Medford mail tribune., July 27, 1958, Image 31

Does Publicity
Curb
o
by Dow Richardson
I,
I f you were an editor, would you print the names
ot boys and girls under 18 who get into
trouble? Would publicity reduce the rate of
juvenile delinquency?
For many' years it has been a generally accepted
rule in newspapers that errant youngsters in their
teens and under deserved to be spared disclosure.
That still is the policy followed by most newspapers,
although the big majority of editors reserves the
right to break the rule when the circumstances are
unusual. They can be so unusual that the young
offender forfeits his right to protection.
The press has been re-examining its position on
the question of printing juvenile names since FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover recommended publicizing
the names of young criminals, whatever their age.
Hoover's outspoken opposition to what he called
"unwarranted secrecy" appeared in the FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin. Addressing his signed article
to "all law enforcement officials," Hoover wrote:
"Are we to stand idly by while fierce young
hoodlums too often and too long harbored under
the glossy misnomer of juvenile delinquents roam
our streets and desecrate our communities?
"If we do, America might well witness a re
surgence of the brutal criminality and mobsterism
of a past era." Hoover urged that, as a result of
the increase in juvenile crime, each community
undertake a "vigorous new appraisal" of how it is
handling its youth problems.
This call to action was directed against the
policy of shielding the tougher teen-agers from pub
lic exposure, but the proposal led editors to review
their attitude toward all youthful aberrations.
One of the newspapers which made a searching
re-examination of policy was The Cleveland Press.
It asked its readers the question, "Should news
papers print the names of juvenile offenders?" and
got the biggest letter response in the paper's his
tory. In three days more than a thousand readers
sent in their views.
Possibly showing public impatience with growing
juvenile delinquency, a majority favored "full
publicity for youthful wrong-doers."
A test vote in the high school at Kokomo, Ind.,
revealed a similar majority in favor of complete
publication of news about juvenile delinquents.
The Cleveland Press thought over its sampling of
public opinion and concluded that it would continue
its policy of naming young lawbreakers only in
exceptional circumstances, though it announced that
it would "make a few more exceptions in the future
than in the past."
Both juvenile court judges in Cuyahoga County
submitted letters to The Press opposing Hoover's
plan. Boys and girls, as well as parents and public
officials, sent in their opinions. Many commented on
the case of 11 Cleveland boys, all members of well-to-do
families, who had been arrested for a series
of burglaries and auto accessory thefts. Their names
were not published by any of the Cleveland papers.
Three pages of letters were published by The
Press. They ranged from indignant demands to
name them all" to a psychologist's suggestion that
such a policy would give wayward youths a "new
weapon" to coerce their parents.
This was the paper's conclusion on the subject
nd its decision on policy:
Delinquency
z
7
What's your opinion?
Family Weekly wants to know how its readers feel about the effectiveness of
newspaper publicity as a deterrent to juvenile delinquency. After reading
Dow Richardson's provocative article, fill in this ballot and mail it to Juvenile,
Family Weekly, P. O. Box Z, Chicago 90, 111.
Should newspapers print the names of all
Should papers print only the names of repeaters and serious law violators under 18?
Should juvenile-court judges decide what names should be printed?
"To continue the basic practice of withholding the
names of boys and girls under 18 who get into
trouble with the law.
"To continue to make exceptions to this when, on
consultation and consideration, the situation seems
to warrant unusual treatment.
"This decision has not been easy. Arguments were
persuasive both ways. Few persons want to name
?very youth in trouble, nor would The Press A
trivial first offense of a 13-year-old what paper
would herald his name in print?
"Few want to suppress every juvenile's name
regardless of offense. The Press subscribes to that'
No youth or parent should have such a guarantee!
"If a 15-year-old commits murder, the public has
a right to know who did it."
Pointing out that an adult criminal can't expect
secrecy The Press says that, in younger offenders
Age should be a consideration. So a 17-year-old
would be an exception to the no-name rule more
often than one 13 or 15." Also, "the seriousness of
the offense and the number of offenses should be
considered," as well as the attitude of the offender
and that of his parents.
"Where the youth lives, in a neighborhood rich
or poor, will make no difference in deciding whether
to use his name. It never has.
"Of this you may be sure," the paper added "that
any exception made to the rule of no names will be
carefu y thought out. And human consideration
will still have first priority."
Is the removal of the ' protection of secrecy a
potent and wise weapon against juvenile delin
quency? Some editors believe that immunity from
PUbhc exposure encourages juvenile crime and
some legislators appetr to agree with this theory
Yes N
youngsters under 18 who run afoul of the law?.
A bill has been introduced in the New Hampshire
legislature that would lower the juvenile age and
the cloak of secrecy from' 18 to 16 at the suggestion
of police chiefs and sheriffs, who argued that it
would curb delinquency.
In Georgia the legislature amended the juvenile
courts law to read: "It shall be mandatory upon the
judge of the juvenile court to release the name of
any child who is under the jurisdiction of the court
for a second or subsequent time. No person, firm, or
corporation shall be guilty of any offense for making
public the name or picture of any such child."
"J"he last Indiana General Assembly enacted legis
lation to permit fingerprinting and photo
graphing of criminals 15 years of age or over,
at the discretion of juvenile court judges. If a judge
decides that a young hoodlum may be a menace,
he can order the defendant photographed and
fingerprinted even if he is only 15.
Officials told the Hoosier lawmakers that some
teen-age thugs had terrorized housewives in brutal
assaults. Though authorities suspected that some of
these assailants had records, they had no proof.
