Does naming and shaming really work?

[Daniel]

I think the police should know and that's that. I don't know what the process is with schools but I should think if a convicted offender applies for a job and gets checked then the school doesn't actually get told of his/her record and they are only told that the person is unsuitable for the job. Of course you'd be an idiot to apply for a job at a school with a record of child sex offences but I guess if you've got a problem you might not be able to resist the urge?

As horrible as the crimes are that this gentleman committed are he still has a right to live somewhere and as far as I know this country doesn't have child free zones where child sex offenders can live and not be living near children. I can't say I'd be overjoyed to have a child sex offender living near me if I was a parent but I would have the brains to understand why you can't tell every parent in the area. The fact that they tried to break down his front door says it all. If I was him and I got rehoused somewhere else I would simply disappear off never to be seen again because I'm too scared of this happening again. Encouraging that mentality in child sex offenders is a dangerous thing and if this guy reoffends it should be these morons who were outside his house who should be on trial.

[courageous]

3 problems with name & shame (both already mentioned, but just to back it up):

1. To avoid the risk of having themselves killed by a lynch mob (or by 1 random nut who firebombs their house), Paedophiles will try and disapear totally - I'd rather have the police know where they are.

2. People are stupid! There is more than one John Smith in the UK & there are plenty of 45 year old, slightly balding, slightly overweight men with a large nose who are a bit of an outsider - Try explaining that to Mr. & Mrs. News of the World lifetime subscriber.

3. Typos are a fact of life - without slagging off the press, anyone can make a mistake & type the wrong name or put the wrong picture next to a story (a local firefighter being awarded a medal for bravery & a story about a rapist in the same paper is not hard to imagine - all it would take is a slip of the finger to swap the pictures).

[Ian McC]

Do you know what? I was about to start a thread about this, but in relation to the lynch mob who attacked the home of a paedophile after he was named in Sunday's News Of The World.

Let's be clear about this: the paper didn't act out of any desire to help protect the community. If that was their motive, they would have taken their concerns to the police or to social services.

No, they simply wanted to attract publicity and to sell newspapers, and their actions have now resulted in thousands of pounds' of taxpayers' money being spent rehoming this man.

Nobody is for one second excusing paedophilia, of course, and there's a whole seperate debate about whether sentencing is stringent enough or whether offenders should be allowed to live near schools.

But this man had been judged, rightly or wrongly, to have served his time; and was being monitored by the police. If paedophiles start to worry that their details will be published, then they'll disappear underground.

The overwhelming majority abide by the terms of their release, but in US states where "Megan's Law" exists that figure is only just over 50%. By pushing for a similar law in this country, and by such irresponsible actions as this weekend's, the News Of The World is pandering to the baying lynch mobs and doing more harm than good.

Now, to answer your original point: not entirely. Too many kids treat ASBOs as a badge of honour rather than something to be ashamed of. Getting their picture in the local paper is just a logical next step on their somewhat warped vision of fame.

But I guess it works for a certain percentage of cases, so it's probably better than doing nothing at all.

Good post Dave

Really depends on who you are naming and shaming, tabloid 'crusades' are never the answer.

[Bulldog#1]

to name and shame would be better than doing nothing

[LotusElise]

"Naming and shaming", such a horrible New Labour phrase. I'm trying to think of another way of putting it.
In terms of minor offences like train-hopping and forgetting to renew your shotgun licence, publishing people's names and pictures is probably enough to embarrass them into behaving in a good number of cases. However, serious offences are another matter. If someone is determined enough to do something really abhorrent, then they are just going to hide better when the papers come out, aren't they?