Anonymity for criminals
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-5593291...
I think they, and everyone convicted of a criminal offence, should be named publicly. Our justice system should be as transparent as possible and convicted criminals should not be able to "hide in plain sight" in society.
However, I do think that once the conviction is deemed spent, people should have an opportunity to move on with their lives. I also don't agree with vigilantism or condone people taking justice into their own hands.
I think they, and everyone convicted of a criminal offence, should be named publicly. Our justice system should be as transparent as possible and convicted criminals should not be able to "hide in plain sight" in society.
However, I do think that once the conviction is deemed spent, people should have an opportunity to move on with their lives. I also don't agree with vigilantism or condone people taking justice into their own hands.
Camelot1971 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-5593291...
I think they, and everyone convicted of a criminal offence, should be named publicly. Our justice system should be as transparent as possible and convicted criminals should not be able to "hide in plain sight" in society.
However, I do think that once the conviction is deemed spent, people should have an opportunity to move on with their lives. I also don't agree with vigilantism or condone people taking justice into their own hands.
Surely none of this would be necessary as there'd be no crime in the Utopia you describe, where past crimes can just be forgotten about as soon as they're spent and nobody ever gets verbally and physically abused in the street for years afterwards...I think they, and everyone convicted of a criminal offence, should be named publicly. Our justice system should be as transparent as possible and convicted criminals should not be able to "hide in plain sight" in society.
However, I do think that once the conviction is deemed spent, people should have an opportunity to move on with their lives. I also don't agree with vigilantism or condone people taking justice into their own hands.
We will get the usual suspects banging on about vigilante attacks 
afaik we don't seem to have a problem with thousands of vigilante attacks certainly in the UK at least.
I don't think that any crims, especially nasty
s like these 2, should be granted anonymity at the taxpayers expense. Responsibility for your own actions etc.
TX.
Edit
"She was hit with a shovel, a TV, a coffee table and a stick studded with screws after she let the pair into her Stephen Street home in December 2014.
The girls posted a photograph on Snapchat showing them smiling with Miss Wrightson pictured in the background shortly before her death."
afaik we don't seem to have a problem with thousands of vigilante attacks certainly in the UK at least.I don't think that any crims, especially nasty
s like these 2, should be granted anonymity at the taxpayers expense. Responsibility for your own actions etc.TX.
Edit
"She was hit with a shovel, a TV, a coffee table and a stick studded with screws after she let the pair into her Stephen Street home in December 2014.
The girls posted a photograph on Snapchat showing them smiling with Miss Wrightson pictured in the background shortly before her death."
Isn't this case the same as the Bulger killers where it's their age that's meant they are granted anonymity and won't apply to adults that commit crimes?
Now we are out perhaps the EU's right to be forgotten for serious crimes can be repealed as well?
America has it right where you can do a search on your locality for serious criminals, I wouldn't want to live next to one.
Now we are out perhaps the EU's right to be forgotten for serious crimes can be repealed as well?
America has it right where you can do a search on your locality for serious criminals, I wouldn't want to live next to one.
Terminator X said:
I don't think that any crims, especially nasty s like these 2, should be granted anonymity at the taxpayers expense. Responsibility for your own actions etc.
Agreed. Once convicted, there should be no anonymity, not least for public safety. Because let's face it, at some point in time, they will be set free.s like these 2, should be granted anonymity at the taxpayers expense. Responsibility for your own actions etc.I tend to agree that criminals should always be named but I see the issues here. Whether they should be reasons to influence the decision is another matter - fact is that we have a Human Rights Act and we can't pick and choose who gets to benefit from it.
One of the main points at issue is that, if they are named what benefit will it be to everyone else? What is the public interest in naming them?
The thing that I think should be reformed is the naming of people before they are convicted and especially before they are even charged. The case of the nurse accused of murdering babies in Chester is relevant. She was first arrested back in 2018 and bailed. The press named her (the police didn't) and splashed her pictures, address and the address of her parents across the entire world. If she is actually innocent then her life is utterly and completely fked for ever. It may have turned out that she was completely innocent after the first arrest but the stories would have still been out there.
