| ▲ | spacebanana7 3 hours ago |
| The names of minors should never be released in public (with a handful of exceptions). But why shouldn't a 19 year old shoplifter have that on their public record? Would you prevent newspapers from reporting on it, or stop users posting about it on public forums? |
|
| ▲ | criddell 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Would you want the first thing to show up after somebody googles your name to be an accusation for improper conduct around a child? In theory, people could dig deeper and find out you won in court and were acquitted, but people here should know that nobody ever reads the article... |
| |
| ▲ | spacebanana7 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you were hiring a childminder for your kids, would you want to know that they had 6 accusations for improper conduct around children in 6 different court cases - even if those were all acquittals? | | |
| ▲ | JadeNB 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | As a parent, I would want to know everything about anyone who's going to be around my children in any capacity. That doesn't mean I have a right to it, though. |
| |
| ▲ | rjsw 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The UK has an official system [1] for checking whether people should be allowed to work with vulnerable people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_and_Barring_Service | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it was reported in a newspaper then that would likely already be the case. |
|
|
| ▲ | newsclues 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you prohibit the punishment of minors, you create an incentive for criminals to exploit minors. Why are we protecting criminals, just because they are minors? Protect victims, not criminals. Unfortunately reputational damage is part of the punishment (I have a criminal record), but maybe it's moronic to create a class of people who can avoid meaningful punishment for crimes? |
| |
| ▲ | londons_explore 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you prohibit the punishment of minors, you create an incentive for criminals to exploit minors. This - nearly all drug deliveries in my town are done by 15 years olds on overpowered electric bikes. Same with most shoplifting. The real criminals just recruit the schoolchildren to do the work because they know schoolchildren rarely get punishment. | |
| ▲ | tyre 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We protect minors because they are children, and they are allowed to make mistakes. At a certain point, we say someone is an adult and fully responsible for their actions, because “that’s who they are”. It’s not entirely nuanced—and in the US, at least, we charge children as adults all the time—but it’s understandable. | | |
| ▲ | newsclues 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But you create an incentive for organized crime to recruit youth to commit crimes and not have to suffer the consequences. At a certain point, poorly thought out "protections", turn into a system that protects organized crime, because criminals aren't as stupid as lawmakers, and exploit the system. There is a big difference between making a mistake as a kid that lands you in trouble, and working as a underling for organized crime to commit robberies, drug deals, and violent crime, and not having to face responsibility for their actions. The legal system has so many loopholes for youth, for certain groups, that the law is no longer fair, and that is its own problem, contributing to the decline of public trust. | | |
| ▲ | ahtihn an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > working as a underling for organized crime to commit robberies, drug deals, and violent crime Have you ever considered that these children are victims of organized crime? That they aren't capable of understanding the consequences of what they're doing and that they're being manipulated by adult criminals? The problem here isn't the lack of long term consequences for kids. | |
| ▲ | ryandrake an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's the alternative? A 14 year old steals a pack of gum, and he's listed as a shoplifter for the rest of his life? Just because exceptions are exploitable, doesn't mean we should just scrap all the exceptions. Why not improve the wording and try to work around the exceptions? | | |
| ▲ | Fogest 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you don't think this crime is a big deal, then why do you think this crime would matter if it was in the public record tied to their name? These two ideas you have are not compatible. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JadeNB 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why are we protecting criminals, just because they are minors? Protect victims, not criminals. Protect victims and criminals. Protect victims from the harm done to them by criminals, but also protect criminals from excessive, or, as one might say, cruel and unusual punishment. Just because someone has a criminal record doesn't mean that anything that is done to them is fair game. Society can, and should, decide on an appropriate extent of punishment, and not exceed that. |
|
|
| ▲ | tchalla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Would you prevent newspapers from reporting on it, or stop users posting about it on public forums? Yes |
| |
| ▲ | alberto467 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is the UK we're talking about after all... | | |
| ▲ | pelorat 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Most media in Europe are required to ambiguate names of criminals. For instance by removing the first name or the last name. | |
| ▲ | niels8472 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where the accused have rights too? | | |
| ▲ | alberto467 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Where the journalists have very little rights, and people posting their bad (wrong) ideas (think) even less so. |
|
|
|
