the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_15_08constific.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Securities Regulation
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« Death Not So Different? | Main | Quarantines (and Law?) »

May 30, 2007

Underwood and Punishment

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

Listening to a popular voice discuss theories of punishment lately, I noticed an interesting interplay between retributive versus deterrent theories. I'm talking, of course, about the country/pop singer Carrie Underwood.

Underwood's latest all-over-the-radio crossover hit, Before He Cheats, discusses her own somewhat violent reactions to an unnamed Low Down Cheatin' No Good Scoundrel. Of particular interest is how she connects her reaction to a particular theory of punishment. She sings:

I dug my key into the side of his pretty little souped up 4 wheel drive,
Carved my name into his leather seats,
I took a Louisville slugger to both headlights,
Slashed a hole in all 4 tires --
Maybe next time he'll think before he cheats.

As any criminal law theorists can attest, there are many different theories of punishment. Punishment may be intended to be retributive -- that is, a deserved punishment, proportionate to the offense, based on past actions. Retributive justice is backward-looking -- that is, it focuses on past acts, not on likely future acts -- and it is often couched in terms of merit or dessert. Or, punishment may be consequentialist -- intended to bring about good future consequences. Deterrence -- preventing future bad acts -- is one type of consequentialist rationale. Consequentialist approaches are forward-looking rather than backward-looking -- intended to influence future acts, not punish past acts. To oversimplify, the difference is between "I punish you because it would be wrong for your bad acts to go unpunished" (retributive) versus "I punish you to influence your future decisions" (deterrent version of consequentialist). (And of course, many times, arguments for punishment will combine aspects of retributive justice, deterrence, and other ideas.)

Underwood explicitly states that her actions were motivated by a deterrrent theory of punishment. She has vandalized his car, and the reason that she did so is to deter future bad behavior: "Maybe next time he'll think before he cheats." This is a clearly deterrent approach. The stated reason why she has treated the car so rudely is to deter future bad behavior. However, Underwood's stated deterrence rationale is unconvincing.

As she notes in her song, she has already ended her relationship with the No Good Scoundrel in question. Thus, it is questionable what sort of deterrent message he is supposed to receive from her actions. It can't be "don't cheat on Carrie, or else she will destroy my car" (which would be a message of deterrence) -- because he is no longer linked to Carrie.

Underwood seems to suggest that a broader deterrent message has been sent -- "don't cheat on a woman in general, or she might destroy your car." The problem with this approach is that deterrence must be credible in order to be effective. Underwood's actions were relatively unusual in nature, and thus unlikely to provide much in the way of future deterrence. There is also the question of why Underwood would risk criminal prosecution herself to engage in an act intended solely to reform a No Good Scoundrel who she is no longer dating.

The more likely motivation, really, is retributive -- Underwood is simply angry with the No Good Scoundrel in question, and her mistreatment of his pretty-little-souped-up-four-wheel-drive is intended to express that anger. Cast as retribution, her actions are understandable. Her mockery of the No Good Scoundrel also supports this idea.

This leaves us to explain Underwood's desire to couch her actions as deterrent. Instead of simply saying, "I trashed your car because you treated me badly and I disliked that treatment," -- a perfectly respectable chain of logic -- she offers the more convoluted and less convincing, "I trashed your car because I hope to deter future bad behavior." Apparently, deterrent actions are more respectable than retributive actions, and so Underwood chooses to frame her acts as deterrent, despite the implausibility of the label. What's really odd is that all of this is taking place in the context of a country song. If you can't be retributive in a country song, where can you be retributive?

I really hope that this post deters future misapplications of theories of punishment in country songs.

Posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger at May 30, 2007 07:12 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2058.

Comments

I was with you right up until "Underwood's actions were relatively unusual in nature, and thus unlikely to provide much in the way of future deterrence." A number of possible responses.

First, perhaps her actions are not relatively unusual where she lives.

Second, perhaps her actions are unusual but not unheard of. Say most women would never engage in such behavior, but a small number of women (Underwood plus n) would (let's call these women destroyers). And say a man doesn't know whether he's dating a destroyer until he treats her badly. A man will avoid the bad behavior if the expected cost of the behavior (probability his girlfriend is a destroyer times cost, both financial and emotional, of damage to his car) outweighs the benefit (whatever that is). Also consider that by publicizing her behavior, Underwood may cause men to believe that the percentage of destroyers is higher than it actually is (salience).

Finally, perhaps the song is popular precisely because her behavior is vanishingly uncommon, and the song provides women listeners with a fantasy world in which a woman would in fact risk prison to help stop a man from treating other women badly, and perhaps that is a very enjoyable fantasy world indeed.

Posted by: Anon at May 30, 2007 08:12 PM


That song gets into your head and won't go away. It's almost as bad as Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'."

Do men actually like this song?

Posted by: Anon Prof at May 30, 2007 08:38 PM


Insightful analysis, Kaimi. Once or twice I've advised students that they can learn a lot about criminal law by listening to country music. One of the lessons is that beyond the ivory tower, deterrence and retribution aren't mutually exclusive. Most people want punishment to achieve both goals. So give the cheating jerk his just deserts, and also hope that you'll deter future cheating. When justifying your own violence, why limit yourself to just one theory?

