Name suppression madness

I know this topic has had  lot of coverage, but I have to add my voice to the chorus: WHY oh WHY did a businessman get permanent name suppression upon being convicted of possessing 300,000 pornographic images, including some of children?  (And I’m not even going to get started on the pitiful sentence of four months home detention.)

Apparently, because he was a “pillar of the community”, and to name him would be a much greater punishment than if he were not well known.

Well, boo hoo.  This is ridiculous on so many fronts.  I think anyone convicted of possessing pictures of child abuse is likely to lose the majority of the respect, friendships, and social acceptance that they once had.  And so they should.  Why does the fact that he was “well known” in Palmerston North mean that he doesn’t have to suffer the same judgment?

The very fact that the judge called him a “pillar of the community” beggars belief.  At the very most, this vile man once managed to sustain a veneer of respectability.  He was never, and is certainly not now, a pillar of any community.  He is a criminal, and there is no reason to keep his identity secret.

The name suppression laws in New Zealand are becoming a joke, albeit a joke that leaves a very sour taste.  If you’re prepared to commit a heinous crime, be prepared for the punishment.