“Too young to be named for legal reasons”

gillybob Why do you want to know the name of the offender?

I'm not asking you to reiterate all that he has done wrong; just why you want to know who he is, given that he will be spending a long time in jail, and it's not as though he will be living near you and you want to avoid him.

I don’t care whether he’s named or not, but I do care that he receives a proper punishment. Yes punishment! He’s apparently admitted to a terrible murder, he has deprived a family of a husband, father, son and brother. He needs to be punished, and in my opinion life should not mean 20 years, which is then often halved for ‘good behaviour.’ He should serve a minimum of 20 years in my opinion and really I think for such a heinous crime he should serve more than 20 years. If he can do this at 17, he will still be dangerous at 37.

I agree with BlueBelle that no one, child or adult, should be named until a court decides that they are guilty. Then name and shame away! Until then people are presumed innocent but frankly once named it has unintended consequences. I know of 2 separate cases when men were charged with crimes and went to court only to be found not guilty. By then both had lost their jobs or been suspended immediately on being charged (and at least 6 months prior to court date so lots of financial implications for them and their families) as well as being made social outcasts locally. No one broadcasts the not guilty verdicts in the paper and even if known people said “no smoke without fire”. One man suffered terribly with his mental health following this allegation and had a heart attack the following year and died. So although our courts presume innocent until proven guilty, the court of public opinion doesn’t and so I think complete anonymity should be given until a guilty verdict.

Parentage, genetics and upbringing are not something babies can control.

I don’t think anyone, of any age should be named prior to trial, As they are innocent until proved guilty. If and when they are found guilty then their identity should be rightly publicised .

Would those who say that minors should be named agree that a 5 year old who had committed a crime should also be named?

Ridiculous law. They are almost old enough to fight for their country, and to vote (what a thought). Name and shame.

When I hear of under 18s referred to as children I often wonder why there is no system for restitution for all the people who left school at 15 and went to work. Nowadays that would be viewed as abuse. However I think no one should be named in the media until proven guilty.(I refer to those charged and appearing in court cases. The dirt sticks whether found innocent or guilty.

Here in the US, a judge has to decide when a 'child' can be tried as an adult. It's the judges discretion that applies in each case depending on the gravity of the crime and the maturity of the defendant. As in all things however, travesties do occur. There have been cases were children have received harsh sentences and young criminals have gotten a pass. Alas it's not a perfect world!

Should names be withheld? I am of the opinion that an innocent person's identity should be protected until proven guilty, regardless of age. When an underage individual is proven guilty of a heinous crime, they deserve to forfeit their anonymity along with their freedom.

Aepgirl '(and others) Almost old enough' is not the same as old enough.

Do you think that 10 year old criminals should be named? 5 year olds? Is it worth having a cut-off at all, if 'almost old enough' is as good as being old enough.

Gillybob, totally agree with your posts, and in particular, I echo your opinion about criminals doing jury service. I understand that some crimes mean a person is not allowed to do jury service, but not all. I think a criminal record should exclude a person from jury service permanently. As to Craicon’s opinion that it’s unfortunate that such ‘narrow minded and ill informed opinions’ are allowed to serve on a jury (she is referring to gillybob, most rudely in my opinion, I’m afraid she is displaying for all to see, her own narrow minded attitude that only people who fit her version of acceptable should serve on juries.

I don’t see what would be achieved by naming him before conviction. I think the crime is horrific, but I don’t see what good naming him at this stage would do.

Some children are adult at 14 so should we bring the age down to 14? What exactly do you gain Gillybob by naming him, it will just be a name for you and know more. I fail to see what is gained by it. He already shamed in his neighbourhood as they will know who he is and also his family.

A friend and I were discussing this earlier today and we both bought that the boys accused should be named. Why should they be protected if they are knowingly capable of murder.

Protected from what? Are you saying that naming them is likely to mean that they are attacked?

It's not a long way between that and just throwing people to the wolves. I know what he did was terrible; but he is still, technically, a child.

I think throwing people to the wolves is well within the parameters of thinking of some of those who post on this sort of thread sadly, Doodledog.

I've no idea why there is a need to know? It's baffling. What will people do with this knowledge? I remember during the Bulger case a 14 year old boy was wrongly identified as being one of the 2 perpetrators.

Splashed all over the papers. The boy and his family all totally innocent, needed rehoming and police protection.

It won't help anyone to be told the name is this boy. But I'm pretty sure his name will be released post sentencing.

But I don't understand why it's a problem. The law is under 18s remain anonymous. A judge has the option of naming after sentencing.

I squirm when people put punishment, which implies retribution, high on the agenda.

Name and shaming has little relevance to the perpetrators until somewhat down the line in fact for some it enables them to stand tall amongst their peer group. But it can have a devastating impact on family and friends who are often also innocent victims of the crime.

I believe as a society we would be better served to adopt rehabilitation as the primary function of the justice system not punishment and the humiliation of criminals as they tend to reinforce their antisocial behavior.

As I said previously, I don’t care whether he’s named or not. But punishment is important. Yes, rehabilitation, but punishment too. I wonder if you’d feel so benevolently towards someone who, after committing many crimes, then went on the quite deliberately murder your father, spouse, or child. I think you’d want them punished. Why not? Why would anyone say, ‘ It’s sad you murdered someone, but we’ll try to help you be a better person. No more murdering people, it’s not nice.’

Rehabilitation is excellent for some perpetrators.
But sadly for some no amount of rehabilitation can change who & what they are capable of.
Not sure about being named.
I suppose we should ask ourselves if we would want to know if a convicted person was living nearby. I think most of us would .

I’d want to know Bridgeit, if the person was likely to be a danger to me or my family, but unfortunately it’s highly unlikely I would know. I certainly wouldn’t know if the crime was committed before the person was 18 and was therefore a minor at that time. It’s all very tricky, so many things to consider, but punishment should not be a dirty word. If the crime is severe enough ie murder, then punishment is absolutely acceptable. By punishment, I mean a long prison sentence, not some of the wholly unacceptable punishments some countries dish out.

I completely agree, maddyone that if anyone hurt my loved ones I would want them to suffer. Badly.

But that is the reason we have the rule of law, not vengeance.

The law is supposed to be impartial and objective, and the law says that under 18s are, in these circumstances, minors, with the protections that that entails. The fact that this boy is 'nearly 18' is irrelevant.

If we start messing about with the law, it may as well not exist, and we would have anarchy.

Sentencing is another matter, and in most cases gives judges discretion to take account - within the law - of special circumstances. In this case, it is likely that the boy's previous convictions will be taken not account, and he will be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure - in other words, until it is very clear that he is no longer a danger. That may mean that he spends decades in jail, and if that is necessary, so be it. If he can be rehabilitated and learns the error of his ways, he may get out sooner.

It is not, however, for popular opinion to decide. That way madness lies.

'into' account - not 'not'!