Sources: The opposition government of the Australian province of…

Question Answered step-by-step Sources: The opposition government of the Australian province of… Sources:The opposition government of the Australian province of Victoria recently announced legislation designed to”get tough” on crime committed by young offenders. According to Fitz-Gibbon and O’Brien, the proposed reforms included lifting existing measures that were adopted to protect the identities young offenders. Proponents of the legislation argue that the protections should not be extended to repeat offenders, and additional reforms included removing their right to request bail. Government officials argue that lifting the veil of secrecy is necessary to ensure public safety. Quoting Shadow Attorney General John Pesutto, Fitz-Gibbon and O’Brien reveal how supporters justify the legislation on the “public’s right to know.” In evaluating these claims, the authors raise an important question: “Is there merit in naming and shaming policies for children in conflict with the law?”According to research conducted by Fitz-Gibbon and O’Brien, the answer is no. Their evidence indicates that even when such interventions are applied to repeat and serious young offenders, they do little to ensure community safety, encourage young offenders to accept responsibility for their actions, or deter youth from engaging in crime. Rather, they typically result in a breach of a juvenile’s right to privacy, along with setbacks in their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. In addition, naming and shaming further entrenches young offenders in criminal lifestyles and heightens their prospects of recidivism due to the stigma attached to their criminalization.The advent of social media creates concern about the potential ramifications of naming and shaming laws and the removal of standard privacy rights for young offenders. Secondary punishment beyond criminal justice sanctions could easily occur through the sharing of a young offender’s identity. Not only can this now be accomplished at an expedited pace through social media, but the information can also be easily shared by national and international audiences. Fitz-Gibbon and O’Brien’s research indicates that young offenders endure three primary effects of social media-driven public shaming: increased stigmatization, reduced prospects of rehabilitation and social integration, and the sabotage of employment opportunities.The authors conclude their discussion by noting the significance of international human rights standards designed to protect the rights of children at all stages of the criminal justice system and the need for the Australian government to uphold its commitment to The Convention of the Rights of the Child. These minimum standards of protection and privacy are guarantees for all youth, regardless of whether they have committed criminal offences.Link to Artical:https://theconversation.com/protection-not-public-shaming-is-the-way-forward-for-child-offenders-66983 Question:1. Labelling/interactionist theorists believe that juvenile offenders should be encouraged to drift toward conventional interests. In what ways would the proposed legislation discussed by Fitz-Gibbon and O’Brien prevent this from occurring? Be sure to use the key concepts of labelling theory when discussing your response.  Social Science Sociology ENGLISH ENG4U03 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)