One of the main points at issue is that, if they are named what benefit will it be to everyone else? What is the public interest in naming them?
The thing that I think should be reformed is the naming of people before they are convicted and especially before they are even charged. The case of the nurse accused of murdering babies in Chester is relevant. She was first arrested back in 2018 and bailed. The press named her (the police didn't) and splashed her pictures, address and the address of her parents across the entire world. If she is actually innocent then her life is utterly and completely f
ked for ever. It may have turned out that she was completely innocent after the first arrest but the stories would have still been out there. It's always going to be a hugely emotive subject and without a doubt this was one of most sickening and abhorrent crimes we've seen in recent years. Without question this pair deserve to be behind bars for a very, very long time.
However. There is a discussion to be had about the purpose of incarceration, and at a very broad level there is a balance to be struck between punishment and rehabilitation. A lot of the posters on this kind of thread will heavily lean to the punishment side, which is a valid position to have. But we do need to consider that, in the event that they are released back into society (which isn't a given; they have 15 years minimum don't forget), how do we turn them into productive members of society?
Given that by the time they get out, they will have lived at least half of their lives in jail. I'm not at all saying that we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there should be at least some acknowledgement that they will have changed in that time and if they are to have any chance of a normal, productive life then it seems to me that anonymity is a pre-requisite. They will never contribute to society if everybody's first reaction is "you're that kid who tortured somebody to death".
Now as said, there are many people who think that is absolutely right and proper - they should, in fact, have this follow them around for the rest of their lives. I am not going to tell you that's wrong.
But there is, at least, a discussion to be had and it's one that focuses on wider society and rehabilitation, not one that focuses on the person, the acts, and punishment.
Simply put: the punishment is being locked up. Once we've done that bit, and if we're going to release them, we should be focussing on making the release effective.
However. There is a discussion to be had about the purpose of incarceration, and at a very broad level there is a balance to be struck between punishment and rehabilitation. A lot of the posters on this kind of thread will heavily lean to the punishment side, which is a valid position to have. But we do need to consider that, in the event that they are released back into society (which isn't a given; they have 15 years minimum don't forget), how do we turn them into productive members of society?
Given that by the time they get out, they will have lived at least half of their lives in jail. I'm not at all saying that we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there should be at least some acknowledgement that they will have changed in that time and if they are to have any chance of a normal, productive life then it seems to me that anonymity is a pre-requisite. They will never contribute to society if everybody's first reaction is "you're that kid who tortured somebody to death".
Now as said, there are many people who think that is absolutely right and proper - they should, in fact, have this follow them around for the rest of their lives. I am not going to tell you that's wrong.
But there is, at least, a discussion to be had and it's one that focuses on wider society and rehabilitation, not one that focuses on the person, the acts, and punishment.
Simply put: the punishment is being locked up. Once we've done that bit, and if we're going to release them, we should be focussing on making the release effective.
their barrister said:
both teenagers suffer from "recognisable mental conditions" and were "extremely psychologically vulnerable", adding they would be at "a very significant risk" of being attacked if their identities were revealed
Live by the sword but can't possibly face the risk of dying by the sword? The poor little lambs.I don't condone vigilante justice but can't say I'd be particularly sympathetic to the risk of these guys getting what they've given out.
deckster said:
However. There is a discussion to be had about the purpose of incarceration, and at a very broad level there is a balance to be struck between punishment and rehabilitation. A lot of the posters on this kind of thread will heavily lean to the punishment side, which is a valid position to have. But we do need to consider that, in the event that they are released back into society (which isn't a given; they have 15 years minimum don't forget), how do we turn them into productive members of society?
In general I agree with the idea of rehabilitation and redemption, but there are caveats.- IMHO to redeem, you must accept responsibility, part of which is, in and of itself, admitting you own it, personally, publicly.
- We have to accept rehabilitation, or indeed redemption are by no means guaranteed by incarceration, of any length.
- Given that we do/should release after term, the interest of the wider public - a potentially huge and unkown number who might come into contact with the offenders in the future - ought to be paramount. Hiding identities makes this impossible.
Digga said:
In general I agree with the idea of rehabilitation and redemption, but there are caveats.
