A Florida sheriff’s novel approach to countering school shooting threats by exposing online the identities of children who make them is drawing ire from juvenile justice advocates as well as others who say the tactic is counterproductive and morally wrong.

Michael Chitwood, sheriff of Volusia county, raised eyebrows recently by posting to his Facebook page the name and mugshot of an 11-year-old boy accused of calling in a threat to a local middle school. He followed up with a video clip of the minor’s “perp walk” into jail in shackles.

Chitwood, who has said he is “fed up” with the disruption to schools caused by the hoaxes, has promised to publicly identify any student who makes such a threat. On Wednesday, another video appeared onlineshowing two youths, aged 16 and 17, in handcuffs being led into separate cells, with the sheriff calling them “knuckleheads”.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe keeping the kids privacy will:

    • deprive a potential shooter of their publicity
    • let an innocent accused resume their lives
    • allow someone in a crisis more opportunity to get treatment/recover without making it worse

    What does this humiliation do?

    • let the sheriff enact spiteful revenge against someone not convicted
    • ruin the life of an accused innocent
    • force someone in a crisis into a more desperate state
    • help a perpetrator achieve notoriety
    • Stern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      deprive a potential shooter of their publicity

      Remove a potential shooter from the field you mean?

      let an innocent accused resume their lives

      Or let potential shooters know they aren’t being ignored until they start blasting.

      allow someone in a crisis more opportunity to get treatment/recover without making it worse

      Jail can also provide treatment, without the possibility of them snapping and murdering people. Seems reasonable to me.

      let the sheriff enact spiteful revenge against someone not convicted

      Identifying threats to society is “spiteful revenge” Do you think we should have referred to him as O.B.L. instead of Osama Bin Laden because he wasn’t convicted yet to keep his anonymity? That it was “spiteful revenge” to let folks know who he was? Cmon now.

      ruin the life of an accused innocent

      or stop a copycat killer.

      force someone in a crisis into a more desperate state

      who will be locked up and thus unable to act on those urges.

      help a perpetrator achieve notoriety

      Least sensible of the lot. They’ll be notorious for making threats and going to jail. Much preferrable to murder and jail.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is a kid who’s been accused. There’s been no trial, no evidence, no conviction. He’s not been proven guilty of anything.

        It’s a kid. Everywhere else kids have privacy by default. Publicizing the name of this kid is not justice nor any part of justice.

        Even if he did it, we have no idea whether it was serious - calling a kid such a criminal before he’s convicted dies nothing prevent any crime

        • Stern@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Even if he did it, we have no idea whether it was serious

          So we shouldn’t take threats of shootings or bomb threats seriously now?

          Wow. Just… wow.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re losing the plot here. The question is whether it’s ok to publicly post the identities of kids accused of a specific crime

                • Stern@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  The title of this thread isn’t

                  Even if he did it, we have no idea whether it was serious

                  Thats a point you made, and are now refusing to address. Twice now.

                  • AA5B@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Does the article state that he was convicted of a serious threat and prove any sort of planning toward implementation?

                    • being accused is different from being found guilty
                    • being found guilty of a threat is different from being found guilty of a threat and attempting to carry it out
                    • being found guilty and facing legal consequences is different from being publicly named for doing so
                    • he’s an effing kid