Brianna Ghey

Luckygirl3

I agree that the families will find it very hard; but I am sure that locals already know who they are.

I am hoping that their will be some curb on the media behaving inappropriately. It is not in the public interest for them to be targeted in any way.

It will be irrelevant to most of us who the families are, we won't know them.
It is their neighbours, friends, relatives who will know and they will know anyway, as you say.

How these people react will depend on the established relationships they already have with the families.

Some posters seem to think they know better than the judge. I would never be so arrogant.

I wonder if their siblings might be of a similar mindset and by releasing the names of these individuals might encourage others to come forward perhaps. Who knows?
I don’t see why their names should be with held. Brianna’s name wasn’t with held, her poor parents have had to run The gauntlet of publicity.

M0nica

Exactly Anniebach, especially ther siblings. This case sn't just about the killes it is about their families and Brianna's

But that could apply to many similar cases - it is not, in my view, a compelling argument for NOT naming those convicted. Having interviewed many families of victims over the years, I can't think of any who wouldn't have wanted those responsible to be named.

I'm not sure about this myself. They'll probably be reassigned different names if and when they ever leave prison to protect them from revenge attacks , won't they? That means , I suppose eternal and undeserved consequences for the rest of the two criminals'families while the criminals themselves will eventually get anonymity.
The two murderers might get a particularly hard time in prison and have to be kept separately ?
I suppose we want to say "serves them right" but far more important I think is that serious psychiatric work needs to be done with these two to see if they can ever be made safe for readmission to normal society.
This may have been one of these "folies à deux" crimes where it might never have happened had the two murderers never met.

I believe that some people are Callistemon.

I agree that the families will find it very hard; but I am sure that locals already know who they are.

I am hoping that their will be some curb on the media behaving inappropriately. It is not in the public interest for them to be targeted in any way.

MOnica I am not a lone voice !

Do you think some people are just born evil?

The Nature or Nurture debate.

Exactly Anniebach, especially ther siblings. This case sn't just about the killes it is about their families and Brianna's

It will affect them. They will have a tough time in prison and, possibly unless they change their names, afterwards. Everyone in the locality already knows who they are. You seem to think you know better than the judge Annie.

Naming the teenagers will not affect them, my concern is for their families

I accept the Judge’s decision to name these two.
I’m shocked by Petra’s comment, damning the families of these two young murderers. We know very little other than that both appear to have come from ‘ordinary’ families.
I hope they benefit from the support they will be offered in custody. One of the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger did benefit, he co-operated with education and psychological therapy. He’s kept out of trouble since being released. The other boy is back in custody, for very good reason.
The forensic psychologist interviewed on radio 4 just now. Reminded us that the brain continues to change and develop to around age 25.
Before im shouted at, I’m not any less horrified by their actions than most posters, I hope a degree of rehabilitation is possible. I accept that may not be possible. The female got a longer sentence. Her behaviour before this murder was of concern.

I cannot think of any reason why they should not be named. They are evil.

Nor should they be released and given new identities so that they can walk amongst us and our grandchildren upon release without our knowledge.

Whatever happens it will not bring Brianna back.

Anniebach

Untruths are often believed regardless

So what would you suggest then?

They should be named. Hope they never come out.

Untruths are often believed regardless

If the media are prohibited from naming convicted criminals that would have the same effect as an order that their identities be kept secret. Some families are happy to sell their stories, others not. But if untruths are told they have recourse and there will always be a no win, no fee lawyer happy to act for them for a percentage of the compensation.

I am in support of them being named. Why not?

The families of the victim and the perpetrators as those in the local community knew who they were anyway. Why should they be allowed to hide under the cloak of anonymity to the rest of us?

If we were to start withholding names of those who'd committed murder and other seriously violent crimes, it would create a very peculiar environment where speculation would run riot. For example, ordinary people who'd perhaps moved, emigrated, or whatever, might well come under suspicion - simply because they'd 'disappeared'. An environment of continuous speculation... members of the public - who imagine they have some kind of talent as sleuths, would be constantly running to the press with stories and conjecture. We have to know who these people are (in general, not specifically in this particular case), so that the public aren't in a permanent state of playing guessing games.

As for the hounding of the families - especially by the media - that is something that needs to be curtailed. It is not the fault of the justice system that the media, and readers, behave irresponsibly. There should be some limits on what the media is allowed to print - especially if the families are entirely innocent. Perhaps they (media) should not be allowed to name or identify the families involved? I don't know, because obviously those who know the perpetrators will also know who the families are. But conjecture and guesswork by the media is pretty evil. And, if we were never told the names of murderers, I think the hypothesising and theorising would be dreadful.

Convicted criminals are named unless there is some particular reason that the judge feels should be taken into account. I accept her judgement and do not see it as out of order that the perpetrators have been named.

Unless there was an anonymity order they could be identified when 18 (next year).
Many other under 18s murderers have been identified by the courts so it's not anything new.
Courts seem to think it's a deterrent.
In this case it shows that bright kids from a supportive secure family committed a heinous crime
Brianna's mother supported the murderers being identified (that's good enough for me)

BlueBell how often are murderers 16 years of age? I know nothing of their home lives and question why their parents can now be freely written about

I'm in the same position as you, BlueBelle.

I can't see the point in having rules that say children can't be named until they reach adulthood though. Either they are protected by law or they aren't. They are old enough to be treated as adults or they aren't. It is the age they were at the time of the crime that matters.

I don't think the families should be punished. It must be bad enough to live with the fact that your son or daughter had done something like this, without any further torment.

anniebach following your thoughts why would any murderer or prisoner be named then? what does it achieve?
They would be named next year when they become ‘adults’ anyway
I m on the fence really does it make any difference? not really, certainly punishes their families
It must be absolutely awful to bring your children up as best you can and then have this on your conscience and be forever known as a murderers mum or dad, brother or sister
I m not for or against really