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.

It's obvious if you put 2+2 together even from what's just been said on the BBC news right now.

I'm not familiar with the case being alluded to in this thread, but as PP have said, there is not necessarily a public interest in revealing the identities at this stage, particularly if the family of the victims has requested that the judge does not do so at this stage. Obviously people who were present in court will know, but what wider interest does it serve? Nothing.

Children who kill will always attract prurient interest, not least because it is relatively rare (even if we include gang-related killings etc) - but knowing their names? At this stage, absolutely nothing is gained by the public knowing, apart from the potential of bringing yet more grief to the families of the victims.

As I said in my post (had you read it properly) soubriquet "it MAYhave been family who requested anonymity". Note the use of the word "may" !

Do you think it is right that they get the chance to lead a normal life?

Yes, Ohbehave1 - I do.

I'm sure that if someone I loved was murdered I would want the key to be thrown away, and frankly that is the least of the evils I would wish on the murderer. But the criminal justice system really cannot be based on my revenge reactions.

sandyholme please stop!! I have reported your post. You are determined to have this girl named.

These two will not be 'rehabilitated' , they are sick to the core.

This was no moment of madness, with a lifetime of grief and anguish for the perpetrators afterwards!

This is an example of a child murderer who was rehabilitated but the circumstances were vastly different.

s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AuEP_82rSQ

In this particular case the family of the victims may have requested the perpetrators remain anonymous. Think about that and the possible reasons for it

There really could only be one conclusion to come to.

And as for rehabilitation - a PP asked if they will serve their sentences in a Young Offenders' Unit, before transferring to an adult prison: that is precisely what would usually happen in cases like this.

Not every criminal, however, is able to be rehabilitated: from memory, one of James Bulger's murderers has has repeated issues since his original release, including charges for images of child sexual exploitation, and I believe he has had more than one new identity since as a result. Even when people like this are released, probation and the police keep tabs on them ever after - there are consequences for them every day over and above the moral consequences of their actions.

(Disclaimer: whilst I appreciate rehabilitation sometimes occurs during incarceration, I would still support the reintroduction of the death penalty in the UK, even though, in a case such of this, it wouldn't, quite properly, owing to the ages of those involved, be used.)

Yes, that the family of the victim want anonymity. We should respect their wishes.

I agree

I've reported your post too sandy

Are you a psychologist Sandyholme? Or do you just know these 15 year olds really really well?

These two should never be released in to general society this double murder should carry a full life term regardless of their ages.

Well sandyholme you are entitled to your views, however mediaeval they are; but you know that they are going to be released and the decision on anonymity has to be based on that. The naming of they two boys who killed James Bulger was a terrible mistake and should not be repeated.

And apologies Alfie

Didn't see the May bit

I hope their names do stay out of the press. Cases like this are incredibly complex for all involved. I do not agree with you at all OP, Unfortunately, there are many people like you who have this name and shame/mob mentality and it serves no purpose.

I have reported it too.

What Zuleika said.

It is arguable that people with whom these two form relationships, as and when they are in a position to do so, should know their history.

Why is it in your interest? Or mine? I know precisely why I want to know - because I am nosy and prurient. (I'm a journalist, after all.) That doesn't mean it's right that I should know.

For what it's worth I think the reporting restrictions will be lifted at some point.

However, in the meantime threads like this just keep people speculating.

Aye - sorry for your loss

It's impossible to articulate the arguments in favour of anonymity here without breaching it .

I'd also say OP there are some significant differences here between the Cliff Richard and this crime re: anonymity. The comparison isn't relevant.

Am i not allowed to feel the way the vast majority of the public do towards murderers .

What the fuck? Are people really that stupid? The anonymity is clearly not to protect the people convicted but to protect the family of the victims. I don't give a shit if they can be found out by a quick google. Two wrongs don't make a right.

People need to stop dropping hints here and if you've already had a "thread booted off here" have a think about why.

You can feel how you like sandy but you are posting things that is a bit too identifiable and that is against the law

EatsShitAndLeaves thank you.
I think the biggest difference is if people want to know so they can protect themselves and their families from potential danger, that is reasonable. If people want to know because it's a bit of salacious gossip to be shocked and horrified at then it's not reasonable. For every murder case there is somebody who has died in a horrible way, there is a life that has been taken away and there are family and friends whose lives will never be the same again. Is that an appropriate thing to get some kind of self righteous kick out of? No, it isn't.

Sadly it's not a case of these two have "rights" or anything else...it's a fact that in the future the likelihood is that they WILL be allowed back into society. We just have to hope that enough work is done to ensure they never offend again. No guarantees that they won't but am assuming if there are question marks over that then they won't be released.

As teenagers the law takes into account their development and particularly brain growth which is still ongoing in early to mid teens.
The bit of the brain taking longest deals with impulse control and decision making....which is why teenagers can make some bloody stupid decisions. Thankfully most of those stupid decisions are relatively harmless...but not with these two.

So they may mature, massively regret what they have done and suffer the consequences of that for the rest of their lives. Or they may be psychopaths who require lifelong monitoring in a secure environment. Only the authorities will know as they monitor the two perpetrators over the next few years.

Whatever the issue it won't bring back this woman or her daughter.