Does naming and shaming really work?

[martinbalmer]

Originally I think I would have said yes but, as backed up by this article, I'm more inclined to say no.

Because to be honest those who are likely to feel shame by being named would probably not commit the crime in the first place. Or if they did, simply being caught, or the risk there of, would be enough punishment to stop them doing it again.

I can well imagine that, for some, being named would be received with delight.

Of course, everyone is different and there are exceptions, such as paedophiles, where I wouldn't really like to say if it were a deterrent or not. Since that, in a way, is probably more like an addiction or illness.

[Dave B]

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.

[SEATFreak]

Not in the case of Paeodophiles because we all saw about 2-3 years ago the effects of outing known paedophiles. The so-called crime fighting public as they probably like to be percieved as simply fail to tell the simple difference between a paedeophile and a paedeotrician.

But on the Nexus ran Tyne & Wear Metro system here in the northeast, slapping images of known fare dodgers has, it seems, played a part in the reduction of the crime.

[Daniel]

I think in the example of paedophiles it's counterproductive. Who's going to do the honest thing if being in contact with the police and doing the right thing means going through more pain? At least if you know where a paedophile is they can be monitored and given help/support.

[Knock-on]

I'm very uneasy with the whole subject.

The great unwashed need protecting from themselves as the ability for these people to use rational judgement just does not exist. If a paeodophiles address is published, they will be in imminent and mortal danger. This is not justice, this is mob rule.

However, I am equally uncomfortable with the services and methods in place to monitor people that put not just Children but the population in general, at risk.

As for driving paedophiles underground, they're pretty covert as it is.

[BDunnell]

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.

I agree with every word of that. I thought it was disgraceful a few years ago when a Government minister described the News of the World paedophile campaign as 'public-spirited'.

I would also add that this idea to 'name and shame' fathers who don't pay their child support is stupid, in my opinion.

[jim mcglinchey]

Re Paedos, Im continually shocked by the scheming and the dedication to their perversion of these sickos, A prison sentence is not a cure and I would nt put great store in police monitoring, so I would not criticise any group of adults for going round to the residence of a known paedo and giving him the message.

[Hazell B]

Re Paedos .... I would not criticise any group of adults for going round to the residence of a known paedo and giving him the message.

That's the problem, they already know that they're not seen as sweetness and light. They're fully aware of the message.

You'd probably got nuts if your name was mistakenly passed about as a pervert and you home smashed up. You be scared pooless if one lived next door and his home attacked by a News of the World 'reading' mob.

As for name and shame in most cases, such as fine dodging, road tax evasion, drink driving and so on, I like the idea. It will shame many of them. For more serious cases, I just don't know. Local papers name those found guilty of drug dealing and so on each week, yet it appears to make no dent in the drug problem. They recently named a shot gun licence dodger here in my home town and he got so badly laughed at in the pub he'll never keep guns again. He rang me deflated at the way his mates had torn into him just for forgetting to renew the licence and being lazy when the police rang to remind him. I didn't have any symapthy either, to be honest.

[Dave B]

I would nt put great store in police monitoring, so I would not criticise any group of adults for going round to the residence of a known paedo and giving him the message.

And of course the papers never get things wrong, do they? I mean, heaven forbid that a Sunday rag were to invent a story about, say, Victoria Beckham being a kidnap target; or to cause the trial of a terrorist suspect to be thrown out of court for publishing sub judace information.

Good lord, I wouldn't even trust the News of the World to get the date right, let alone to be accurate when it comes to listing convicted criminals.

Let's be perfectly clear: paedophiles are an emotive subject, and while I do understand why some people would be outraged that one is living close to their kids' schools, encouraging a lynch-mob mentality is not the correct way of dealing with the issue.

[Hazell B]

.... encouraging a lynch-mob mentality is not the correct way of dealing with the issue.

True.

But wouldn't a lynch mob simply encourage itself and just materialise should any source publish names and addresses? That's why I've never managed to work out who should and shouldn't know.

Police should, of course. But who else? Any possible employer or just certain ones? School boards, or just one person overseeing all the schools in an area? Doctors? Library workers who may allow internet access? In that case, why not internet cafe owners and their staff?

In the end, the whole world will know if you cover all bases. That would lead to lynch mobs all over again.

I can't see a reasonable way to sort this mess out frankly.
Unless we just start shooting either them or us, of course :