Naming and Shaming of Young Offenders to the persistent crimes

Question: What an Update on the Naming Prohibition Of young ? Answer: Introduction Naming and shaming of young offenders is a measure that is intended at making the offenders known to the public with the thinking that they will feel ashamed and stop committing their usual offenses. This proposed punitive change seeks to prevent offenses committed by young offenders. While the measure is practical, alone cannot provide a substantial solution to the persistent crimes. It must be supported with other actions to ensure conformance by this age group. In presenting this issue, the analysis will look at the consequences of the proposed punitive changes to the young offenders, the different jurisdictions that cover the issue and other relevant policies applicable to this move. Finally, the analysis will provide a detailed review of the demerits of the proposed change and the reason it should be other actions. Background Punitivism is a context where courts become increasingly used to curb crime (Chappell Lincoln 2007). This commonly happens when the society does not have many options to deal with the increased criminal activities. The magnitude and severity of the young criminals are accelerated by the social, economic and cultural conditions prevailing in a given country or economy. This is proved by a universal evidence of what is happening across the globe and in particular those districts with the declining economies and poor districts found in large cities. The committing of these crimes is usually spotted at different levels of each social structure including a whole society, social establishment, and social groups as well as other organizations. Because the evil is clearly linked with the trends in the society, it now emerges that punitive measures are not sustainable as factors that trigger the behavior still exist. Despite this, the government has a proposed punitive changes, "naming and s haming young offenders," to mitigate crimes. The political ideologies behind this move include fear of unstable society and the inability to deal with a large number of underage criminals if put sentenced to jail (Youth Justice Act 1992). There are two main rationales to the step being proposed, and these are responsibilisation where the government is imagining that the offenders if named and shamed will become responsible citizens and also managerialism where the political class feels that the activities of the group should be managed to ensure a stable and secure community. Analysis The idea behind naming and shaming of young offenders is because the law prohibits the courts from prosecuting the miners who are between 10 and 16 years. At this age, it is expected that the individuals needed to be guided and showed good morals and behaviors that integrate with the rest of the members of the society (Jodie, 2013). Worrying is the fact these crimes persist even though on the declining trend, new young offenders are still joining the group. For example, in between 2010 and 2011, the crimes declined as follows: homicide rate 56%, assault 10%, robbery 39%, and sexual assault 31% and drug abuse 1% (Crofts and Witzleb, 2011). The agenda of the change is to ensure that the crimes committed by the minor groups are completely wiped out. The three main pillars for naming and shaming are to make the offenders consider their behaviors, reduce recidivism and support by the victims (Chappell Lincoln, 2009). Despite the punitive measure, the young people are faced with the follo wing consequences: naming and shaming of the offenders lead to their stigmatization and thus negative impact in the long term. This affects their rehabilitation process potentially leading to a situation where recidivism is increased through stronger juvenile bonds in the criminal subcultures (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2008). The result is that the named and shamed person may end up considering himself a criminal and then become deviant to good behaviors. A good example of a national jurisdiction that has incorporated such change is the United Kingdom (Shelman Strang, 2007). With this law, unlike the case of Australia, naming and shaming follow a certain procedure. First and foremost, the case is identified, and if it is categorized as deviant, then the court rules that naming and shaming be done. This is different from Australia's case because it allows naming and shaming of deviant cases. Internationally, there is no clear law that has incorporated the naming and shaming of young offenders. Perhaps, it is because there are different underlying reasons for offenses committed by young offenders. The other relevant policy that is being applied to deal with crimes committed by underage offenders is the Youth Criminal Justice Act of 2002, of Canada. As opposed to naming and shaming and even punishing the youth who commit crimes, the society is encouraged to address developmental challenges and the needs of young people. Further, the Act also recognizes the need for the communities and families to partner in eliminating crimes and also rehabilitate the young offenders. In general, all interventions to youth crimes according to the Act must be fair and proportionate to the offense itself (Youth Criminal Justice Act 2003) Recommendations From the analysis, it is clear that the approach of naming and shaming is not adequate in solving the problem of crimes committed by young people. Apart from being a source of stigmatization it also deprives out the rights of individual offenders by publicly naming them. Based on the evidence from the Canadian case, it is recommended that holistically, the government should consider both the interests of the victims and the offenders. Most probably, there could be some societal and developmental issues such as poor living standards. In so doing, the government should consider charging all offenses proportionately, promoting rehabilitation points and refereeing the deviant offenders to other programs that can address the factors underlying their behavior. Conclusion This article has clearly analyzed the punitive approach of naming and shaming of young offenders as applied the government. Evidence show that its not adequate and therefore, recommending the use of a more elaborate approach that addresses the needs of the offenders before punishing or charging them. References Australian Law Reform Commission 2008, Particular Privacy Issues Affecting Children and Young People Identification in criminal matters and court records,' Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108) (Vol.3) at 2321 published at https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/report-108 (2 April 2013) Chappell, D Lincoln, R 2007 'Abandoning Identity Protection for Juvenile Offenders' Current Issues in Criminal Justice vol 18 no 3 pp 481-487 Chappell, D Lincoln, R 2009, 'Shhh ... we can't tell you: an update on the naming prohibition of young offenders' Vol. 20 (3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 476-484. Crofts, T and Witzleb, N 2011 "Naming and shaming" in Western Australia: Prohibited behavior orders, publicity, and decline of youth anonymity' Vol. 35 Criminal Law Journal 34 at 34 Jodie, O 2013, Naming young offenders: Implications for research for reform, Criminal Law Journal, 37 Crim LJ 377, Thom