Jump to content

Should The Guilty Always Be Named In The Paper?


studmuffin

Recommended Posts

It comes down to crime prevention - I think they should also print a photo of the guilty party - people may think twice about what they do - also I've never understood when a victim is named - where's the benefit in that?

 

And what sort of crimes are we talking about here? All crimes??

 

The idea that peoples names SHOULD be printed in the papers can only be desired by those with a foolish sense of self-righteousness and sanctimony. People who commit crimes are already or apparently given justice in the forms of custodial sentences and fines. What purposes does printing names in the paper serve? To humiliate people? What is the need to humiliate them when they have already been given a punishment?

 

Dont forget also that putting someone in jail is not just a punishment but its hoped to rehabilitate as well,You have to think a little bit past the offence itself.

 

I think you make a good point about the use of sentencing as being a punishment already, but prisons do not rehabilitate. How much re-offending goes on already?

 

I believe your intentions are right with the kids in the playground knowing etc but these people should not be hidden with an invisible cloak on offences like this.

 

Everyone seems to be whittering on about victims and going crazy at the thought of protecting the wrongdoer as opposed to the victim, but it we don't live in an 'us' and 'them' society. That person was pissed behind the wheel, they got caught, there was no victim in this case. This person may be an alcoholic, they have an addiction and a very serious problem. They made a big mistake. But given the Island is somewhere famour for gossip and everyone knows one another how long will the stigma of shame have to hang on this person if they are named and shamed?

 

I was under the impression that the only reason why most crimes (and most are trivial things such as people getting caught with weed or alcohol stolen from a supermarket) were printed in the Manx papers was to fill space. Not much happens there. And the media is never given to morals and conscience so although I think it would be better if names are not published, it isn't going to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

One of the truest things that was ever said to me ,was-----

 

"You've always got a choice" If someone gets behind the wheel of a car whilst under the influence,or chooses to steal something , they have made that choice and therefore must be prepared to take the consequences of their actions whatever they may be .

 

By all means name them but I think photos are a step too far for minor offences ! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know about anyone else but my name isnt unuiqe or any of my childrens names either.

Indeed.

 

I've always been skeptical of the 'harsh deterrant' approach to crime, most of which seems to be based on the erroneous assumption that there was less crime when punishments were perceivably harder (the birch, death, transportation, national service). It is a sad reflection of anyone on here if the reason they don't commit crimes is that they don't think its worth the risk.

 

If you name and shame through the media, that is effectively removing the judging and punishment or crime from the judicary, and tossing it into the public arena - which is frankly a few steps from mob rule.

 

To say the people that drink and drive, especially to a school of all places, have made a serious error of judgement would be a huge understatement, but is the social shunning of their peers, neighbours, co-workers, family and community likely to encourage more or less responsible behaviour? In my opinion, someone who probably already has an issue with alcohol, as suggested by day-time consumption, is likely to slip into heavier drinking.

 

For me, 'naming and shaming' (a phrase obviously tabloid in origin as it alliterates) is the sad admission by a society that it can't think of anything to effectively deal with those particular criminals, so they make them social pariahs and stand haughtily over the condemned's attempts at redemption. I mean, why do you even need that information? Do spit on them in the street? Refuse to serve them in your shop? So you know when to hurry your children past whilst saying 'don't look at them?'

 

Sex offenders, however, are a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, why do you even need that information? Do spit on them in the street? Refuse to serve them in your shop? So you know when to hurry your children past whilst saying 'don't look at them?'

 

Sex offenders, however, are a different matter.

 

How so?

 

What would you do with that information.

 

Lock your wife / girlfriend up just in case?

 

I think people might want to know who is likely to burgle them, beat them up, rob them, con them, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't the guilty be named? The innocent often are, as in "Mr ***** has been charged with rape/incecent assault/assault/theft etc, before the case has even got to court. If they are cleared it's too late, the names are out and people connect that fact with guilt. There is a case for the accusers name to be published also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why shouldn't the guilty be named? The innocent often are, as in "Mr ***** has been charged with rape/incecent assault/assault/theft etc, before the case has even got to court. If they are cleared it's too late, the names are out and people connect that fact with guilt. There is a case for the accusers name to be published also.

 

We're not talking about people yet to be convicted. That's a different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...