Jump to content

Should 17-year-olds be named and shamed?


Gary
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :evil:

 

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.

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :shock:

 

.....and to answer Gary's question again .. YES they both should be named, shamed and photos shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...