Can someone tell me why...

[Saitek]

the names of child criminals are not allowed to be released? I study law and haven't a clue. (I'm in the UK).

Now for all I know this guys name may be released by the judge at some point due to the awful severity, but even still the general rule is that they don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4646808.stm

No flames, politics, etc etc just the answers.

Thanks, Ben.  :)

[Craig.]

Because children do not have the mental ability and physical ability to defend themselves incase some crazy person decides on revenge. Or to constantly harass the person in question.

[Saitek]

So, I assume a 17  year old is counted, or even a 16, can't stand up for himself?

I somehow think that argument is rather weak. Oh well I have my answer I suppose.

[Woodlouse2002]

Because the law is generous towards Children. If the law does not release the names of child criminals then that child has more chance of making a success out of life in adulthood than if everyone knows his name for criminal acts.

[Felix/FFDS]

The arbitrary age of 18 for "legal adulthood" is, of course, arbitrary, and subject to change by appropriate law.

Law already provides that for certain crimes, juveniles can be treated as adults.

If one is going to maintain the Hope that the purpose of a legal system is one of rehabilitation of the offender while at the same time punishing inappropriate behaviour, then I can see that withholding the name of a juvenile is appropriate in order to - hopefully - give that juvenile another chance at a future adult life as a responsible member of the community.

[Craig.]

Which sounds like a valid point:)

[bbstackerf]

This kind of like that case a little while back in England. Two boys abducted a child from a shopping mall, held on to him for half the day, then took him down by a rail yard(?) then killed and badly mutilated his body including stuffing batteries in the baby's rectum. The story was making the rounds not too long ago because they were planning to release him (them?) under a new identity and relocate him to Australia (I think that was where.) The stink was they would not or will not release his name.

Very sad story. Stuff like this happens all the time though because of the underage issue.

Keni

[Woodlouse2002]

I'm not sure but I think their identities were released. While it is the case that most young offenders remain unnamed, if they do something like that then their names are made known. Hence the reason for new identities and relocation.

[Mynameisnemo]

This kind of like that case a little while back in England. Two boys abducted a child from a shopping mall, held on to him for half the day, then took him down by a rail yard(?) then killed and badly mutilated his body including stuffing batteries in the baby's rectum. The story was making the rounds not too long ago because they were planning to release him (them?) under a new identity and relocate him to Australia (I think that was where.) The stink was they would not or will not release his name.

Very sad story. Stuff like this happens all the time though because of the underage issue.

Keni

From what i can gather the two that you are on about are somewhere in the uk still but under different identity's.
Also there identies where released but that was quickly hushed up, i think the police got some kind of order which is why it was hushed.
But the lads in question who did it are around 18-19 maybe 20 years old? ? ?

[Woodlouse2002]

But the lads in question who did it are around 18-19 maybe 20 years old? ? ?

Mid twenties at least now I think. It was a fair while ago that there was all the discussion as to whether they should be released when they were 18.

[bbstackerf]

Sorry, should have clarified. Their names were released when they did the crime. I meant their new names were not. Weren't they  like 12 or 13 at the time of the crime?

Keni

[Marlin]

[quote]No flames, politics, etc etc just the answers.

Thanks, Ben.

[eno]

Sorry, should have clarified. Their names were released when they did the crime. I meant their new names were not. Weren't they  like 12 or 13 at the time of the crime?

Keni

They were 9 and 10 when they committed the crime.  You're talking about the Jamie Bulger case.

My opinion ....... the names of all criminals, even children, should be released AFTER they have been found GUILTY. No names should be released before.... I can think of several high profile cases that have caused people to have their lives ruined, even though they have committed no crime, but their names have been released to the public.

[Saitek]

I agree - but you'll cause trouble posting things like that... steady steady.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

IVANOW, thats the most stupid thing I think I have ever heard. What you don't see is that our society works on forgiveness, as opposed to hatred and statements like the one you have just made. You weren't impacted by the crimes of those two young boys and so its wrong of you to pass judgement on them. Sure it may make you feel a little better about something so wrong happening but it doesnt change the situation.




A.



P.S Lots of kids who commit crazy crimes do it because they're either attention seeking or they're mentally troubled. Lets be compassionate? A new name gives them a chance at a normal life, as opposed to a life of crime and obscurity.