“Too young to be named for legal reasons”

The thing with naming them is so other victims may come forward to report other crimes that they otherwise might not. Conviction would therefore be more likely.

Gillybob, I think you may be jumping the gun. There are procedures and they are there for good reasons. There's a process. Charged, pleaded, tried, convicted, sentenced. I haven't read the enough of this case to know how far it has gone, but a guilty plea as I understand it is not the same as a conviction :yes, almost certainly a conviction will follow, but don't there still have to be certain court procedures to be gone through - mitigating circumstances, victim impact etc, before the sentence, and I would not be surprised to find that conviction is still a legal process even following a guilty plea. So I feel you should calm down and wait for the "official" conviction and the sentencing, at which point the name could well be released if the court decides at that stage to do so.

No matter

And you can only marry at 16/17 with parents consent and join the army likewise.

Lets be clear, I have never advocated naming an accused person of any age. I remember the Christopher Jefferies case !

However.... Once found guilty or admitting the crime (in this case murder) I can't see why someone should be afforded the luxury of remaining anonymous, not matter what their age 10 or 100.

Should the likes of Peter Sutcliffe, Fred West, Ian Brady have enjoyed remaining anonymous too ?

Cherrytree you can't compare with the Jill Dando case as the police cocked-up big time during the trial of Barry George.

Lots of hang ‘em and flog ‘em Daily Hail readers on here today, I see.
There is no justification for publicly naming the accused, especially a juvenile, unless all you’re interested in is malicious gossip and violent retribution?

Maw not in general elections.

I'm with Gillybob. It was a heinous crime and he should be named. By not doing so it smacks of protection towards the criminal. Once charged, all " rights " should be relinquished !

I understand that emotions run high.
I am extremely sorry fo the victims and families.

The murder(s) when found guilty should serve a harsh sentence.

Let the law of the land take its course.
Until a guilty verdict is passed the public do not need to know who is in the dock.

What purpose (as another poster pointed out) does it serve?

Once the name of an accused is out there, it will matter not to some whether or not the accused is found guilty or innocent.

The 'No smoke without fire' brigade will be ready to seek their own retribution.
Think the Jill Dando case.

What if one day you had a teenage grandchild falsely accused, would you not want keep their names out of the papers, until they had been proved innocent by the court. They could then (hopefully) continue with their studies and go into adulthood without stigma?

We shall have to agree to disagree then Doodledog . This scum bag ( and I make no apologies for calling him such) took the life of an innocent father . He stole a screwdriver to carry out the crime . Why do we owe him the luxury of anonymity? He is 17 ! Not 5 . Can we really say that at 17 he is not old enough to know right from wrong ? I hope they lock him up for the rest of his life . This crime has really shocked me as my own DD works very close to where it took place . It could easily have been her in the wrong place at the wrong time . Thankfully we don’t often see such serious crimes in these parts .

For goodness sake when I was only a few months older than him I was a mother working full time , paying tax, rent etc. And bringing up my son.

Can someone please explain to me exactly what would be acheived by naming anyone? (The information about Germany is interesting). The 17 year old in Newcastle was obviously widely known in his area and this made no difference to his actions. Does putting someone's name in the paper prevent crime? I very much doubt it. Will the offender named be somehow shamed? I very much doubt it. So what we are left with is the fact that some people like to read about these things in the tabloid press. Nothing can compensate for the loss the victim's family have experienced. The only people who would really suffer are the offender's family. I can't see any justification in any of these for naming juveniles.

This seems to be happening more and more - there have been several crimes committed in my area , involving someone that is under 16 and it is up to the judge in each case whether the name of the U16 is named before the verdict is reached
Personally, I think that if they are capable of committing such horrendous crimes - often when someone has died or suffered life changing injuries, that they should be treated the same as an adult but I know that many disagree with that thought.
I often wonder if the prevalence of computer games being played mean that many youngsters have no concept of the consequences if someone dies as a result of their actions - in the games, they are allowed to just move on to the next one with no action taken against them and if they are "killed" they can "fight" another day ?

I'll be honest here and say I truly don't know the answer to this but am interested in all your responses.

Name them! Too much attention paid to criminals especially in this case when the person has already pleaded guilty. If his family suffer because of him then of course that should be prevented but their suffering will never be anywhere near the same as that of the family of the murdered man.

I don't think the fact that people can do other things at 17 is relevant. Legally, people are minors until they are 18.

The James Bulger case was dreadful; but fortunately very rare, so using that as a yardstick for how young murderers should be treated makes no sense.

I do believe that the boy who killed the innocent bystander should spend a lot of time in jail; but unless we are going to chuck him in an oubliette, there is nothing to be gained by naming him. His family will suffer, he will have no chance of making a life when he eventually gets out (so there would be no point in attempting to rehabilitate him) , and crucially, nobody will have benefitted from his being named.

I might think differently if the victim or his family stood to gain anything, but they won't.

In answer to the question about whether a murderer should not be named because he is a murderer, or because he is 17, in my opinion, it is the fact that he is 17 that is important. If we say that he is nearly 18, we are blurring the lines and where will it stop?

Where was the new life for James Bulger?

So in your opinion GGMk3 a self confessed murderer should not be named simply because he is 17 ? or because we should not name murderers?

I see the tricoteuses are in full flood again.

I can't see the point in naming them until a guilty verdict comes in. What's the point? So that the hating can (understandably) begin? Not a good enough reason. Not what justice is about.

The law is NOT an ass.

A consequence of not naming people charged with serious offences is that other people are wrongfully accused. The public also needs protection from these people if they are released on bail.
Finally, no one aged seventeen is a child, never mind the legal definition.

Well said gillybob - Completely agree with you.

I agree to not naming them until they have been found guilty. At that point yes, of course they should be named. These are young adults not children. They are old enough to marry, to join the army and, in this instance, to deliberately kill an innocent man.

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

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.