name and shame

[Tom Cornwall]

I wonder if anyone thinks as I do, that if someone is old enough to do a crime, then they are old enought to be named.
In a village near where I live, two youths ruined the work of months by dedicated volunteers, by wrecking the flower beds in the village. This had cost a lot of time, effort and money which had been raised from the local people. Apparently they can't be named because 'they are too young'.
I think that this gives out the wrong signals to other kids who may be tempted.

[connieb19]

It's a disgrace, a lot of kids (and parents) play on this. How about parents who are getting the kids to commit the crime because they know that if they are caught nothing will be done.[disgust]

[George Brims]

If it's a village, everyone will know who did it anyway. At least that's how it works in Caithness villages!

[connieb19]

If it's a village, everyone will know who did it anyway. At least that's how it works in Caithness villages!And what they don't know, they'll make up anyway. :roll: adding on about 20 arms and legs.

[sam]

And what they don't know, they'll make up anyway. :roll: adding on about 20 arms and legs.

and dont forget the boots and gloves lol;)

[Whitewater]

I think that if they are old enough to commit the crime, or do the vandalism, they shouild be named. As has already been said on other threads the childrens panel is virtually useless, and the children know this, they also know that they can't be touched by any adult no matter what they are doing. There are many youngsters that are well aware of the law, and they use it to get away with whatever they fancy doing.

[rockchick]

I have to admit I agree to "name and shame" with respect to repeat offenders, but I would make an exception for the first offence. Everyone is entitled to one mistake, one "learning experience" if you like, without the entire community knowing about it. Gives the parents a chance to do their job, and a kid a chance to learn the shame that should come with getting caught. Sadly, if the parents don't back up the police and the legal system (cuz little johnny could NEVER do anything wrong....!) then the kid won't learn anything and the whole community will have to suffer until they're old enough to be busted for real.

[j4bberw0ck]

If they'd been my kids, I'd be standing over them while they made good the damage they did - costs to be deducted from future pocket money. Trouble these days is you don't know whether that makes you a bad parent oppressing their child, or a person concerned with the community who takes their responsibilities seriously....... :roll:

btw - rockchick, I agree 100%. Well said.

[Rheghead]

I wonder if anyone thinks as I do, that if someone is old enough to do a crime, then they are old enought to be named.
In a village near where I live, two youths ruined the work of months by dedicated volunteers, by wrecking the flower beds in the village. This had cost a lot of time, effort and money which had been raised from the local people. Apparently they can't be named because 'they are too young'.
I think that this gives out the wrong signals to other kids who may be tempted.

Well I disagree. IMHO a crime is only committed if the physical appearance of a crime marries up with the existance of mens rea or the criminal intention to commit a crime. Frankly, kids can be too young to know that they have actually committed a crime, it is a grey area and it depends on the individual mental age of the kid. The Law in response to this phenomena is a blunt instrument with the existance of an arbitrary age limit, but there is no denying that exceptions to any blunt rule will be filtered through as the generalisation rather than what they are by the media.

[Lolabelle]

If they'd been my kids, I'd be standing over them while they made good the damage they did - costs to be deducted from future pocket money. Trouble these days is you don't know whether that makes you a bad parent oppressing their child, or a person concerned with the community who takes their responsibilities seriously....... :roll:

btw - rockchick, I agree 100%. Well said.

I think that if the parents made the kids responsible for their actions they might have a chance of learning something. They should be made to fix the damage that they had done, and then they might start to appreciate things.
Diminished responsibility has a lot to answer for, and parents do too, if they don't make their children be responsible for their actions.

[Ricco]

My parents' opinion was that if I did something wrong (and they taught us what was considered right and wrong from a young age) then we had to face the consequences. Pocket money was stopped until the bill was paid, I used to get a hiding from Dad (and no, it didn't ruin my development because it wasn't abuse, it was punishment) and, where relevent, I had to make good.

We live in a society that is too protective of the criminal and ignores the victim. If someone has destroyed beautiful flowerbeds that people spent a lot of time and money over, of course they know they have done wrong. If you are smashing up something that is not yours, do you think it is part of your playtime?

I must disagree with Rheghead on this one - and I don't disagree with him very often. I often see people eating or drinking goods in the supermarket and then leaving the empty packaging on a shelf. Of course they know they are doing wrong - they just don't give a monkey's. It is this 'couldn't give a whatsit' attitude that has got to be reversed. Yesterday, in town, I witnessed a mother and two teenage boys coming out of a lift in a dept. store when a woman with a pram and lots of bags was waiting to go in. Did they hold the door? Nope - they just laughed when the door closed before the woman could get in. They then continued talking and laughing about this woman's misfortune. I'm sorry, but I think that this attitude is unacceptable.

