A boy who didn't know better gets into trouble again. This time, it's not a visit to the disciplinary teacher or even the principal's office; it's a date with Johnny Law — being arrested by the police and brought to court.
If we put ourselves in the boy's shoes, we can only imagine it's the scariest day of his life. But it gets worse. As he's being subjected to the "perp walk" (escorted in and out of court), hordes of reporters swarm around him with their cameras flashing relentlessly. A few moments later, pictures of his "perp walk" circulate all over the nation.
Cue the humiliation and trauma. The boy is not just facing the consequences of his actions but is now in the centre of a media storm, his every step and expression captured and scrutinised — further amplifying his fear and shame.
Have a look for yourselves:
(The boy literally had to hide in the policeman's arms. Oh well, at least the abang polis cares.)
Not only are such reports harmful to the child, they are actually unlawful (even when the boy is anonymous with his face blurred out), but the media does not seem to bother.
Section 15 of the Child Act 2001 restricts media reporting on any proceedings involving a child in a criminal case during the investigation, pre-trial, trial, or post-trial stages. These restrictions include the prohibition of disclosing the child's picture, name, address, educational institution, or any details that could lead to the identification of the child.
Section 85(c) of the Child Act 2001 also mandates for procedures to be in place to prohibit pictures of children from being taken at any time, while in detention at police station, being conveyed to or from court, or waiting before or after attendance in any court.
This is not the first time such an incident has occurred, where the media just does what it wants for the viewership without any regard to the welfare of arrested children. I guess we never learn... (The police even went a step further to handcuff the child—it's nuts and against the law!)
The government also contributes to this problem when they do not reprimand the police and the press in situations like this.
In fact, the Child Act includes numerous safeguards designed to offer child offenders a second chance by reducing stigma, for example:
The establishment of the Court for Children to replace the Juvenile Court.
The establishment of child-friendly criminal procedures, e.g.:
Separating children from adults in police stations and courts.
Prohibiting the use of handcuffs on children.
The change in nomenclature, e.g.:
If a child is found guilty, no order of "conviction" can be made. Instead, it is termed a "finding of guilt".
Likewise, the term "sentence" cannot be used and is substituted by an "order" made upon the finding of guilt.
Even in their darkest moments, child offenders are still children. Dr. Farah Nini Dusuki, SUHAKAM Children's Commissioner, encapsulates this best when she said:
"It is very important that when a child has committed an offence, we see them as a child first, and offender second."
Let's not forget that a fundamental tenet of our criminal jurisprudence is rehabilitation — and our legal system endeavours to allow children particularly, a possibility of a second chance. No one is above this, least of all the media, because our children deserve compassion, not unsolicited attention.
_JPG.jpg)
Comments