NAMES OF OFFENDERS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 131, 6 June 1925, Page 6

NAMES OF OFFENDERS

SHOULD THEY BE SUPPRESSED? MAGISTERIAL OMNIUMS GRltlClSjifi: (Ei *ELio«\PH.-Sl'Ki.\L ft) fHE pbS+.) . . AtfcKLA^D; this tidy; Both papere comment 'oh the remarks of Mr, Gutten, S-.JI.i regarding the suppression of Manic* of orTeiiflKrs charged I with offences-, fy "Herald" suys: "The question probably would not have tome into p-ablie 'discussion if the magistracy hid adhered to the general priiiciples which Mr. Cut-ten enunciates, .weighing each case on its merits; arid natl the pronouncement of a speewe rule, which; Us .\Jh Gutten says, 15 inadvisable-. Some ittoilths a-o mio AUcltlaiiil Magistrate formally announced thal-wlieil requested he would suppress Hie names of first bfieiiUers e ::tvU reputed shoplifters' alid 'dishonest infers cauglit rtd-hiiiided.' 0,, u le following dfty. another Auckland M a , n V Irttte declared . that lie would make Orders prohibiting the publication only in rare cases, and when the offender is \erv ymmg. ; The signiiicaiice of that conlict of opmibh is sufficiently obvious \vithout further remark upon "it and-it has been emphasised by the 'varvinir fIT, Ah( ,l 1! two m^istrates since then. Mt, Uutteu is mistaken in impUHrtff pr-ejuaice to the critics of the .Courts practice in this respect. Tho cnticlsm has been made in the public Wt B 1 g geneva!,eneva! suppression of names Will inevitably create an impression that minor crimes may be committed without the risk of .public ■ disgrace, and that tins impression will weaken one of the most effective checks on dishonesty particularly. The other that the liberal granting by a few magistrates of the privilege of private trial and punishment imposes a substantial measure of hardship, even of iujustice. upon offenders appearing before magistrates who. eserCl^i .0 dlf;P reti°n more' sparingly." The "SW -S ay S :_'\Mr. Cuttet/s. examples were interesting, but we do not think he lias quite met all the critics, ihe consideration that publicity means rum to an offender is important, but there are corresponding considerations that publicity is a deterrent, and that. in some cases it is a warning to which the community is entitled. After all publicity injures all offenders save those whose character has already been irretrievably lost. There are many persons to whom publicity is the worst consequence of law-breaking. The main pomt, however, made about the Bench's exercise of that discretion is that the practice of magistrates varies We su<* gested some time ago that there shoufd be a. consultation between magistrates on the question, just as there is consultation between Judges about penalties."