Gransnet forums

News & politics

“Too young to be named for legal reasons”

(98 Posts)
MawB Tue 17-Sep-19 18:40:48

Two cases in the last two days of teenagers on trial for murder (lawyer stabbed with a screwdriver in a random attack, a teenage girl stabbed in a park possibly in error)
In both cases the perpetrators were described as 17 but “too young to be named”
AIBU to think that if they are old enough to commit a murder they are old enough to be named? We are not talking about children, like the Jamie Bulger killing but young men

Charleygirl5 Tue 17-Sep-19 18:44:57

They deserve to be named and shamed.

M0nica Tue 17-Sep-19 18:47:31

If and when they are convicted they are usually named, but remember we have had children as young as 10 indicted for murder, so I think that they should be kept anonymous until conviction.

Another reason they should not be named is that they are innocent until proved guilty and some will be acquitted or found guilty of a lesser crimes and rehabilitation is easier if they remain anonymous.

The boys who killed Jamie Bulger were named after the trial and we know who they are.

Gaunt47 Tue 17-Sep-19 18:48:05

And they''ll probably be described as too young to know what they were doing. Outrageous.

MawB Tue 17-Sep-19 18:51:06

M0nica - If you read my Post, I was careful refer to young adults not children and second, everyone is “innocent until proved guilty” - that does not preclude the naming of “adult” offenders.

MawB Tue 17-Sep-19 18:52:31

And we do not know who Jamie Bulgers killers are because they have been given new identities to enable them to make a “fresh start”

M0nica Tue 17-Sep-19 19:02:56

The boys names were announced after the trial. The new names etc came when they were released.

They were children at the time they killed JB, both from severely disfunctional homes and barely above the age of criminal responsibility. Children like that should be given every opportunity to make new lifes. Although one has, sadly, had to be recalled several times. The other has been released, and is making his way in life without any offender recalls.

I think young adults should be protected until they are convicted. There are an awful lot of people assuming guilt until proved innocent.

MawB Tue 17-Sep-19 19:05:14

Well we must agree to differ on the age at which a person may be held to be responsible for their actions and if they are responsible for their actions I do not see why they should shelter behind legislation designed for children.

EllanVannin Tue 17-Sep-19 19:08:42

" Too young to be named" be damned !

Ilovecheese Tue 17-Sep-19 19:10:24

I just think of the pain their parents and siblings must feel if the young people are named even before they have been through court. What do people actually want to do with the information? Throw stones at the family home? Make death threats on social media? Why would you need to know?

HettyMaud Tue 17-Sep-19 19:19:16

I just wonder why there are so many dysfunctional homes these days? Something somewhere has gone badly wrong or was it always like this? At the risk of sounding old-fashioned I there seem to be few boundaries these days. And, in my opinion, rather than parents ruling the children it seems to be as if children often rule the parents.

Cherrytree59 Tue 17-Sep-19 19:22:09

No should not be named.

Why do you need to know?
Let the courts and jury decide if either/both are guilty.

If one or both found to be guilty, hopefully she/he/they will go to prison for a long time.

It is very likely that the name,(s) will end up in the public domain.

If found not guilty then will need anonymity to have a future.

Smileless2012 Tue 17-Sep-19 19:30:29

I think you're wrong there MOnica the new names the Jamie Bulger killers were given were never released. Their identity and whereabouts were to be a closely guarded secret at great expense to the tax payer.

Venables has been sent back to prison for further offences and has always been reported in the media by his original name and the only photograph of him is the one at the time of his

BlueSapphire Tue 17-Sep-19 19:32:03

I agree with you MawB.

Doodledog Tue 17-Sep-19 19:37:56

What would you (those who think they should be named) gain from knowing their names? The chances are you won't know them, so all that will be gained is to satisfy curiosity.

If they are innocent, their lives would be ruined. If they are guilty, we need to decide whether or not we believe in rehabilitation.

I appreciate that there is no going back where murder is concerned, but either we try to rehabilitate young offenders or we don't. If we do, then releasing their names is a good way of ensuring that they won't be able to make a new life when they get out of jail.