The assembly noted that it was striking at a differ
ent situation than minor cases or first offenses. It
agreed that some 15-year-olds are husky enough to
beat a woman as brutally as an older man might.
A study group recommended to the New Jersey
Supreme Court removal of secrecy from some juve
u ,,0Lfrenders- At Present, youths' names are with
held by newspapers as a matter of custom through
age 16, excepting in serious crimes, and juvenile
court records are confidential.
Arizona opened its juvenile court records to the
public last Summer. The Arizona legislature deleted
A AJ mm
K.i fm Sn,e ofhorie. I
.V 'Vt mointoinfnot
,r fcv iyrt : ' JiA publishing names of '
":r V young offenders will y
: , ' i '' reduce crime;
' ' J ners ur9e coutlon.
Shame, as expressed by
these teen-age toughs,
is a penalty some -escape
through secrecy
which cloaks minors.
the secrecy provisions from the state's juvenile law
after Rep. Carl Sims, a legislator whose son had a
brush with the law, sponsored an end to the policy
of keeping the records closed. Some of the leading
judges in the state said that juvenile court records
should be opened to the public, though two Phoenix
judges with the most experience in juvenile work
favored continued secrecy.
The Arizona Republic and The Phoenix Gazette
campaigned strenuously for the bill, although on
several occasions they had ignored the law against
publicity. Once they identified a juvenile called
"Red Cap" who staged a dozen stickups in the
metropolitan area. He was over six feet tall and
weighed 180 pounds, but the law called him a child.
He came from a socially prominent family. In such
cases the Phoenix papers notified the juvenile judge
that they intended to publish the names and ad
dresses. Although the judges could have cited the
papers for contempt of court, they never did.
In contrast, the 1956 New York legislature passed
a "Youth Court Act," which extends to age 21 the
protection of secrecy for youthful offenders at the
discretion of a judge. But after enacting the law, the
legislature displayed some doubts and postponed
the effective date of the act until April 1, 1958. The
New York press regards it as unwise legislation and
has waged a concentrated attack on it.
The newspaper for which I work has a policy
similar to that of The Cleveland Press and,
I believe, most other newspapers. An example
of an unusual instance that occurred in our area
was the wrecking of a passenger train by two small
boys. Four persons were killed, a number of others
injured and much property was destroyed. The
Few experts advocate publicity
for petty crimes and first of
fenses but feel the serious of
fender deserves no privileges.
authorities quickly found what had caused the
wreck and announced that two youngsters, 10 and
11, had derailed the train by placing a roll of wire on
the railroad tracks.
The question was a difficult one to resolve, but
the boys' act was so extraordinary and, with their
identity kept secret, more than one family was
suspected, so we decided to use their names.
Most newspapers are not as hesitant about print
ing names of young traffic violators as they are of
those involved in crime. The publication of names
in these cases can help serve as a deterrent to fur
ther violations by the same offenders or by other
youths who might break traffic laws for the first
time. Most editors regard publicity for traffic-law
infringement as not carrying the same stigma as an
arrest on a criminal charge. Publication of a juve
nile name in a minor traffic offense isn't likely to
have any lasting effect on his life, but could stop
him from further recklessness.
One editor puts it this way: "We print all names
in traffic cases, largely on the theory that a car is
far more dangerous than a gun. With the traffic toll
one of America's top problems, we must use every
means available to us in seeking to curb this na
tional folly. Young drivers have the worst driving
records. Why should we coddle them?"
Another says his paper has used the names of
children of some of its biggest advertisers, but has
never had a bad reaction. "In fact," he says, "Dad
usually seems to think the publicity helps his cause
when he has a driving argument with Junior."
In criminal cases there are legal and moral con
siderations which are lacking in traffic-law viola
tions. Publicly branding a youngster, especially a
first offender, with a criminal chrge might shape
his entire life for the worse, but this is lacking in
traffic cases. The stigma that attaches to a traffic
offense will not interfere with rehabilitation.
This seems to be a moderate, constructive, under
standing policy, defendable against an accusation of
"nice nellyism" or fault-finding by parents whose
children's names get into print. The best answer I
have to parental fault-finders is that if my teen
age daughter gets arrested for speeding, running a
stop sign, passing on a yellow line, or some other
infraction, it goes in the paper. She approves her
father's attitude, and it helps to make other parents
understand the editor's problem.
Anyone familiar with Shakespeare knows how
well the Bard recognized the value of a good name.
It is, he said, the immediate jewel of men's souls,
and anyone that filches it makes the victim poor
indeed. In America the public prints are restricted
by libel laws from unjustifiably reflecting on a man's
good name, but they are not prohibited from re
vealing the name of a law violator.
When it comes to names of those considered too
young to be responsible for their misdeeds, the
press practices self-regulation and discretion. Feel
ing is now growing that this is a wall behind which
arrogant youngsters under 18 can hide. Even young
toughs, like hardened gangsters, wince at being
publicly identified, evidence that publicity is among
the most potent deterrents to wrongdoing. This is
causing more people to conclude that a judicious
use of it would help to cut the delinquency rate.
The young offender who is a repeater or who en
gages in a wanton crime of such proportions as to
forfeit his right to the protection of secrecy is the
thief who has filched from himself his most treas
ured possession his good name.
(-f q Family Weekly. July J95
o
o
o
o
Family Weekly, July 27, 19SS
O
7
o