Name and shame !

A spirited debate is inevitable over a proposal to remove the suppression on naming offenders under eighteen when they appear before a court.
The civil liberties people are aghast and suggest that naming young offenders subject them to perpetual vilification that removes any chance of rehabilitation.
The victims of crime counter that with the nonchalance young offenders exhibit when they walk away from court - masked from any form of identification - with a mere slap on the wrist.

There is no doubt that punishment handed out to those under eighteen is mild compared to older offenders. Supposedly, under eighteens are not fully developed emotionally and are prone to actions that the more mature would resist. Despite this, the result of their crimes inflicts the same financial, property and trauma damage to their victims despite the age difference.

There is also the unfair situation that when a group is involved and one of that group is under eighteen the suppression order covers all - in case publishing the names of the over eighteen offenders would also identify the juvenile. As a result, wise gang members tend to keep a juvenile in their ranks as safety measure.

There are legal measures in place which allows the judiciary to waive the suppression order in some instances. The problem is that use of this is capricious. The odds are in favour of a juvenile and the suppression creates a public impression that justice is not being done - and that young people are immune from the punishment of crime.

The answer is probably a compromise. It would be reasonable to allow a first offence to be subject to suppression because anyone can make a mistake - and most people would think it reasonable to offer an opportunity to learn from that mistake.
What is unreasonable is to allow a hardened criminal - who has a rap sheet that would take an hour to read in court - to hide behind the protection of age.
We have young criminals under the age of eighteen who use the court as a revolving door and thumb their nose at the bail system.
Fairness requires that if such a person has rejected the opportunities of rehabilitation then the public has a right to know - and to be able to identify by way of pictures published in the media - those people who are likely to cause them harm and who represent a threat to their person and property.

Protection - is a two way street !