Gary Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 One of the teenagers who has been arrested accused of a serious sexual assault on a 12-year-old boy at Stockton Heath can not be named for "legal reasons." He is old enough to have sex, old enough to drive a car but not old enough to be named! Is this right? When I reported in the courts many years ago juvenilles were those aged 16 and under. It would appear now, as children grow up quicker, they can have their identities protected when accused of crimes. Sometimes the publicity is the only real punishment criminals get! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 There's the arguement of not naming and shaming until proven guilty though. In my opinion if someone is guilty of a serious assault or crime then they SHOULD be named and shamed regardless of their age ! Why should they have the right to identity protection and other legal twaddle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 There's a question as to whether some of these offenders can be "shamed" or whether such notoriety will be seen as a badge of courage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 I understand what you meant but in the case of a sexual assault on a 12 year old I can't see even the most hardened of yobs giving the scum who 'allegidly' carried out this kind of attack a badge of courage. They should stick the offenders in a room full of the victims family members and allow them to hand out the punishment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Perhaps photos of local peadophiles too; they'd be hanging from every lamp post by morning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Good although a more painful punishment maybe more fitting : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 There's the arguement of not naming and shaming until proven guilty though. In my opinion if someone is guilty of a serious assault or crime then they SHOULD be named and shamed regardless of their age ! Why should they have the right to identity protection and other legal twaddle The law of the land is adults can be named once charged. If they are innocent naming them could help them find witnesses to clear their name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 The law of the land is adults can be named once charged. I've always said that this particular law of the land desperately needs changing. For some reason, the press never seem to give quite as many column inches to someone having charges quietly dropped when they succeed in pointing out to Plod that they couldn't possibly be guilty, as they do to gleefully naming and shaming someone when they're first charged. Charging someone is only Plod expressing the opinion that they might be guilty, at the end of the day. It's still a long, long way from there to a conviction. Until such time as there is a guilty verdict in court I don't believe that there are any established facts which need to be in the public domain, so anonymity of accused, accusers and witnesses should all be preserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve the Original Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 If he has been charged then yes name and shame especialy for possible sex offenders who generaly get out on bail so its a way to maybe protect others.. I dont think that anyone would consider this a badge of merit as even kids have brothers or sisters!! even convicted mass murderes will attack a peadophile in Prison. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Personally, I'd be a bit miffed about being named and shamed as a possible sex offender purely on the basis that Plod thought they had enough circumstantial evidence to charge me. Those sort of labels tend to stick for life no matter how thoroughly a person is able to clear their name afterwards. And the knuckle-dragging vigilante element out there isn't renoun for keeping abreast of the fine details of individual cases (anyone remember the case of the pediatrician who got their windows broken and house daubed in paint by an excitable, and presumably dyslexic, mob?) After conviction in court, fair enough. But trial by media is no trial at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Getting back to my original point - We have one lad named after being charged (aged 19) and the other aged (aged 17) remains protected - even if convicted. That surely can not be right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 You're right, I don't see a difference between them. I'd say name anyone - regardless of age - once they're convicted. If they're deemed old enough to stand trial, they're old enough to be named in public. I assume the law has changed since '93? If not, how did Thompson and Venables get named? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 That case always baffled me. Name the Bulger killers and then spend millions of our money protecting their identities after they are jailed and then realeased!! Beats me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Levy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 I am disgusted to say that last Tuesday just hours before the disgusting crime was commited, I was talking Edited by admin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Here's hoping they both do Jonathan although the way the law works these days they will probably receive short sentences and be free to walk our streets again soon. Have you reported the 'conversation' to the police as it may help and sounds rather weird and worring that he suddenly gave you ( a complete stranger) his full life story, name an address. .....and to answer Gary's question again .. YES they both should be named, shamed and photos shown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Levy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Have you reported the 'conversation' to the police as it may help and sounds rather weird and worring that he suddenly gave you ( a complete stranger) his full life story, name an address. quote] No but in what way would reporting the conversation help them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Obviously it would not help at all..... and just goes to show what happens when all facts aren't presented Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Levy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 So obviously it would not help at all..... and just goes to show what happens when all facts aren't presented Haha yeah sorry my fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 No probs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 As I understand it, everyone is now DNA swabed and fingerprinted upon arrest; so guilty or not guilty your on their data base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Don't hold your breath! The law doesn't move that quickly. They will not get ANY sentence on Friday, but merely a remand (presumably in custody) until some future date. They probably won't even put in a plea. Incidentally, it has been necessary to carry out some minor editing on this thread as we were venturing into territory which COULD result in the case not going ahead. Please be careful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted July 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 I am disgusted to say that last Tuesday just hours before the disgusting crime was commited, I was talking to .... In light that your comments could be used against you (and us) we have removed to ensure a fair hearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Getting back to my original point -We have one lad named after being charged (aged 19) and the other aged (aged 17) remains protected - even if convicted. That surely can not be right! You are right, both should be named...if convicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 As I understand it, everyone is now DNA swabed and fingerprinted upon arrest; so guilty or not guilty your on their data base. Which is of great concern to many people, not least because there seems to be an asumption of guilt upon being arrested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Think they're slowly ammassing a central data base, which should make crime fighting easier - assuming the crims don't start depositing other folk's DNA at crime scenes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.