Framing someone for dealing heroin is criminal and morally terrible. The guy's certainly paying and going to prison for it, and for his other crimes. This is justice doing its job.

The question that I'm trying to ask is whether public shaming, especially to such a large audience, is really a civilized response. The consequences are also devastating, and reduce the possibilities of getting a second chance at life, something that I strongly believe in.

> whether public shaming, especially to such a large audience, is really a civilized response.

This concept is also often referred to by it's more common name: "journalism"

I've been pondering this distinction lately. We recognize that doxxing, etc. are Definitely Bad Things but that's exactly what journalists have always done.

It's a matter of degree and intent, of course, but there's an awfully blurry line in-between.

The difference between "doxxing" and "journalism" can indeed get blurry every once and awhile[0], but it's usually not that hard to figure out.

Journalism is newsworthy and has the intention of informing people in the public interest, doxxing is typically not newsworthy or in the public interest and has the intention of harassment or intimidation.

[0] http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/gawker-slammed-for-story-out...

The real world isn't Reddit. There is no "no-doxxing" rule in reality.

Pierre isn't complaining that a "rule" has been broken. He's asking about the future benefit or harm to society caused by the public shaming.

If 'Fly' isn't going to be put to death (I don't think you are arguing for that?), there's a likelihood that someday he will emerge from jail and be expected to re-enter society. Pierre's question is whether the treatment of 'Fly' now puts the world in a better or worse position at that future point.

I think it's a legitimate concern, although I think the 'public shaming' is going to have much less impact than the years spent in foreign jail living only among other criminals. It doesn't strike me as likely that he will be in a position to re-enter society having seen the flaws of his ways.

If he's going to successfully re-enter society, one would imagine he would have to actually be ashamed of what he's done.

It's not like the prosecution would've been secret if only Krebs had kept his mouth shut. The indictment and eventual verdict are public, and probably Google-able. It will show up in criminal records searches, just like it would for anyone else who had been at the sharp end of the justice system.

At worst Krebs raised the guy's profile a bit. But when he gets out of prison in 20 or 30 years it won't make much difference.

Public shaming this isn't some naughty child in a cute 50's Norman Rockwell painting

More than likely it's pour encourager les autres.

After all, they messed with his family by sending the flower arrangement to his door. A public warning not to mess with him would seem to be appropriate.