5 ms·
The names of minors should never be released in public (with a handful of exceptions). But why shouldn't a 19 year old shoplifter have that on their public rec
by spacebanana7 8mo ago
The names of minors should never be released in public (with a handful of exceptions).
But why shouldn't a 19 year old shoplifter have that on their public record? Would you prevent newspapers from reporting on it, or stop users posting about it on public forums?
- criddell 8mo agoWould you want the first thing to show up after somebody googles your name to be an accusation for improper conduct around a child? In theory, people could dig deeper and find out you won in court and were acquitted, but people here should know that nobody ever reads the article...
- RobotToaster 8mo agoIf it was reported in a newspaper then that would likely already be the case.
- spacebanana7 8mo agoIf you were hiring a childminder for your kids, would you want to know that they had 6 accusations for improper conduct around children in 6 different court cases - even if those were all acquittals?
- JadeNB 8mo agoAs a parent, I would want to know everything about anyone who's going to be around my children in any capacity. That doesn't mean I have a right to it, though.
- dirasieb 8mo ago>openly admits his beliefs results in parents not making good decisions on who to allow near their children, keeps going anyway great moral system you have there
- criddell 8mo agoThat's a bad faith take. In one comment you managed to violate a whole bunch of the HN commenting guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dirasieb 8mo agohow else would you interpret admitting you don't think parents should have a right to know the backgrounds of the people with access to their children before making informed decisions on whether or not to allow it? please, show me your good faith interpretation and i will take back my comment
- naasking 8mo agoNobody gets to have unbounded information about others. It's weird that you think there should be no privacy constraints.
- dirasieb 8mo agowhat if these “others” voluntarily apply to a position where they have regular contact and help take care of your children? is it ok then to be informed on whether or not they are a convicted child rapist?
- hdlothia 8mo agoWhy are you saying unbounded when the discussion is about court proceedings and convictions? There is a clear and consistent boundary here, no one is asking for search logs and round the clock surveillance.
- rjsw 8mo agoThe UK has an official system [1] for checking whether people should be allowed to work with vulnerable people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_and_Barring_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_and_Barring_Service
- tchalla 8mo ago> Would you prevent newspapers from reporting on it, or stop users posting about it on public forums? Yes
- alberto467 8mo agoIt is the UK we're talking about after all...
- niels8472 8mo agoWhere the accused have rights too?
- alberto467 8mo agoWhere the journalists have very little rights, and people posting their bad (wrong) ideas (think) even less so.
- niels8472 8mo agoNot according to the wpfi world press freedom index where it is ranked 20th.
- mrkstu 8mo agoWhere speaking truth isn’t a right or a defense
- pelorat 8mo agoMost media in Europe are required to ambiguate names of criminals. For instance by removing the first name or the last name.
- newsclues 8mo agoIf you prohibit the punishment of minors, you create an incentive for criminals to exploit minors. Why are we protecting criminals, just because they are minors? Protect victims, not criminals. Unfortunately reputational damage is part of the punishment (I have a criminal record), but maybe it's moronic to create a class of people who can avoid meaningful punishment for crimes?
- tyre 8mo agoWe protect minors because they are children, and they are allowed to make mistakes. At a certain point, we say someone is an adult and fully responsible for their actions, because “that’s who they are”. It’s not entirely nuanced—and in the US, at least, we charge children as adults all the time—but it’s understandable.
- newsclues 8mo agoBut you create an incentive for organized crime to recruit youth to commit crimes and not have to suffer the consequences. At a certain point, poorly thought out "protections", turn into a system that protects organized crime, because criminals aren't as stupid as lawmakers, and exploit the system. There is a big difference between making a mistake as a kid that lands you in trouble, and working as a underling for organized crime to commit robberies, drug deals, and violent crime, and not having to face responsibility for their actions. The legal system has so many loopholes for youth, for certain groups, that the law is no longer fair, and that is its own problem, contributing to the decline of public trust.
- ryandrake 8mo agoWhat's the alternative? A 14 year old steals a pack of gum, and he's listed as a shoplifter for the rest of his life? Just because exceptions are exploitable, doesn't mean we should just scrap all the exceptions. Why not improve the wording and try to work around the exceptions?
- Fogest 8mo ago