A new exhibit by Shari Pierce.

In Nathanial Hawthorne’s 19th century classic, Hestor Prynne is forced by her Puritan community to permanently wear a scarlet ‘A’ on her clothing, after she conceives a child out of wedlock and refuses to reveal the identity of the father. Though the story is set in the 1600s, the punishment of visual identification as an ‘adulteress’ could be viewed as quite modern: Punish not the body, but the SOUL.

Punishment – Then and Now

In the 20th century, Michel Foucault (philosopher genius/sado-masochist) set out to examine the shift of punishment over the centuries and what it has meant for society. A work far too complex to examine in one or ten blog entries, my friend Shari Pierce’s latest exhibition nonetheless made me consider again the core question raised in “Discipline and Punish”:

How much more humane ARE the modern punitive measures taken against criminals?

That the nature of criminal punishment has changed over the centuries is no question. 300 years ago, crimes such as murder, rape and theft were not only punished socially (the criminal was often put out for public viewing and ridicule) but corporeally. Offenders were flogged, whipped, branded, drawn and quartered, maimed, crucified– and the circumstances of their actions were moot. Nobody asked WHY the crime had been committed. Was the offender rich or poor, abused as a child or not? In his right mind or insane? The crime is what mattered strictly, the crowd was to see an example of what would happen if they behaved similarly, and the flesh of the criminal absorbed the ultimate brunt of punishment. Provided the sentence was not death, they were then free to go and resume their lives.

Somewhere in the late 18th century though, a shift started in Western nations that demanded humane treatment of the criminal’s body. Psychology began to play a role in determining guilt–the public became removed from the process and the idea of ‘revenge’ was purged. The media circus notwithstanding, the public today has no DIRECT contact with those on trial, and incarceration is deemed the most appropriate form of action. As my roommate described it the other night: The German legal system does not desire revenge against criminals–merely that they are put in a place where they cannot repeat their offense and where they may be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society. Arguably, the same motto could be applied to modern American penal justice.

Rehabilitation. Incarceration not as punishment, but as a preventative measure. Certainly never revenge.

While I am not familiar with the state of German prisons, American ones notoriously question the validity of that statement. Depending on the penitentiary, the idea of rehabilitation is a mockery–the criminal is locked away from ‘normal’ society and tossed into a sub-society rife with violence and rape. This is not the violence of a crowd who beat you black and blue in the stocks and then stormed on–or the agony felt from flogging that nevertheless ended once the wounds healed. This is what Foucault would call a punishment of the soul; a slow, steady deconstruction of a person’s humanity, over years or even a lifetime.

Our modern definition of ‘mercy’.

This system keeps the humiliation of the criminal out of sight and we are comforted by the idea of a society both safe and just. And if an offender is able to rehabilitate, they are theoretically able to rejoin society anonymously, without us having to see the stump of a lost finger or the whip-scars on the back. But what about the most reviled offenders–the rapists and child-molesters? Should they be allowed to rejoin society anonymously?

This is one aspect raised by the Agraphobia exhibit.


Shari Pierce is a jewelry artist, but her pieces are not meant to be worn at your next dinner party. Her works focus not on jewelry as superficial decoration, but on its role as a universal form of communication, the symbols worn across all ages and societies to project our self-image, social status, even our political, religious or social views (think of crucifix necklaces or breast-cancer awareness ribbons.) We can argue that jewelry is never just about aesthetics or form and Shari’s work often takes that idea to the extreme. Her latest exhibition asks what it might be like to wear the picture of a known sex-offender around your neck.

Go into her exhibition and you’ll be surrounded by a ghostly parade of men (and a few women) whose pictures have been taken from internet sites listing known sex criminals. Opening night, we looked at the pictures wondering: Do these people look so sinister because we KNOW their crime? Of course, you think of perverts as walking around with glowing eyes or horns on their head (and her pictures played with that idea by defacing faces), but just as many were kept as ordinary photos. These are the guys and girls passing by you on the street.