[golach]

We live in a society that is too protective of the criminal and ignores the victim. If someone has destroyed beautiful flowerbeds that people spent a lot of time and money over, of course they know they have done wrong. If you are smashing up something that is not yours, do you think it is part of your playtime?
I must disagree with Rheghead on this one - and I don't disagree with him very often. I often see people eating or drinking goods in the supermarket and then leaving the empty packaging on a shelf. Of course they know they are doing wrong - they just don't give a monkey's. It is this 'couldn't give a whatsit' attitude that has got to be reversed. Yesterday, in town, I witnessed a mother and two teenage boys coming out of a lift in a dept. store when a woman with a pram and lots of bags was waiting to go in. Did they hold the door? Nope - they just laughed when the door closed before the woman could get in. They then continued talking and laughing about this woman's misfortune. I'm sorry, but I think that this attitude is unacceptable.
Ricco, I am with you on this one, sorry Rheg I disagree with your opinion, it is this society we have created, we who grew up during and after WW2, have to take some responsibility for this society, we did not have a lot, so when we became parents we, (as good parents do) tried to make sure our children did not have to go through life as underprivilaged as we did. The consumer society was on us, so gave our kids all we could. Now that has rebounded, and there are those today, who behave as if it is their right to do as they wish regardless of cost, or thought of who does it belong too? In some cases life or property means nothing to them. Its a sad reflection on us as parents and mentors. Spare the rod, has cost this society dearly

[Lucy]

Since it is the paretents/carers who are responisble for the children why don't they name & shame them if the children are too young. this may remind the parents/carers to keep a closer eye on what the youngsters are up to. Apparently if your children are in full time education then you are financially responsible for them until the age of 25years. This means since the parents are responsible why can't we make the parents pay for the damage done?

[katarina]

I agree with lucy.

[rockchick]

What's wrong with naming and shaming for little kids is that the punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Is an eight-year-old going to care that their name is in the Groat? No, they'd probably boast about it...but they wouldn't boast about having to lose their playtime going back and fixing up Mrs. Sutherland's (and I've just pulled that name out of a hat) gardens that they ripped up.

My parents would never have let me get away without making restitution or amends for something I'd done wrong. Sometimes having to look someone in the eye and say "sorry, I did this" is more punishment than anything the police force can come up with.

[Yvonne]

Ricco, I am with you on this one, sorry Rheg I disagree with your opinion, it is this society we have created, we who grew up during and after WW2, have to take some responsibility for this society, we did not have a lot, so when we became parents we, (as good parents do) tried to make sure our children did not have to go through life as underprivilaged as we did. The consumer society was on us, so gave our kids all we could. Now that has rebounded, and there are those today, who behave as if it is their right to do as they wish regardless of cost, or thought of who does it belong too? In some cases life or property means nothing to them. Its a sad reflection on us as parents and mentors. Spare the rod, has cost this society dearly

Entirely agree with Ricco and Golach, there are consequences to everything. Self justification for doing wrong to others is a way of not facing reality. The perpetrators live with a false sense of security and can actually conceive in their twisted minds that they are the hard done by victims! I know this because we have lived it. People who have little or no regard for others very seldom change and continue on throughout their lives repeating the same old pattern. It is a sad, but true fact. The old adage "Birds of a feather flock together" mentality still exists.

[percy toboggan]

I wonder if anyone thinks as I do, that if someone is old enough to do a crime, then they are old enought to be named.
In a village near where I live, two youths ruined the work of months by dedicated volunteers, by wrecking the flower beds in the village. This had cost a lot of time, effort and money which had been raised from the local people. Apparently they can't be named because 'they are too young'.
I think that this gives out the wrong signals to other kids who may be tempted.

Old enough to be named?
I think they are old enough to be placed in village stocks and humilated for half an hour. They would be left in no doubt they had done wrong. Where are they now? In a never never land of no consequences except a telling off. I hope one of the kids of the 'dedicated' volunteers duffs 'em up to be honest. It's no more than they deserve.

