- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Question please? If someone has been released from prison and given a new identity, I presume that all their documents i.e. tax, NI, passport, driving licence etc. will be in their new name and that legally their new name is the real name thereafter. Therefore would they be charged in their new name for any subsequent alleged offence and why cannot newspapers publish material relating to the old name? It just seems a peculiar system that allows someone to flip-flop backwards and forwards with their names.
If I understand your question correctly it is because of the breach of terms of release that the person you are referring to has been taken back into custody,therefore there is no ‘opportunity’ and presumably won’t be in the future (due to the anonymity issue) to try him for a new offence under his new name or indeed his old one.
I can’t help feeling that as usual some elements of the sh$t stirring press have a lot to answer for in this case as they just won’t let it lie.IMO the details of this case are nobody else’s business apart from the victims family but the press are determined to keep the story in the news until this lily livered government are forced into revealing more information just to a)appear ‘to do the right thing’ (even though as usual they don’t know what that is and yet again wait for the press to tell them) and b)for the press’ own prurient interest which they think is on our behalf our ……..well,100% not in my name. …….What can possibly be gained by the general public knowing the detail?
The offender has breached the terms of his release and therefore when proved he resumes his original sentence presumably until he is eligible for parole again or whatever the terms of the licence were etc.
I think it demeans us all by having it in the papers endlessly everyday…….wouldn’t everyone’s time be better spent finding out and preventing the causes of how such a terrible crime was possible in the first place…Bob Wharton wrote..I think it demeans us all by having it in the papers endlessly everyday…….wouldn’t everyone’s time be better spent finding out and preventing the causes of how such a terrible crime was possible in the first place…
If there is a victim involved in the latest allegation then it’s important that the public are fully informed of the facts, for the following reasons:
(a) .."finding out and preventing the causes of how such a terrible crime was possible in the first place"…
(b) Determining where the system of monitoring, supervision, assessment and reporting broke down in relation to the agencies responsible for this individual and what lessons need to be learned to avoid repeat scenarios.
(c) Reviewing the criteria for early release and providing offenders with anonymity.I believe that labels such as ‘evil’ and ‘monsters’ fail to realise the corrosive impact that improper nurturing can have on children and follow them throughout their lives. Similarly, I believe that nature can shape an individual’s personality and propensity to behaving in harmful ways.
Why though, Bob, should the public be denied reporting of this latest incident when Joe Bloggs can have his name plastered all over the papers for minor matters, often before even being charged with an offence?
Cheers
KKen,totally agree about the unfairness of anonymity for accusers and not the accused as exists for example in rape cases, but when you think about it the press don’t have to report people’s names in such cases if they also have some kind of moral standards about what is fair in such cases no matter what the law says………. but sadly they don’t,they know how unfair it is and frequently report what a scandal it is but typically they are the ones creating the problem through their hypocrytical methods.
Completely agree about the importance of parenting and also about finding out the causes and preventing any reoccurences of such awful crimes but remain wary about motives for some people being interested….culturally we seem to be being reared on bad news to the point that we are bad news junkies and can’t get enough details about negative stories…
I agree even more that sensationalist ‘monster’ and ‘evil’headlines are completely unhelpful and extremely distasteful and absolutely not the means by which the facts should be forced out from the authorities……government by tabloid is bad news all round.
I can understand the reason in not letting out his identity yet, no trial would be a fair one with his new identity as public knowledge.
After that though I think he lost all right to anonymity the day he re-offended.
The justice system in this country is far too weak IMO.
In the case of Jon Venables ( and Robert Thompson ); it is probably for the best that they have been given new identies.
Even though they were both 10 year olds when they murdered James Bulger, the depth of feeling in Liverpool and indeed throughout the country still runs high towards those two individuals.
Both would more or less be dead men walking were their new names divulged by the Home Office.
We are still ( I think ) a civilised society. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Heard today that some Liberal tree hugger now thinks it’s okay to murder someone up until the age of 12!!
Makes my blood boil!
Lolly, you’ll have to trust me on this but I can assure you it’s thick wankers like you that make this country a fair worse place to live in than people like Maggie Atkinson.
I’ve met Maggie a number of times and I can clearly state she is not by any means a ‘Liberal Tree-Hugger’!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8566591.stm
Ms Atkinson had said children under 12 did not fully understand their actions.
If anyone is ‘thick’ here I’d argue that it’s Ms Atkinson..
I think Atkinson’s words were misjudged, ill considered, and insensitive – not to mention, naive.
By all accounts, they had discussed beforehand the idea of abducting a child, and had set out that morning with this in mind – and had tried, prior to Jamie Bulger, to abduct another child, but were unsuccessful.
No, these were two street wise, calculcating ten year olds, who knew exactly what they were doing.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
If anyone is ‘thick’ here I’d argue that it’s Ms Atkinson..
Really.
