AIBU to think that if you commit an adult crime you shouldn't receive anonymity

[Ohbehave1]

After hearing that both of the children involved in the murder of a mother and daughter have been found guilty I think that they if they were adult enough murder someone, and then go and watch films and have sex after that they should be old enough to be named after.

Their crimes were particularly nasty, and as such they should live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. They certainly shouldn't be able to do a few years and then get out with anonymity and start their lives as if nothing ever happened.

As could the girl. She could have walked away and told the police her boyfriend was talking like that. Niether did. They both encouraged in the other the desire to kill. The plan was always that the girl would do it too until the very moment came and she said she didn't want to (after one victim had already been killed).

Given what we know I would say out of the two hazel Stewart was less culpable than the girl in this case.

I didn't say I googled them I said the anonymonity rule was farcical as info is on Google.

You obviously have no idea Jen regarding the two cases and I would say you are brazen and shameless in posting that.

Ok elendon I think it's clear you are (strangely) determined in your opinion on this one so no point anyone trying to engage you on it.

Well, you are not trying to engage. You are merely stating your point of view. And I do wonder why you are trying to do that.

I believe this teenage girl is guilty of manslaughter, not murder though. Can you not see that?

The girl's mental state was only in the spotlight because she tried to use it to minimise her guilt at trial. The boy held his hands up and said 'I did it'. The girl said 'I did it but I wasn't able to be guilty of murder because I was mentally ill'. The jury found that she wasn't mentally ill and therefore she was guilty of murder.

By her own (reported) account, the boy showed hesitancy many times and looked to her for reassurance that she wanted the murder to proceed. She was as much responsible for the act as he was, regardless of who committed the physical part of it.

The joint enterprise offence in British Law. Lock up your sons! They are the one's most likely to be charged under this.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/kill-guilty-murder-supreme-court-law-joint-enterprise-offence

www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/21/joint-enterprise-convictions-of-two-brothers-are-unsafe-court-of-appeal-told

Thankfully, this is being reviewed.

Elendon why are you arguing so strongly for this girl? What is your agenda? I say again unless you are part of the psychiatric team involved in this case (which I presume not) and have sat through the entire case I'm person that you can't comment on the girls mh or anything else. Vaugue notions of "it was the boyfriends fault" are worthless

It's hard to comment without falling foul of the anonymity law, but sometimes there is a good reason for protecting the identity of the individuals involved, yet other times it can do more harm than good.

People are only going online because this case is unusual in that a whole chunk of info in the media is missing. Not just the names but the reason why it all happened. The BBC just talks about a grudge against a dinner lady which makes no sense at all.
It's an unusual and headline grabbing case and if the media don't explain what happened then people will do their own research.

They are not vague notions of it being 'the boyfriend's fault'.

Why are you arguing so strongly that she is a murderer? You have no idea who she is. Unless you have another agenda.

If you know a murder is going to be committed and you do nothing to prevent it, how are you not guilty? And don't give me that bullshit about "oh the poor girl was led by her big bad boyfriend." It's offensive to women to say that we're all so pathetic we can't make our own decisions. Dressing that up as feminism is sickening.

The grudge against the dinner lady made no sense to me either. The reporting on the verdict made no sense. Why just put the spotlight on the girl involved and blithely skim over the boy's involvement?

He was the one after all, who stabbed the dinner lady first in her voice box (what teenager knows where this is?) to stop her from crying in order not to wake up the teenager asleep next door - who he then went on (after there was copious amounts of blood over him and the room), to again stab the teenager in the throat and then smother her. If this isn't the actions of a deranged person, then what is the point of all of this. I had to google what he did as it was not reported in the media.

Elendon despite not bring always perfect I trust the court and experienced psychiatrists and criminologosts and the verdict of a jury who heard all the evidence over you.

I'm not dressing it up as feminism! You are the sick person who would think so! And blithely ignore what the boy did! Gross.

I was referring to the person who was implying that the girl was less culpable because she must have been led by him. If that wasn't you, why are you getting annoyed? And if it was, my point still stands.

They are as bad as each other

She might not have held the knife but it was her idea

How this male teenager murdered these two people was horrendous! Can we not all agree with that?

I am not ignoring what he did, IMO they are both equally culpable for what they did. Both should be sentenced accordingly.

Elendon at 10.36 "he took her down with him"

It is not unheard of for 2 or more individuals to egg each other on to do something that neither would dare alone - each getting encouragement and "courage" from the other as things escalate. In fact it is something you can see in any primary school playground - luckily it usually ends in silly or mildly nasty behaviour, not murder.

He didn't just hold a knife though! And if this had been two young females I would say that the female who murdered was more culpable than the female who didn't. Just like it would be if there were two young males involved. One is a psychopath the other is involved but not a murderer. Please understand the difference.

He did though take her down with him. Just the same if it had been a single sex double murder.