[squidge]

isnt this a case where The youngsters dont need to be named to all and sundry but their punishment should reflect the crime - that is that these boys should be made to replant and work with the volunteers to repair the damage they have done. They will be known to the people they have wronged without their names being bandied about in some newpaper for tittle tattle. they will have to face up to and deal with what they did and surely this is a time where community service could be used to good effect.

[changilass]

Well I disagree. IMHO a crime is only committed if the physical appearance of a crime marries up with the existance of mens rea or the criminal intention to commit a crime. Frankly, kids can be too young to know that they have actually committed a crime, it is a grey area and it depends on the individual mental age of the kid. The Law in response to this phenomena is a blunt instrument with the existance of an arbitrary age limit, but there is no denying that exceptions to any blunt rule will be filtered through as the generalisation rather than what they are by the media.

Sorry Rheghead, but I totally disagree, kids know from a very early age when they are doing wrong, even a 2 yr old will test boundries.

If kids are allowed to do what they want without boundries being set, then that is what they will do.

Learning is much easier the younger you are, if boundries are set at an early age then children will behave better as they age.

If it were my kids they would be made to appologise and make right what they did wrong, if this involved the general public finding out what they had done then so be it.

Its about time the do gooders stood down and allowed folk to take responsibility for their own actions, I am heartily fed up with folk coming up with pathetic excuses for their bad behaviour.

[sjwahwah]

I have to admit I agree to "name and shame" with respect to repeat offenders, but I would make an exception for the first offence. Everyone is entitled to one mistake, one "learning experience" if you like, without the entire community knowing about it. Gives the parents a chance to do their job, and a kid a chance to learn the shame that should come with getting caught. Sadly, if the parents don't back up the police and the legal system (cuz little johnny could NEVER do anything wrong....!) then the kid won't learn anything and the whole community will have to suffer until they're old enough to be busted for real.

I totally agree with you rockchick!

[jings00]

Old enough to be named?
I think they are old enough to be placed in village stocks and humilated for half an hour. They would be left in no doubt they had done wrong. Where are they now? In a never never land of no consequences except a telling off. I hope one of the kids of the 'dedicated' volunteers duffs 'em up to be honest. It's no more than they deserve.

tend to agree wi ya percy t.

[nicnak]

I have to agree with you whole heartedly Tom but unfortunately more often than not even naming these people would not bring them to feel any shame, life is such that some people are utterly shameless.

[golach]

Its about time the do gooders stood down and allowed folk to take responsibility for their own actions, I am heartily fed up with folk coming up with pathetic excuses for their bad behaviour.
Changi I am in full agreement here, I have said before on this web site that it was the worst day in Scotland for discipline when they banned the belt at school.
I am not advocating that the belt needed to be used every day, but the threat of it kept me in line, also my Dad just had to reach for his, and he had instant obediance, he very rarely used it, the threat was enough.
Do gooders GET a grip of life, let responsable parents get on with it.
A clip along the lug never did me any harm:mad:

[squidge]

I dont agree Golach. I have smacked my boys throughout their chidhoods and i believe that a smack is an acceptable way to discipline a child in the context of a loving and caring family. I would not be happy for my children to be strapped at school. I went to a school where the belt was used - much the same as yourself - but I think that too many teachers used it to take out their own frustrations and there was a lack of consistency and a tendency to target students who the teachers didnt particularly like. None of that is acceptable. I also dont agree with using any sort of implement to hit a child with.

I also think that making the children in this particular case face up to what they did and work with those volunteers that had put all the work in to start with is a suitable way of making htem face their responsibilities. A far better way than to have their names spread over the top of the Daily record for the gratification of all the "i'm so much better than you " gossips

[golach]

I dont agree Golach. I have smacked my boys throughout their chidhoods and i believe that a smack is an acceptable way to discipline a child in the context of a loving and caring family. I would not be happy for my children to be strapped at school. I went to a school where the belt was used - much the same as yourself - but I think that too many teachers used it to take out their own frustrations and there was a lack of consistency and a tendency to target students who the teachers didnt particularly like. None of that is acceptable. I also dont agree with using any sort of implement to hit a child with.

I also think that making the children in this particular case face up to what they did and work with those volunteers that had put all the work in to start with is a suitable way of making htem face their responsibilities. A far better way than to have their names spread over the top of the Daily record for the gratification of all the "i'm so much better than you " gossips
Squidge we have had this disscussion many times before, we will just have to agree to disagree :~(

[saxovtr]

if people are in the local paper for example:speeding,they are named so i dont see why every1 cant be named for breaing the law,but off course thats to much like sense!