Should Under 18s be named and shamed?

[HBK-aholic]

There has been a scary rise in crimes commited by Under 18s in the last decade, and various measures put in place only seem to further the offenders e.g. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are worn as a badge of honour, as opposed to the shame they should bring.

Usually, confidentiality is kept for these Youths - making it impossible to see who the offenders are. However, many newspapers have taken to 'naming and shaming' them, as well as judges agreeing this is a good thing. What do you think? Should Under 18s me named and shamed, or do they deserve confidentiality?

Credit idea - Luther_Hull

 

[Lee]

Three young men were today arrested in connection with the murder of Jemma Smith age 23. John Jones and James Avison, both ages 18 were seen in the area. CCTV footage, as well as numerous witness say the murder was carried out by a third young man, aged 17, who can not be named for legal purposes.

This is obviously an example of a story that Ive just made up, but if someone is found guilty of a crime, then they should be named and shamed, simple as. What is more important...protecting the criminal, or is it protecting the innocents who should be warned to avoid this individual?

Lee is for naming and shaming under 18 year olds.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I'm torn on this. While if somebody does a violent crime or something they should get punished. But by naming these kids/teens who may have made a mistake could cost them the rest of their lives. The stigma attached to them may make it hard for them to come out on top. It's also basically labeling these children criminals and this is the way they will be looked at. And if your constantly being called a criminal or the presumption is there it might just lead you to believe it and cause more crimes.

But on the other hand if you don't release their name(or a pic) it could jeopardize the publics safety. If it's a violent teen and nobody is warned about him it could be harmful to the public. They have the right to protected and know if their is a risk in their neighborhood. But then it goes back to the rights of the children to be protected and so on. I say they should release names but I guess it depends on the situation, risk factor, and what the crime was.

 

[Sparky]

No they shouldn't. They deserve the Confidentialality. Why? Because 9/10 Teenagers do something stupid. that they regret later on in life. and why should something they did while being kids should they have the rest of their lives fucked? They deserve to be able to go for a job interview and NOT have the boss saying, Oh you broke into a highschool?.

Of course with that being said, if it was something Major like murder, rape or Armed robbery they should. but not something where they was just being idiotic.

 

[HBK-aholic]

No they shouldn't. They deserve the Confidentialality. Why? Because 9/10 Teenagers do something stupid. that they regret later on in life. and why should something they did while being kids should they have the rest of their lives fucked? They deserve to be able to go for a job interview and NOT have the boss saying, Oh you broke into a highschool?.

Of course with that being said, if it was something Major like murder, rape or Armed robbery they should. but not something where they was just being idiotic.

Well I'm pretty sure a perspective empolyer would be able to see your criminal record anyway, as they have a right to ask for any information like that.

9/10 teenagers don't do something stupid enough to warrant a criminal record, I haven't, and none of my friends have. The way you phrase it is as if it's something small and insignificant, but if you ask the people, especially elderly, who have been terrorised by these youngsters and their anti-social behaviour, it's actually a huge deal, and I think they should be shamed for it.

 

[Leeds Guy]

i think they should be named and shamed, but would they really be shamed? i could see this being about as useful as an ASBO. Idiot kids could go around beating elderly people just to get their name in the paper. If they murder or rape someone they should be given a life sentence for it and i mean a propper life sentence, they go in at 18 and they dont come out till they have died. Plus i dont really see the point in not naming them as they do it with the older criminals

 

[OIL]

Yeah name them. Why are they any different? I mean, they commited the crime. If they can't handle the pressure that comes with it then what the fuck are they doing commiting the crime? If they think they're 'ard enough to get away with it, when they get caught being named as a dirty criminal shouldn't fuss them, right? Plus, it let's everyone else know who the criminals are in the area, and who to watch out for. It's for our protection mostly.

 

[The Rob]

It depends on the crime in my view. If the crime is serious enough (ie/ Murder, Man-slaughter, Rape, Sexual Abuse) than yes, the criminal should be named and shamed. Everyone should know that this certain indivdual has done this serious offense. I believe this for a number of reasons:

1) To shame them. Shaming them by having the whole country realise just how much of a scumbag that person is is right.

2) For the safety of others. Would you rather know who the criminal is or not at all, espesically if you live in the local area.

 

[RVDgurl]

I've worked in this field for nearly 8 years. The ins-and-outs of this topic are different where ever you go. I live in Pennsylvania so I can only speak of the laws here. Any person under the age of 18 that is Adjudicated (the juvenile word for convicted) of any crime is given a permenant criminal record. That means if a 14 year old is adjudicated on a Burglary, that will show up on a criminal background check for the rest of their lives.
Also in PA, any felony hearing for a juvenile is technically open to the public. However, these trials are publicized, so I'm not sure how the general public would find out when and where to go.

Regardless, I have mixed feelings about what little confidentiality is left in the world of juvenile delinquency. I think that the safety of the community needs to come first, but these kids are also just kids. And they deserve a chance or two, or even three to make something of themselves. Many of these kids grow up in homes that most of us can't even imagine. Not to say that all people who come from bad homes commit crimes, because they don't. I'm saying that it is much easier to sit on the outside looking in and criticize. Kids get caught up in crime for a variety of reasons and the only way that is going to change is to find out why.

Naming and shaming juvenile delinquents is not going to change anything. There are 15 years who are already involved in the adult criminal justice system whose names and information are put out there in the papers and on the news. And these are the kids most likely to re-offend.