Murderer Can't Be Named For Legal Reasons ......

[saintpeter48]

Can someone with a legal background throw some light on this please?
A teenager murders a 7 year old girl in cold blood, the 7 year old girl is named, the family is named, the whole terrible incident is described on the news and front pages, yet the murderer cannot be named for legal reasons, whats all that about?
Can someone please explain it to me, no doubt she will plead insane, or something similar, and be out in a few years with a new identity, new home, protection etc, to lead her life whilst the victims family are just left to get on with it!!

[jno]

she's not a murderer.

She pleaded guilty to manslaughter and the prosecution accepted it. But she seems clearly to have been mentally unwell. I can't see what purpose would be served by naming her.

[furrypusscat]

That goes without saying. However, having been a police officer albeit some years ago, I have seen it from all perspectives.

[Mamyalynne]

The naming of a murder victim brings information, messages and sympathy,offers of help etc - are you saying that the naming of a murdered child is in some way a bad thing?

[Islay]

I would hope that I had the sense to let justice take its course and have the strength to see it to the culmination of the trial.

[jackthehat]

Well......put your thinking cap on and see if you could come up with a reasonable explanation. I can think of one...

[saintpeter48]

Well then, something is very wrong with the justice system here, the 15 year old smothered the 7 year old, then stabbed her numerous times with a Stanley knife, manslaughter eh? its a wonder she didn't plead self defence!!!
As someone has already stated on here, if the 7 year old victim can be named then why not the 15 year old!

[jackthehat]

Firstly, because children (even murderous ones) are protected by law from being named.....is that simple enough for you?

[saintpeter48]

Protected against what Jack?

[jackthehat]

Have a look here....

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/reporting_restrictions/

[Peter Pedant]

// This was not manslaughter, this was a murder of a 7 year old girl//

this is all getting a bit breathless.
[ Col Madd's monocle pops out - his stick twirls uncertainly and he splutters ' 'this is ABSOLUTELY outraaaageous!' ]

the kid is underage and needs protection from people like - well
YOU !

the plea of gilty of manslughter by reason of diminished responsibility has been accepted. Short trial therefore

[Peter Pedant]

you will know the gory details in two years apparently

the reporting restrictions protect young people
and not people who were young once

[Old_Geezer]

I don't understand why you compare naming the victim with naming the perpetrator. Chalk & cheese. The victim can't be disadvantaged further, the perpetrator and their family can be.

Diminished responsibility is an established accepted reason for considering something as manslaughter when otherwise it would be considered murder.

[saintpeter48]

Jack, I can't be ars*d to trawl through that lot, i don't care about age, age shouldn't be a barrier, if its good for the goose its good for the gander, to me, if one can be named then both should be named, simples!!

[Peter Pedant]

// I don't understand why you compare naming the victim with naming the perpetrator.//

because we are on AB OG

[jackthehat]

Yes, I rather think you may be....

[saintpeter48]

OG, I don't understand the point that you're trying to make.
This just smacks in the face of unfairness, protecting one and not the other.

[Peter Pedant]

// Question Author Jack, I can't be ars*d to trawl through that lot,//

oh I can and did Jack - thanks for looking it out

none so blind as cannot see - blah blah blah .....

[jno]

Can someone please explain it to me

jackthehat did. Turns out you can't be bothered to read it. Why did you ask the question if you don't want to know the answer?

[saintpeter48]

JNO, call me thick, call me stupid, or call me anything, but I can only look at it from what I have read in the papers and heard on the news, I DO NOT agree with not naming the perpetrator but naming the victim, throw all of the legal stuff at me, but I do not agree with it!

[EDDIE51]

I knew I'd need this answer again soon , this is from AB last week ! >>

Once again we see a judge criticised for just doing what he is forced to do!
I yet again have to say that a judge DOES NOT make up the sentence off the top of his/her head.
There is only one possible sentence for murder and that is LIFE!
The judge MUST impose a tariff as he has done here. Until the tariff has been served the offender CAN NOT even start the process of applying to the parole board! 33 and 27 years are right up there with the longest tariffs imposed, in reality they will serve at least several more years than the minimum tariff.
'Whole life tariffs' are very rare and can only be imposed for certain categories of murder , multiple murder for example as in the case of Ian Brady.
Even if they do get parole which is FAR from certain, they can only ever be released 'on licence' never actually free. They can be recalled to prison without another trial if they break any of the conditions that will be imposed for any possible release.
In this way life does mean life!
The others were not charged with murder so they can not be sentenced to 'life'. Again the judge had no option but to sentence to the guidelines!
I'm going to keep a copy of this answer as I know I will need it again in a week or two! >>>

I KNOW that in this case the defendant has pleaded guilty to manslaughter to save a murder trial!
But the assailant is still a child and was being treated for severe mental problems.
If she had been tried for murder ANY lawyer would have got her off scot free!!
No matter what you ,I, AB, the Judge or jury think this was NOT ! murder under the law of the UK !
Neither we, nor a judge and jury, can change the law to suit our personal viewpoint! No matter how much we may want to!
THE LAW is that in this case the defendant CAN NOT be named , in this particular case there are 2 reasons for this,
1, the defendant was under 16 at the time of the offence!
2, she has pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility ! so there will NOT be a trial.
There is an automatic reduction of 1/3rd in any sentence where the defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity as here. So the sentence can not be 'Life'.
Again this is LAW and it can not be changed to suit a particular case!
The reality is that this girl will spend most of the rest of her life in a high security mental hospital .