As I am about to leave, I want to say goodbye to Shari and congratulate her on her opening night, but she’s in deep conversation with someone. I stand around, hoping to butt in for a quick goodbye, and decide not to: They seem to be arguing the MORALITY of this exhibition. “Is your problem with the exhibit,” Shari asks, “that the pictures are for sale?”

The Scarlet A Revisited

I leave saying nothing, but the question is a good one–and the lady she is having the conversation with is a German. What would be considered highly sensitive personal information here in Germany regarding past offenses is posted on public databases for many states back home–this fact is what makes Shari’s exhibition possible–and advocates would argue that making sex-offenders visually identifiable is a cautionary meassure that allows parents especially to take further care.

Unfortunately, what this form of punishment does not take into account is that the majority of sexual offenses, rapes and child molestations are not committed by strangers, but by family members or acquaintances close to the family. And that while some of these databases do categorize according to severity or risk, others make no differentiation between a child-rapist or two underage kids who had consensual sex with each other.

The internet is forever. Once that information is out there, it can never be wiped away and we can argue that this form of caution is just a modern reworking of the scarlet A; a new/old way of destroying the social life, ie, the soul of the criminal.

Are sex-offender databases necessary? Do they help keep people safe, or is it a measure that kills the possibility of rehabilitation? If you haven’t thought about it before, Agraphobia will probably make you think about it.

Check out Shari’s exhibit if you live in Munich: It’s open from March 12 to March 26th, in the Raum fuer Kunst (Room for Art) in Schwabing. Gabelsbergerst. 65. The u2 to Theresienst. will get you close. (In the basement, you can also see some of what I anyway consider her more traditional pieces… don’t miss them!)

3 responses to “Agraphobia

  1. Sabrina Watson

    Hello—I’m a friend of Alex.

    I really enjoyed this article and think that it should be published in a larger arena—like the New York Times. It was very well written and I believe these issues to be brought to the forefront of our U.S. government and the Supreme Court.

    My question to Shari is you initially use a wide variety of crimes that are committed versus the punishment, but later seem to focus on the sexual offender. What has happen to make your passion stronger for this topic of discussion…was their a friend or family that have suffered from such punishment or perhaps did this happen to you? Just wondering….and I agree.

    • First off, I wanted to say thanks for reading and commenting! =)

      I want to answer your question, but I’m a tiny bit confused by it, because you say it is a question to Shari. (And I cannot answer for HER, why she chose to focus her art exhibition on sexual offenders specifically.)

      But for myself, while I was at the exhibit, I had a conversation with a friend (who is German) who was saying how odd he found it, that this information on sexual offenders is so freely available in the States. Then, I heard that question posed to Shari by one of the attendees (which seemed to suggest she found something off about such sensitive information being available to anyone).

      As an American, I’ve taken it for granted that sexual offenders (in many states at least) are forced to forfeit their privacy through these databases, but now I suddenly thought of Foucault’s philosophical examination–and the scarlet A. Most people, American or otherwise, would probably agree that publicly exposing a criminal record is a gross violation of privacy–so why do we allow it with sex criminals? Probably because we consider sex crimes to be the lowest in the hierarchy of human offenses; particularly when committed against children.

      I was finally reminded of an old friend who had committed an indiscretion in his youth (early teens). He did not molest or hurt any child, but the act was deemed to be a sexual offense. As a result, he is in his late thirties/early forties now and still not allowed access to children. (He may or may not also be on such a database.) In some ways, something that happened close to thirty years ago is still affecting his life. This man is not a saint; but he is certainly not a dangerous sinner either and that also made me wonder: Is it fair to treat a flasher the same as a serial rapist? A 19 year old accused of statutory rape the same as a child-molester?

      These questions are what inspired me to write the article and combine the focus on sexual abuse with Shari’s focus on it in her exhibition.

  2. Hi Sabrina,
    I am assuming your a friend of Alex S.? (@Ilike I posted this on my FB and some other good friends of mine also shared the link) hence (I think) Alex.

    @ Sabrina your question “you initially use a wide variety of crimes that are committed versus the punishment, but later seem to focus on the sexual offender. ” I am not sure which work you mean can you clarify?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s