Posted by: Alice Ristroph at May 30, 2007 08:59 PM


Ms. Underwood is far from the first in the musical/punishment theory oeuvre. A relatively recent example: Blu Cantrell covered much the same ground around six years ago with her single "Hit 'Em Up Style (Oops!)". Ms. Cantrell didn't hide her espousal of a retributive message behind any dubious claim to deterrence; however, she did add a significant restitutionary justification for doling out punishment when her man got "buckwild."

Posted by: A Non Amos at May 30, 2007 09:09 PM


Sorry, the link tag didn't work on my comment. The link for the "Hit 'Em Up Style (Oops!)" lyrics is http://www.lyricsdomain.com/2/blu_cantrell/hit_em_up_style.html. And note that Ms. Cantrell broaches the subject from the R&B, rather than country, genre.

Posted by: A Non Amos at May 30, 2007 09:12 PM


I think you may have overlooked one of the branches of the deterrence tree, Kaimi. Underwood was aiming at general deterence of crimes against a specific victim. Her actions communicate to anyone (general audience) who might cheat on Carrie Underwood (specific victim) that pain will follow. Isn't this a plausible deterrent message?

Admittedly, its a rare flavor of deterrence. Its usually the state that engages in general deterrence, but the state rarely has any interest in general deterrence on behalf of single individuals. Single individuals, of course, would love to deter any and all future offenses against them, but most single individuals don't have the ability to disseminate their self-serving deterrent message effectively to the general public. Luckily for Carrie, she can get her self-serving deterrent message out in a way that the rest of us can't.

Still, its a self-absorbed sort of deterrence ("I have a message for everyone about me, Carrie Underwood!"). Maybe its the self-absorbtion that makes it seem like there's got to be some retribution in there?

Posted by: R or D? at May 30, 2007 10:44 PM


Of course she is speaking to general deterrence. Note the lyric later in the song:

"I might've saved a little trouble for the next girl,
'Cause the next time that he cheats...
Oh, you know it won't be on me!"

This is the problem with you academics ... you overfocus on part of a text without comprehending the whole!

Posted by: racer X at May 31, 2007 12:00 AM


Of *course* she is speaking to general deterrence. Note the lyric later in the song:

"I might've saved a little trouble for the next girl,/
'Cause the next time that he cheats/
Oh, you know it won't be on me!"

This is the problem with you academics ... you overfocus on part of a text without thoroughly examining the whole!

Posted by: racer X at May 31, 2007 12:02 AM


Yes, I do like this song, mainly for the lyrics work together.

However, I think everyone here has missed a point. Please note how the lines of lyrics start (my emphases):



"Right now, he's probably slow dancin' with a bleached-blonde tramp and she's sayin' that she's thirsty

...

Right now, she's probably sayin' 'I'm drunk!' and he's thinkin' that he's gonna get lucky

...

Right now, he's probably dabbin' on three dollars worth of that bathroom Polo...."



So basically, her rampage is not due to her witnessing the actions that are driving the behavior, but from her imagining what is happening inside that bar she saw her boyfriend walk into with the other woman.

Now if this was a bad comedy, she would later find out that the girl was his sister or cousin, who just came in from out of town....

Posted by: Fraud Guy at May 31, 2007 10:21 AM


Kaimi,

That is some fine work you've been doing in punishment theory! May I also direct you to the early blues work of Bessie Smith for some highly original retributist material, including the famous "Mistreating Daddy" :

Mistreating daddy, mama's drawed the danger line
Yes, you'll cross it, I'll get you
If you see me setting on another daddy's knee
Don't bother me, I'm as mean as can be
I'm like the butcher right down the street
I can cut you all apieces like I would a piece of meat

Note the themes of both moral blameworthiness and lex talonis that run throughout so much of her work...

Posted by: Laura at May 31, 2007 01:01 PM


"I really hope that this post deters future misapplications of theories of punishment in country songs." LOL

I just want to add two things to this discussion. First, how does "These Boot Are Made for Walking" fit into your theory? Second, is there any way to get Tammy Wynette to knock some sense into Carrie Underwood?

(The proprietor of one of our local coffee/donut shops plays old tracks from the 60's and 70's. One of the songs you can often hear there is Stand By Your Man. Somehow I seem to manage to get something in my eye whenever I hear it.)

Posted by: AYY at June 1, 2007 11:51 AM


You wouldn't be the first person to analyze this song from a legal standpoint...

http://idolator.com/tunes/clips/the-idolawyer-is-carrie-underwood-above-the-law-249926.php

Posted by: Judy at June 2, 2007 04:04 PM


I've been happy with the comments this post ended up drawing. I've learned about a lot of music that deals with punishment theory. Now if only I wrote in criminal law. (I was thinking about your recent article as I wrote this post, Laura!)

I think now I'm going to forward this thread to Anders Kaye. Either that, or I can try to come up with some way to use it in Business Associations. "Okay, now suppose your shareholder got really mad at the Board member, and took a baseball bat to his car . . ."

Posted by: Kaimi at June 6, 2007 03:35 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Miriam Cherry
Mark Edwards
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Scott Moss
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo PeƱalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member