Naming of 'Children' Found Guilty of Major Crimes

Lincsaddick

I'll keep this brief as it borders on the 'political'
Recently there has been a spate of murders and other serious crimes where defendants and those found guilty  are under18 years old. They cannot be named unless special dispensation is granted by the court.

So, a 'child' aged (say) 17 years and 360 days cannot be named, remains anonymous when he is released (It usually is a 'he') after serving a sentence, and the public has no idea that he is a potential danger and menace to society. However, when an 'adult' of (say) 18 years and 10 days is found guilty of a serious crime, he can be named, shamed and recognised as a potential future problem to the public. This cannot be right.

All perpetrators of crimes which carry a maximum sentence of over (say) five years should be named irrespective of their age. 

Comments ?

i_b_b_o_r_g

Keep it as it is, same as the voting age

colthe3rd

Serious question but why do you care? These people will be on parole when they finally get out, any jobs they go for will have had a background check returned on them which means they won't get a job working with children, the vulnerable etc. To me this just boils down to I'm nosey and want to know. 

Stig

Lincsaddick said:

I'll keep this brief as it borders on the 'political'
Recently there has been a spate of murders and other serious crimes where defendants and those found guilty  are under18 years old. They cannot be named unless special dispensation is granted by the court.

So, a 'child' aged (say) 17 years and 360 days cannot be named, remains anonymous when he is released (It usually is a 'he') after serving a sentence, and the public has no idea that he is a potential danger and menace to society. However, when an 'adult' of (say) 18 years and 10 days is found guilty of a serious crime, he can be named, shamed and recognised as a potential future problem to the public. This cannot be right.

All perpetrators of crimes which carry a maximum sentence of over (say) five years should be named irrespective of their age. 

Comments ?

Why? What are the advantages and how do they outweigh the disadvantages? Surely a better approach would be to leave the decision in the hands of trained professionals rather than making sweeping judgements on, as yet, uncommitted crimes. 

bobmunro

colthe3rd said:

Serious question but why do you care? These people will be on parole when they finally get out, any jobs they go for will have had a background check returned on them which means they won't get a job working with children, the vulnerable etc. To me this just boils down to I'm nosey and want to know. 

I believe it is more to do with society seeking retribution beyond that which the judicial system deems appropriate. 

I totally agree with you. A crime is committed and punishment is served (sentencing is another argument of course) - I would leave it to experts to monitor and protect society from any further risk rather than trial by the mob.  

Bedsaddick

i_b_b_o_r_g said:

Keep it as it is, same as the voting age

This

DRAddick

Maximum sentence of over 5 years? So things like theft, fraud, abstracting electricity, cultivation of cannabis (1 plant), fly tipping, handling stolen goods, Trade Mark infringements...

jacob_CAFC

DRAddick said:

Maximum sentence of over 5 years? So things like theft, fraud, abstracting electricity, cultivation of cannabis (1 plant), fly tipping, handling stolen goods, Trade Mark infringements...

all those things deserve mob justice.

A 16 or 17 year old that commits a major crime will likely not be in the best mental state. Naming and shaming them doesn't help anyone. Rehabilitation for these people is far better than the alternative, a life spent between bars on the tax payers £££

PaddyP17

Judges can lift a ban on naming at their discretion, such as with the murderer of Alesha MacPhail (Aaron Campbell). So it's not a hard and fast rule.

carly burn

Name them I say. I do wonder what the parents of this murderous scum do to bring up such animals at times. Maybe naming their ferral offspring will make the parents take a look at themselves when the spotlight is on them.

When somebody is murdered the victim obviously suffers terribly but so do their families.

Why shouldn't the parents of these scumbags pay a similar price.

i_b_b_o_r_g

I think they should be named, but only after they've been hung, so it don't affect their future prospects

Lincsaddick

For example (one amongst several recent instances of 'children' commiting murder) .. the murder of Jodie Chesney .. two 'well known drug dealers' have been found guilty of her murder .. one aged 19 is named, the other aged 17 is not .. it's not clear which of them plunged a knife so far into her back after creeping up on her, that the blade almost penetrated as far as the front of her body .. each has blamed the other for the stabbing, it seems that it was a 'joint enterprise' .. one of these vermin has been named, I think that the murderous 17 year old 'child' should also be named .. we will see if that happens when the judge passes sentence later

PaddyP17

The other part of this, of course, is if there's no age... Then what? You have to draw a line somewhere, whether it's for voting/drinking/marriage/screwing etc. Same goes for the identification of minors. And we've already mentioned it's a discretionary thing, so I don't think any change is necessary and should vary case by case.

Those who have committed a serious crime are required to disclose its nature thereafter in the job sphere and such. I don't see any issue with how things are atm.

Chizz

Lincsaddick said:

For example (one amongst several recent instances of 'children' commiting murder) .. the murder of Jodie Chesney .. two 'well known drug dealers' have been found guilty of her murder .. one aged 19 is named, the other aged 17 is not .. it's not clear which of them plunged a knife so far into her back after creeping up on her, that the blade almost penetrated as far as the front of her body .. each has blamed the other for the stabbing, it seems that it was a 'joint enterprise' .. one of these vermin has been named, I think that the murderous 17 year old 'child' should also be named .. we will see if that happens when the judge passes sentence later

Why do you want to know the seventeen year old's name? 

He will be given a sentence of life at her majesty's pleasure. He could be released from prison (but not from his sentence) in, say, 16 years' time. Do you really need to know his name now?  What possible good would it do to know his name at any stage between now and (for example) the year 2035? 

If he's released then, a decision will be made as to his suitability for release. It will take into account the likelihood of recommending-offence. Unless you're on the prime board at the time, why would you need to know his name? 

Lincsaddick

PaddyP17 said:

Judges can lift a ban on naming at their discretion, such as with the murderer of Alesha MacPhail (Aaron Campbell). So it's not a hard and fast rule.

I mentioned this in my original post

Stu_of_Kunming

Chizz said:

Lincsaddick said:

For example (one amongst several recent instances of 'children' commiting murder) .. the murder of Jodie Chesney .. two 'well known drug dealers' have been found guilty of her murder .. one aged 19 is named, the other aged 17 is not .. it's not clear which of them plunged a knife so far into her back after creeping up on her, that the blade almost penetrated as far as the front of her body .. each has blamed the other for the stabbing, it seems that it was a 'joint enterprise' .. one of these vermin has been named, I think that the murderous 17 year old 'child' should also be named .. we will see if that happens when the judge passes sentence later

Why do you want to know the seventeen year old's name? 

He will be given a sentence of life at her majesty's pleasure. He could be released from prison (but not from his sentence) in, say, 16 years' time. Do you really need to know his name now?  What possible good would it do to know his name at any stage between now and (for example) the year 2035? 

If he's released then, a decision will be made as to his suitability for release. It will take into account the likelihood of recommending-offence. Unless you're on the prime board at the time, why would you need to know his name? 

Then why name any criminals at all? We already have a very reasonable age of criminal responsibility, if you're old enough to do the crime then you should face the same punishment(s) as everyone else, imo