If, say, my daughter's crime

is not worthy of a story, then what is gained by including her name and

address alongside the details of the crime and the sentencing?

I argue that your readers would

not have a diminished understanding of the effectiveness of law enforcement

agencies were you to follow the example of other papers and report as

follows: "A Fayetteville woman pleaded guilty to one felony count

of cat juggling. She was sentenced to 90 hours community service and litter

pan duty at the Fayette Shelter for Wayward Felines." (Well, perhaps

this one would deserve the front page.)

Your current manner of reporting

is a blunt instrument. In my daughter's particular case, your report included

at once too much and too little information. The "too much"

is the stuff of my argument, past and present. The "too little"

refers to your failure to report that this young woman qualified for Georgia's

first-time offender program. This is typically extended to (temporarily)

stupid kids who have done stupid things, and for whom, in the judgment

of the relevant authorities, the behavior is likely aberrant. Assuming

satisfaction of all of the stipulations of probation, the conviction never

becomes a part of the offender's permanent records.

One may vainly hope for a similar

erasure effect upon the collective memories of your readers. Since you

have insisted upon reporting the crime, I would at least have wished for

people to learn that, in all likelihood, she acted out of character. But,

blunt instrument that it is, your section systematically excludes such

detail. And, like other blunt instruments, it serves as an effective bludgeon.

Name withheld by request

[The editor replies: This is

a compelling argument, if one takes the point of view only of the offender

or of the offender's friends and relatives. Obviously, however, other

compelling interests must be considered and balanced.

One such interest, of course,

is the state's, acting through law enforcement and the criminal justice

system on behalf of "the people." We presume that no one seriously

challenges the right, even the necessity, of the state to enforce its

laws and to act to apprehend and bring to the bar of justice even first

offenders who break the laws of the state.

A third interest is not institutional,

as the state is, but rather collective. That is "the people"

as individuals and as a group who have compelling interests in being protected

from lawbreakers and in seeing that justice is done in individual incidents.

I don't know what this young

lady did, but let's suppose she stole a golf cart, wrecked it and was

caught. It was a stupid, first-ever act on her part, as her family and

friends agree. Now suppose that I owned the golf cart that she stole.

My interest is multi-fold.

I suffered loss from her unlawful

act. I want to see her punished for her action and restitution made to

me, the one who was hurt by her stupid act. I also want her taught an

unmistakable lesson so that she will never again steal my property. I

want peace of mind from fear that my property is at risk from her. I want

to see her sorry that she hurt me.

Let's try the "worthy

of a story" test on me: Is there worth in my knowing who stole my

cart and what happened to her before a judge? I think few would argue

this point.

Others in my circle of neighbors

and friends also have multiple interests, having to do with the security

of their property, their neighborhood and their investments as well as

their personal safety. They want to know that the particular person who

violated all their interests was punished and deterred from again threatening

their interests.

Now the "worthy"

test: Should neighbors and similarly situated cart owners know who did

this deed and what happened to her? I say yes, insofar as they desire

to know.

And being human, all of us

want to know the identity of the particular individual who did this thing

that hurt some of us and threatened many of us. We did nothing to harm

her, but she heedlessly harmed us. For this she should be deterred and

shamed.

Ah, shame. An underrated consequence

of bad choices and one that an offender has no legal or God-given right

to avoid.

Modern society has placed such

importance on the "right" of privacy that even those who transgress

society's laws now feel they have a right to be shielded from eyes prying

into their transgressions.

How about the "worthiness"

test here? This is the very essence of jailhouse wisdom: Do the crime,

do the time. One who breaks a law must expect public exposure as a consequence.

I disagree that a youthful

offender should expect privacy when she breaks a law. I think that perhaps

the virtue most missing from 21st century American life is precisely that

sense of shame for having done shameful things. The capacity for shame

in an individual is perhaps the most civilizing tool that any society

has at its disposal in its quest to remain civilized.

I'm a father also, and I've

had a child's name show up on the front page in unfortunate circumstances.

I understand the feeling a parent has to shield a child from further hurt.

But we disagree on what follows that feeling.

My unswerving response would

be to put my child's name on the front page again should the same circumstances

arise. What I would do to my own child, I have no qualms about doing to

your child.

Since the law historically

agrees with this position in favor of disclosure of lawbreakers, and since

I believe society's larger interests are much more compelling for full

disclosure as against secrecy, and since newspapers exist to disclose

that which is out of the ordinary and against the norm, I again respectfully

but empathetically disagree.]