Violent Juveniles Should Be Named, Shamed and Then Locked Up

The proposal by John Hatzistergos to "name" and "shame" juveniles who commit violent crimes doesn't go far enough.

For a start, One Nation  disputes that all violent juveniles would necessarily be "shamed" by being "named". Many would relish the notoriety and regard meda attention as a badge of honour. If they were ashamed of the crime they wouldn't have committed it in the first place.

Secondly,  we say  juveniles who commit or attempt to commit rape, arson,  or assault occasioning actual bodily harm should not only be named,  if convicted, but receive a mandatory  custodial sentence.

A sixteen year old punk who snatches an old woman's handbag causing her to fall over and  break her hip and spend the rest of her life as a cripple deserves to be put behind bars. The same goes for those who throw bricks
off overpasses and light bushfires.  After even  only  a short stay  in the clink at that age - you'd never want to go back.

Most juveniles only commit the crimes they do  because they know  due to their age  they face little or no penalty if they are found guilty.

The "snivel libertarians" who sit comfortably snorting their cocaine and sipping their chardonay in their security-alarmed mansions in the Eastern Suburbs, having no aim in life but  to put as many criminals back on the street as possible,  will scream at this  proposal but  the victims of crime,   the only people  whose opinion really matters,  will applaud it.