Cannot Be Named Because Of Age ????

[fbg40]

Today, two 15 year old "children" were found guilty of murdering a mother and her daughter. The male admitted guilt from the start, the girl was found guilty at her trial. Why is it that they cannot be named ? Surely they give up all rights to anonymity when they they commit the crime ! As far as I'm concerned, it should be name and shame. The law in this case is an ass !!
FBG40

[jno]

I'm not defending them. I'm defending suppression of their names.

Complicated distinction, I know, but a member of Mensa ought to be able to puzzle it out..

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

/// What difference does it actually make if we were to be told their names? ///

Then perhaps why bother to name any such criminals, both young or old?

[jackthehat]

I agree......well said.

[Barmaid]

I also think its a fair point. Generally, most people convicted of murder become yesterday's news. Even if they are named few will remember them - unless they had a personal interest in the case or were a matter of local interest. Only those that are particularly gruesome or shocking seem to remain in the psyche.

It's better to remember the victims anyway.

[ToraToraTora]

"most people convicted of murder become yesterday's news." - yes, sadly murder has become common place and generations of hand wringers have made it un memorable. You only have to look at the number of people defending murderers every time it happens. Then there is the judges that generally let them off anyway. No wonder no one feels protected by society. The seeds are being sown for extremists to rise. If only the TPMM could see it.

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

Well thank you, I know it is getting off track, but what are your feelings about the naming of accused male sex offenders, when their accusers are given the benefit of being anonymous, even when their accusations are proven false?

[ToraToraTora]

that's fine AOG because they are guilty until proven skint.

[Barmaid]

I am sure JTH wont mind if I ask you to clarify.

When you say "proven false" do you mean proven to be lies or do you mean that the accused has been found "not guilty"?

[ToraToraTora]

AOG clearly means found not guilty barmaid. Not sure why you are trying to spin this to defend murderers who have actually been convicted. I have never managed to fathom the left wing mind.

[Barmaid]

TTT, can you point out where I have tried to spin this to defend those convicted, please?

[Mamyalynne]

You must be reading a different thread to the one I am TTT, I haven't seen anyone defend these two as mentioned in the OP.

Equally curious as to what some would do if given their names etc

Surely we would then have to pay a considerable amount to move the families to protect them from angry members of the public.

[jackthehat]

Is it a particularly 'Left wing' trait to want to see the rule and letter of the law applied?

And if so, how does this differ from the 'Right wing' perception?

[EDDIE51]

TTT yet again you are saying that those accused of a crime should be simply convicted without trial. Everyone no matter what the crime or the circumstances is entitled to a fair trial ! That is a basic tenant of Justice!.
As a matter of interest where would you set the 'bar' for conviction without trial? Parking,Shoplifting, theft, assault, GBH, Attempted murder, a single murder, multiple murder??

[ToraToraTora]

no eddie we are talking about those that have been convicted. Did you read the OP?

[Barmaid]

TTT, can you point out where I have tried to spin this to defend those convicted, please?

[EDDIE51]

TTT at 14.30 you say '' You only have to look as the number of people defending murderers every time it happens, then there is the Judges that generally let them off anyway''
Does that mean you do not approve of a person accused murderer being defended by a solicitor in court? As that is the way it looks to me.
Also when and where have you heard of a Judge 'letting off' someone who has been found guilty of murder? There is only one possible sentence for an adult found guilty of murder and that is 'Life'.
(Though there are different sentences for children and those under 16 at the time of the offence)

[fbg40]

Mikey4444
I acknowledge most of your reply at 1802, but the last sentence I will treat with the contempt it deserves. There is no need whatsoever to be so rude and personal. If the Ed wants to remove my reply then so be it.
FBG40

[Old_Geezer]

14, 15, whatever, all old enough to know that killing is a major wrong. It's not like there is any justification in claiming they'd not know; and if they didn't know and that is the reason for withholding their names then that would indicate that they clearly have mental issues, and that can be the case at any age. It seems to me that it is inconsistent to suggest that there is a legitimate reason to withhold the name of one group of perpetrators and yet give it out for another. I don't think the present situation makes any sense; but there again that's what I expect from authorities.