Very much agree particularly on the first point. It has to start with them admitting that what they did was terrible.- IMHO to redeem, you must accept responsibility, part of which is, in and of itself, admitting you own it, personally, publicly.
- We have to accept rehabilitation, or indeed redemption are by no means guaranteed by incarceration, of any length.
- Given that we do/should release after term, the interest of the wider public - a potentially huge and unkown number who might come into contact with the offenders in the future - ought to be paramount. Hiding identities makes this impossible.
Also on the third point - it's entirely valid but also we do need to have some faith in the parole system in not releasing people who are likely to present an ongoing risk to the public. I am not entirely naive and realise that this doesn't always happen (!) but that is to an extent a different conversation.
In cases such as this those who knew the victim and who knew the offenders will be fully aware of their identity.
What they’re being protected against isn’t the consequences of their actions. Which they’ll live with for the rest of their lives. But from the mawkish obsession certain media organisations would have with their actions in the future, in particular when/if they’re released from custody.
Being granted anonymity by courts doesn’t mean they won’t be subject to the licence conditions imposed on any other released life sentenced prisoner. Which means anyone who is deemed to be at risk from them would need to know. But having the opportunity to rebuild their lives and become good members of society without the Sun/Mail etc etc revealing their new identities etc and setting them back to square one over and over.
What they’re being protected against isn’t the consequences of their actions. Which they’ll live with for the rest of their lives. But from the mawkish obsession certain media organisations would have with their actions in the future, in particular when/if they’re released from custody.
Being granted anonymity by courts doesn’t mean they won’t be subject to the licence conditions imposed on any other released life sentenced prisoner. Which means anyone who is deemed to be at risk from them would need to know. But having the opportunity to rebuild their lives and become good members of society without the Sun/Mail etc etc revealing their new identities etc and setting them back to square one over and over.
Eyersey1234 said:
I believe they will still have to declare the conviction for the rest of their lives as well when going for jobs, getting insurance etc as the conviction will never be classed as spent
They will, yes. Some of the people they have to declare it to may put two and two together and work out who they are. People miss the point, I think, that these orders are not made to hide the crime. They are orders made to prevent publication of the new identity. So, if some telephone operative from Admiral Insurance worked out that Joe Bloggs phoning up for a car quote was actually Jon Venables then they would be prohibited from publishing that information. La Liga said:
We've seen 3 people granted lifelong anonymity orders this year.
Previously we only had 6 (I think) in the last 30 odd years.
Wonder if it's just an unusual year, or whether there's some other cause e.g. more risk with the internet as developed or more willing to grant them.
Does that include these two? Previously we only had 6 (I think) in the last 30 odd years.
Wonder if it's just an unusual year, or whether there's some other cause e.g. more risk with the internet as developed or more willing to grant them.
Digga said:
Terminator X said:
I don't think that any crims, especially nasty s like these 2, should be granted anonymity at the taxpayers expense. Responsibility for your own actions etc.
Agreed. Once convicted, there should be no anonymity, not least for public safety. Because let's face it, at some point in time, they will be set free.s like these 2, should be granted anonymity at the taxpayers expense. Responsibility for your own actions etc.deckster said:
Also on the third point - it's entirely valid but also we do need to have some faith in the parole system in not releasing people who are likely to present an ongoing risk to the public. I am not entirely naive and realise that this doesn't always happen (!) but that is to an extent a different conversation.
No we definitely do not. One of the compromises of the current system is that, other than in extreme cases, many offenders are released in the hope they will not re-offend for one simple reason; we do not have sufficient prison spaces.In general, this does not always work out badly for society, but in no way shape or form can we safely assume that release equates to anywhere near a zero lack of threat. The current rate of recidivism is a plain fact.
AJL308 said:
La Liga said:
We've seen 3 people granted lifelong anonymity orders this year.
Previously we only had 6 (I think) in the last 30 odd years.
Wonder if it's just an unusual year, or whether there's some other cause e.g. more risk with the internet as developed or more willing to grant them.
Does that include these two? Previously we only had 6 (I think) in the last 30 odd years.
Wonder if it's just an unusual year, or whether there's some other cause e.g. more risk with the internet as developed or more willing to grant them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff