The " Name " games !

Under the present laws, any citizen is entitled to change their name legally by deed poll.  That is about to change.

Legislation is proposed to close this option for serious offenders in New South Wales.   Those found guilty of the higher range of sexual crimes - such as multiple rape and the murder of children - will have their names on a list held by the registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages - and be prevented from adopting a new name.

This legislation was prompted by a child killer who hid his past by making a name change, and was subsequently found living with a woman and her two children, in contravention of the terms of his  release on parole.   Part of this new legislation will also limit the number of times any citizen can make a name change by deed poll - to just three in their entire lifetime.

Obviously, the intention is good, but there will be unintended problems.

When a notorious offender has served his or her sentence it is the responsibility of the parole people to manage their release and settle them back in the community.   The release of any serious offender attracts media interest and the trial and sentence usually receives wide publicity, including photographs.   The period of incarceration helps to age that face profile, but a notorious name sticks in people's memory.

We have been plagued by vigilante action in the past, resulting in such people being hounded out of the accommodation approved by the parole people - and the resulting publicity has made them pariahs who are virtually homeless.

This legislation will simply exacerbate that situation.   It flies in the face of the contention that once a prisoner has served the term dictated by a court, he or she is entitled to make a fresh start.  In most cases, the parole people are the ones who suggest a name change to avoid the name/crime association in the minds of the public.

There could be a hidden agenda here.   This legislation only applies to the state of New South Wales.  Perhaps the government is hoping that released serious offenders will be forced to depart to another place - where they will not be a threat to this state's citizens.

Usually the parole people insist that a released felon remains in their home state for the full term of their parole - to be under their jurisdiction, but in the event of vigilante action such orders can be varied if public reaction  makes settlement impossible.

We seem to have a conflict of interest here - between the aims of the government in keeping the state safe - and in the duties of those tasked with managing released major criminals and their return to society.