Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
The Guardian: Naming and shaming is a con: “A former high court judge has publicly admitted to something which the legal world has been trying to hide for centuries - that judges having to decide cases sometimes have no idea what they're talking about. In some cases, it would have been "better to use a roulette wheel" than to have him deciding, confessed Sir Hugh Laddie.”: Monday February 27, 2006
By Marcel Berlins
"Naming and shaming" is one of those naffly clever slogans adopted as part of the government's plan to beat crime, antisocial behaviour and disrespect. The philosophy is that the way to deal with certain categories of offenders is to blazon their names, and often photographs, all over the press, billboards, websites, treetrunks etc. This, it is argued, is not only punishment by publicity for the individual, but will act as a general deterrent.
The policy is aimed particularly at child wrongdoers, whose identities are usually, by law, not publicly disclosed. But what has happened is that many local authorities, police and courts have named and shamed too enthusiastically, and often inappropriately, leading to condemnation of the practice by two of England's most qualified experts - the chairman of the Youth Justice Board and the children's commissioner.
The very slogan - invented only because of the rhyme - is a con. Who is being shamed? Certainly not the 15-year old tearaway whose crimes or antisocial activities have made his neighbours' lives a misery. If anything, being named is a badge of achievement in some circles. Look at the interviews on television with teenagers on Asbos. Have you ever detected an ounce of shame on their part? Do you doubt for a moment that a named young offender will become a hero and role model in his society?
At the same time the youngster, his name now known throughout the community, becomes a target of possible violence. Worse, his family too is inescapably outed, putting its members at risk of community reaction. Moreover, publicly proclaiming a child criminal or antisocial often leads to him or her accepting the label, rather than working to efface it; a juvenile offender turns into an adult criminal.
It's also obvious that any steps to re-educate and rehabilitate young offenders are made the more difficult in the glare of public notoriety. So what is the government's evidence that naming and shaming works? I have yet to see it. A former high court judge has publicly admitted to something which the legal world has been trying to hide for centuries - that judges having to decide cases sometimes have no idea what they're talking about. In some cases, it would have been "better to use a roulette wheel" than to have him deciding, confessed Sir Hugh Laddie.
He was often the trial judge in tax and insolvency cases, even though "I knew nothing about tax, except that it came as a nasty shock at the end of the year. I have never studied it, nor did it at the bar, nor insolvency." The phenomenon of ignorant judges arises from the arrogant principle that a high court judge is clever enough to deal with any area of law. Sir Hugh's admission notwithstanding, things are a lot better than even 20 years ago. Judges appointed to the family division of the high court, for instance, are almost always top practitioners in family law. The issue arises at the court of appeal level, where three judges sit.
Care is taken to try to ensure that one of them knows something about the subject of the appeal. But that judge can be overruled by the two who know less. The problem can be even more acute in our highest court, the House of Lords. There is general agreement that the law lords are at their least impressive when deciding issues of criminal law. At present (and often before) none of the 12 have been experts on that subject.
The result, according to criminal law specialists, is that their decisions are often badly argued and impossible to apply in practice. If trial judges who have to explain the law to juries are confused about what the law lords have laid down, how can the juries understand?