Hearts of the city / exploring attitudes and issues behind the news

A rotating panel of experts from the worlds of philosophy, psychology and religion offer their perspectives on the dilemmas that come with living in Southern California. Today’s question: To

“reintroduce shame” among offending minors, the state attorney general recently said that he will push for legislation to allow police to release the names of juveniles arrested for

felonies such as murder, rape and burglary as well as for graffiti. Now, juveniles and their families “are shielded from any embarrassment or shame,” Atty Gen. Dan Lungren said. What do you

think of this idea? The Rev. Warner R. Traynham Rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church, Los Angeles “There are two issues here: The desire to protect juveniles, who may not realize the

seriousness of their crimes, from being ‘branded for youthful mistakes,’ and society’s ‘right to know’ for its own protection. As the number of juvenile offenders increases, the pressure to

shift from the former to the latter will increase because the danger to society increases. I doubt that the attempt to reintroduce ‘shame’ will prove much of a deterrent. Criminal charges

are a badge of honor in too many places. Eliminating anonymity may make it a little clearer, however, that society does not condone or minimize juvenile crime.” R. Patricia Walsh Professor,

department of psychology, Loyola Marymount University “Implementing this proposal would almost certainly be ineffective. Why should fear of seeing one’s name in the newspaper be a more

effective crime deterrent than fear of going to jail? Graffiti is often used to publicly announce a juvenile’s name or gang affiliation. Teenagers who do this would probably be proud that

their name was published in a newspaper rather than be ashamed. Shame is an emotion. It cannot be legislated. Moreover, shaming the teenager’s family is useless. This would not give the

family any techniques to better control the behavior of a juvenile delinquent.” Dennis Prager KABC radio talk show host, lay theologian and author of “Think a Second Time” “This proposal is

so obviously right that it needs little defending. The idea that we should protect teens who murder or rape from embarrassment is so silly that, as George Orwell said of some other foolish

ideas, ‘only an intellectual could believe it.’ What may be less obvious and therefore more noteworthy is that this new common sense approach to teen cruelty signifies the further unraveling

of the dominant liberal understanding of crime. In this case, it is the notion that “there are no bad kids.” There are. And the law-abiding majority should know who they are. Outside of

police and God, all that society has to control violence is shame.” MORE TO READ