If we (as a nation) believe that young offenders should be treated the same as adults, we may as well give up on trying to help them to live a decent life. If 17 is 'nearly 18', then 16 will become 'nearly 15' and so on.

None of that is to diminish the seriousness of the crimes.

Smileless2012 Tue 17-Sep-19 19:50:54

I don't think that anyone should be named until they're convicted.

What is our priority? Punishment or rehabilitation. Are both of equal importance or should one be more important than the other?

It's a minefield isn't it. Sarah Payne was murdered by a previously convicted paedophile. Could she have been saved if the community where her GP's lived had known the history of her murderer? We'll never know.

Presumably those in the position to say so believed he'd been rehabilitated; tragically they were wrong.

I don't know what the answer is.

LondonGranny Tue 17-Sep-19 20:06:12

In some countries adults aren't named either. Germany springs to mind (although their first name is released eg Hans B. or whatever). I think once a person has been convicted incarceration is their punishment.

Naming people could just bring revenge attacks on their family members. On another note some criminals crave notoriety and naming them plays right into their twisted agenda.

Also, despite reaching the age of majority, 18 years olds are very often still kids in my view. My son springs to mind. He didn't really mature until he was in his mid-twenties. If he'd commited a crime in his teens & was named (he's the only person in Europe with his name) he'd never be able to leave that crime behind him. Most people who commit crimes as a child move on, redeem themselves and become good members of society.
Also children & young people can have a fantastic upbringing but never underestimate the effect of falling in with the wrong crowd as a kid.

gillybob Tue 17-Sep-19 21:41:47

The “person” or rather scumbag , to whom I think you refer *MawB” has just pleaded guilty to the unprovoked, random stabbing of a father in Newcastle city centre using a screw driver. He is 17 years old so hardly a child and already has a string of quite serious offences under his belt . Of course he should be named . He is guilty ! Why are we protecting him? He is a murdering little scumbag . End of.

gillybob Tue 17-Sep-19 21:43:34


He has several other serious offences under his belt . This was obviously the big one, the one he was leading up to. Pity he hadn’t of been locked up and the key thrown away years ago then that poor man would still be alive today.

MawB Tue 17-Sep-19 22:56:36

Thank you Gillybob I was beginning to feel like a voice in the wilderness!

Bridgeit Tue 17-Sep-19 23:13:45

Yes HettyMaud,I agree society has changed so much, whilst many of us remember not being very well off families & communities seemed to have more cohesion .

suziewoozie Wed 18-Sep-19 07:30:38

If we treat 17 year olds like adults for this, then logically we should treat them like adults for everything else surely - marriage, financial affairs, voting.

MawB Wed 18-Sep-19 07:33:03

As is the case in Scotland suziewoozie isn’t it?

gillybob Wed 18-Sep-19 07:46:53

But he pleaded guilty, why are we protecting him ? What are we protecting him from? Let’s not forget he is NOT the victim in all this . He is by his own admission a murderer. Are some of us seriously saying that at 17 he didn’t know right from wrong? His own neighbours described him as “a nasty little thug” . Yes well the do-gooders who have let him off so many other crimes in the past really do have blood on their hands now don’t they?

That poor man Peter Duncan was 52 years old . He was married with 2 children. He was going about his business near a busy shopping centre and stepped aside to let the little scumbag pass. Who then pulled out a screwdriver (that he had previously stolen for the job) and murdered him .

And some people think he should not be named. Give me strength.

BlueBelle Wed 18-Sep-19 08:11:25

I don’t think you can have two separate rules either they are children until they are 18 or they are not and if they are not then what age does a child become an adult
I too don’t think anyone should be named until conviction what about men in rape and abuse cases who have been hounded even after being found innocent I bet Cliff Richard wishes his name hadn’t been released
Why do we need that information, what for ? If you read 17 year old Joe Bloggs has been held on a murder charge and because of that information people target his family and then he’s proven Not Guilty what has it achieved but more hurt more crimes
Why do we need a name at the early stages apart from curiosity or a means to retaliate