by a creative judge, look like? Perhaps standing outside
"There's a lot to be said for using techniques that are morally educative that don't use public humiliation," Markel told me. Someone like Sterling, as part of a legal sentence, "might have to watch a lot of civil rights films and documentaries. That would be a way where you could use penal coercion that would effect some contrition and moral education, which I don't think is all that bad."
Yet there is, Markel added, "something peculiar about a liberal state trying to force messages into people's heads. You don't want to reenact the Chinese Cultural Revolution, but there's a way I think that you can still use punishment" in a fashion that respects individuals and the justice system.
What a good idea. Think of a binge-watching Sterling cueing up "Eyes on the Prize," "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Mississippi Burning," "A Raisin in the Sun" and every episode of "Roots."
At the moment, though, it’s censure and a harsh