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.

I cant believe both of their fb profiles are still up and open.

Really? They are probably not in a position to shut them down right now. What with being in custody and all.

The case raises questions which are wide-reaching (about anonymity in the age of the internet apart from anything else) and it is frustrating to have this derailed by people reducing it to "well why do you want to know, how does it affect you?". Some of us are interested in the bigger picture.

Photos and names should be known so that they can be identified when and if they are released. Murderers shouldn't be helped to get a new identity.

Surely FB profiles can be shut down by FB or whatever?

E.g. I've been friends with people on FB who've died, and their families have been able to have their pages closed down.

I can't bothered to read the whole thread but it's illegal to name the defendant in all cases in youth court, or in crown court if the defendant is 17 or under. Naming Jamie Bulger's killers was a special thing the judge did and was very controversial at the time. I don't know of any other cases off the top of my head where young people have been named. It's not done on a case by case basis - it's a blanket ban on identification and is how it should be, in my jaded old hack opinion.

There are other grounds for not naming people who have committed crimes if kids are involved but there has to be a special order granted by the court (it used to be called a section 39, but my media law is old and out of date).

Of course they can be but I guess their families have other things on their minds right now. I'm assuming they're not sill posting status updates on them.

They haven't been "granted anonymity" due to the circumstances, as some have been saying on this thread. All children who commit criminal offences automatically have anonymity, and only the judge can decide whether to remove that. An application has to be made in court to lift reporting instructions.

Why do some people feel the need to know their names? That was a huge mistake in the Bulger case - it's cost a lot of money to change their identities (which was necessary, unless you want the lynch mobs to have their way), and I'd also hazard a guess that the notoriety they gained made true rehabilitation much more difficult.

Nobody needs to know the names of these two young people, apart from the people working with them to try to rehabilitate them. As others have said, if and when they are released from custody, they will remain on licence for life and will be monitored by the police and probation. If anyone "needs" to know about their past, then appropriate disclosures will be made.

Really? They are probably not in a position to shut them down right now. What with being in custody and all.

Well aren't you a sarky one?

But I think that is part of the bigger picture, bibbety, not a derailment. I know why I want to know. It doesn't show me in a very good light, though.

Mumontherun you wouldn't be able to explain the motive without forsaking the anonymity I believe

I think people need to understand the motive to make sense of things like this (if that's at all possible).

What made the Jamie bulger case so awful was that it was opportunistic - people everywhere were terrified of letting their children out of their sight from then on.

Sadly, I think people are less disturbed if the killers are close to their victims - there was a chap a while back who killed his wife and daughter (I think). Still awful but I think people feel that they can prevent/control relationship-based tragedies more than random, opportunistic ones.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my theory...

It would be nice to imagine that lessons have been learned from the disaster that was the naming of Thompson and Venables during sentencing for the murder of James Bulger. It was handled extremely badly and they should never have been named. They were even younger and more vulnerable. It is arguable that they should never have faced a public 'adult' trial.

But these two - even with the heinous nature of their crime - are children and our law recognises this. I am glad of it. I want these two murderers to be rehabilitated. I hoped that the Bulger killers would be rehabilitated, but I think their identification made that nearly impossible. It just depends, what we want to happen to our criminals. Do we want them hounded for life, or do we want some rehabilitation?

If we aspire to be a humane society, I would hope we want them rehabilitated - which would mean they were no longer a danger to the public and in addition, able to make some sort of contribution. Surely that is a better? This is why we have a justice system that distributes fair penalties that do not involve pitchforks or blood money.

Andrewofgg
You might recognise the name of a killer from a high profile case. I am not losing sleep over the idea of these killers moving next to me, I was simply saying people might want to know who they are to avoid them when they are released.

They may not keep their anonymity - judge will decide that before sentencing. I read on the net earlier who they are and how they are linked to the victims, with information like that easy to fine there's little point in keeping it anonymous.

ElizabethG81, all this stuff about rehabilitation and license only makes sense if you have complete faith in the system. I don't. Many people don't. I even think it's unwise to have faith in the system, in the circumstances, because the system consists of professionals doing their jobs, who at the time of the murderer's release are detached, both emotionally and in time, from the severity of the crime.

The case raises questions which are wide-reaching (about anonymity in the age of the internet apart from anything else) and it is frustrating to have this derailed by people reducing it to "well why do you want to know, how does it affect you?". Some of us are interested in the bigger picture.

There is nothing derailing about it. If you want to remove the children's right to anonymity, you should be able to produce a reason for it, or to demonstrate that it will achieve something.

Children very clearly have a right to anonymity and I cannot see that the existence of the internet changes that. If, say, the identity of abuse victims were published widely on the internet, would that be a valid reason to remove their anonymity?

As one of those professionals, CartwheelGirl, I respectfully disagree. Dealing with these types of offences always has an emotional impact and if I was "detached from the severity of the crime" then I'd be in the wrong job.

"I want these two murderers to be rehabilitated."

Do you believe that they can be rehabilitated? I don't. I certainly don't believe that any murderers deserve to be rehabilitated, that's for sure.

What do you think should happen then CartwheelGirl?

Photos and names should be known so that they can be identified when and if they are released. Murderers shouldn't be helped to get a new identity.

All of that is totally pointless unless you make it illegal for convicted criminals to change their names or appearance in any way.

We all know perfectly well that if the names of these two are officially released, the papers would behave as they have done with Venables and Thompson, doing their best to keep whipping up public indignation and going to town with publicity whenever there's a whiff of possible release. Given that, as a supposedly civilised country, we don't condone lynch mobs, what do you suggest we do about that, Cartwheel?

ElizabethG81 and as one of the professionals dealing with rehabilitation of violent offenders, what exactly would you have said to my friend's parents when they discovered that the man who brutalised, murdered and dismembered her had already "served" a life sentence for murder and been considered rehabilitated enough to re-enter society? Would it be classed as "just one of those things" or "the system is fallible"? I'm genuinely curious.

I agree with people who want to know to rationalise the motive. If this case is what I believe it to be I would possibly hope they could be rehabilitated

I certainly don't believe that any murderers deserve to be rehabilitated, that's for sure.

Really? Including, say, people who carry out mercy killings? There are plenty of convicted murderers out and about in society who are living worthwhile and useful lives. Do you think it is better to carry on paying £50K a year to keep them locked up indefinitely?

Zuleika
But I DON'T want to remove the right to anonymity for children. I am just saying, realistically, how possible is it? Several people on this thread say they know the names of these children - I don't, I haven't tried to find out.

You also say children "clearly" have the right to anonymity but we know from the James Bulger case that there is no "clearly" about it.