[Smithy]

So following the news that a 15 year old was sentenced to life in prison following his plot behead police officers at an Anzac Day parade in Australia, it got me wondering as to why they're not allowed to be named "for legal reasons" surely someone who has plotted such a crime should be revealed to the world?

As soon as he turns 18 it'll become public knowledge because his name can be revealed cause he's of legal age? Anyway i was just wondering what TiBB thought of the issue

[Kate!]

Name and shame. Opposed to new identities being given as well, when killers carry out there atrocities.

[Daniel.]

They should be named, like the guys who killed Jamie Bolger just living lives after what they did under a fake identity

[Liam-]

If they're sentenced as an adult, then release their names like they do with adult criminals, but if they're tried as minors I suppose there is a line where you have to think 'will releasing their name will cause more harm than good'

[jackc1806]

justice 4 bobby beale

[Kazanne]

They should be named,when they commit a serious crime they should be made to pay,not molly coddled and it would save people from bumping or un wittingly befriending these cretins ever again, they commit heinous crimes,they should get a heinous sentence .

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

They should be named,when they commit a serious crime they should be made to pay,not molly coddled and it would save people from bumping or un wittingly befriending these cretins ever again, they comit heinous crimes,they should get a heinous sentence .

I 100% agree, well said too Kazanne.

[Tom4784]

I don't see the point in naming them. Children, more than anyone else, can be rehabilitated so I don't believe naming and shaming them has any value aside from petty vengeance which impacts the chances of rehabilitation.

Chances are this boy will be released eventually and I'd rather he'd become a rehabilitated member of society than another terrorist, who as an adult, can do so much more harm than he could as a child.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I don't see the point in naming them. Children, more than anyone else, can be rehabilitated so I don't believe naming and shaming them has any value aside from petty vengeance which impacts the chances of rehabilitation.

Chances are this boy will be released eventually and I'd rather he'd become a rehabilitated member of society than another terrorist, who as an adult, can do so much more harm than he could as a child.

Yeah, I agree. A line has to be drawn for minors. You can't make exceptions because the crime is more distasteful.

[Smithy]

17 years old is classed as a minor though, the case i chose was just because it was the most recent one, what's the difference between a 17 year old committing a crime and being unnamed and an 18 year old being doing the same but being named?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Smithy

17 years old is classed as a minor though, the case i chose was just because it was the most recent one, what's the difference between a 17 year old committing a crime and being unnamed and an 18 year old being doing the same but being named?

Because a 17 year old hasn't reached the age of majority. There has to be a line... and that's it.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Smithy

So following the news that a 15 year old was sentenced to life in prison following his plot behead police officers at an Anzac Day parade in Australia, it got me wondering as to why they're not allowed to be named "for legal reasons" surely someone who has plotted such a crime should be revealed to the world?

As soon as he turns 18 it'll become public knowledge because his name can be revealed cause he's of legal age? Anyway i was just wondering what TiBB thought of the issue

In this Case
its Very Important to keep his name out the press
as he is a Isis Superstar.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Livia

Because a 17 year old hasn't reached the age of majority. There has to be a line... and that's it.

Rare that we agree, but everything you've said here is 100% spot on I think.

[Jamie89]

This might be unpopular but I don't necessarily think that any criminal should be named. I don't think "naming and shaming" should be what the criminal justice system is about, and just because someone isn't named and so you don't know who they are, it doesn't mean they aren't still being punished. I'm also a believer that some people can be rehabilitated and I imagine the process of rehabilitation would be easier if anonymity was involved.

Obviously there's extreme cases where naming someone could be seen as being useful to society but i'm just speaking generally, I don't think naming anyone has any real benefit, but there are possible benefits to not naming people.