Perhaps you would care to explain your reasoning – using facts of course taken from a peer-reviewed body of evidence. I for one would certainly find this helpful as personally, I don’t hold a view on this issue for I don’t consider myself to be either suitably qualified or experienced in child psychology to form an opinion.
I would also be interested in your view as to why the majority of Europe and soon to be Scotland place the age of criminal reasonability at 12 or over rather than younger. I’m assuming you would also view those advisors, decision makers and legislators as ‘thick’ too. Perhaps with your knowledge of the subject we can get to the bottom of it.
Thanks
My partner started a course on child psychology Pompete and for the first 2-3 weeks I got right into it to try and help her out. I’ll be totally honest though, I thought it was a complete load of bollocks!
You can do all the studying you want and read all the books you want, but for me the best way to judge anything is what happens in real life situations.
I don’t see how anyone can say any child on Earth under the age of 12 doesn’t know what they are doing is wrong and shouldn’t be tried in an adult court.
In my real life experiences I’ve known 11 year olds who are absolutely worlds apart from each other, ones who think and do things you would associate with a 7/8 year old and others who do things and act the way you would associate with 15/16 year olds.
My partner’s nephew falls into this argument and that’s why she started the course, he’s been in so much trouble you wouldn’t believe, schools, social workers have been a complete waste of time, he’s just turned 11 but is very, very forward for his age.
I’d personally take each individual case on it’s own merits, this is obviously one that is right out of the ordinary and thankfully very rare.
‘Himself’ in the post above was absolutely bang on the money for me though, they knew exactly what they were doing and committed an adult crime and should pay the adult penalty..
Just as an aside….
If two young boys were to do a similar crime tomorrow and one was a month short of his 12th birthday and one had been 12 for a month, would it be fair to prosecute them differently?
So I’m a ****** then Pompete am I? And I have to trust you do I eh?
I personally dont think its a good thing to kill anyone. But your "mate" seems to think its okay to kill someone as long as your under the age of 12.
Aged 4, you know whats right or wrong.
Aged 11 and 11 months, you know whats right or wrong.
Please tell what the Kin difference is will you!!!
Your type is the type that has it all so wrong!
And the quicker your type wake up and smell the coffee, the more realistic you will become and see what is really happenning to this country!!
I dont dislike you btw.
I agree with Pompete generally that children below the age of 12 should not be judged as adults as to me not all kids are that socially mentally prepared up to and sometimes above such an age.
I personally think that the case of Venebles and Thompson is just a stand out case which has horrified the nation but that we should not base our whole judicial system on a knee-jerk reaction to such a horrific incident.
My friend is a prison officer at a prison for what seems to be child psychopaths. He was recently telling me a story which I found deeply disturbing about a child of 13yrs old who arrived and didnt really fit in with the others who were trying to pick on him, so this child broke a Tennis racket over the head of the ringleader and then repetitively stabbed him with the broken off handle of the tennis racket.
It is an unfortunate fact that we do have psychopathic children in our society and I do believe that the system does try and deal with these youngsters on an each case basis, and Vennables and Thompson were locked away for what they done. However what they done was at a very yound age and I think that letting them out and issuing them new identities in the belief that they had been rehabilitated was probably fair. But should either one reoffend (which is highly likely bearing in mind that they have spent most of the developmental years of their lives with criminals as their peers) then they should be retried and sentenced on that basis with their new identities.
I’m not sure what way it works in England, but in NI any sex offenders are first admitted with the other inmates or so it seems. My friend was recently in prison in NI for paramilitary related drug offences and when he had been in, part of his initiation was to deal with a 60 year old man who had molested his 9yo grand-daughter. Before the man could be put into a special prison for "Squealers and Feelers" it first had to be established that he was not safe in a normal prison, so the prison officers had made it public knowledge within the prison what he was in for, and it was decided that he have boliing hot chip fat thrown in his face.
Now Vennebles and Thompson were ten years old when they had committed their offences, should they be subjected to such treatment by other prisoners? I think not, they were children themselves, at the time their crimes were perptrated, no matter how appalling their actions were.
It is an unfortunate fact that we have these people but as a responsible society we must IMO deal with them on that basis no matter how much we may hate some of them. I dont consider myself a touchy feely liberal, but in such cases, IMO where children are the criminals, the judicial system must make constructive ADULT decisions, based on what advice and information is available, rather than on personal spite to appease our own inner disgust towards their actions.
What Jamie Bulgers parents must have to go through is terrible everyday of their lives, and no doubt knowing that this pair have been freed will add salt to the wounds but i do not think we as a society should lock up children and throw away the key for any offences. I personally believe that they are still children and must be dealt with as children until they become a risk as an adult.
Obviously though this issue is so complex and I do not think that we can find any generic solution to child offences on an internet chat board post and so I bleieve that leaving it to the judicial system is the best thing IMO.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.