To Name of Not

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Much discussion in the media and on talk radio over the case of the two 15yr olds found guilty of the horrific double murder of the mother and her daughter.

But should they be named? And should their sentence be life with no remission?

You'll not be surprised that I feel that naming is only to satisfy the appetite of the public - and that I see no benefit to anyone or society from doing so - in fact could easily completely blight the lives of their families who are completely innocent. They should not be named.

And I am also a believer in forgiveness - and often the loved ones of those so wronged can find it in their heart to forgive the perpetrators - because they understand that forgiveness gives some freedom from the tyranny of hatred, anger and despair that would otherwise be a ball and chain they would carry for the rest of their own lives.

Their sentence will be indeterminate - but given their young age I believe that these two children should in time - likely a long time - be given the opportunity to make their reparations to the family and to society.

But I suspect that I may be in the minority on having this view.

 

[TheDiablo]

The challenge I have with the the issue is that we have drawn an arbitrary legal line at age 16 (or is it 18?) where the Law sees everyone under that age a child and everyone over it an adult. In reality, you see so many people far more developed than average for their age and reaching maturity years before others, and the flip side works also. Should they be allowed anonymity when they may actually be far more aware of their actions and calculating than someone a couple of years older.

IMO leave it to the judge to decide. I think that as this was a planned murder then they should be thats just my opinion of justice. Absolutely nothing to do with appeasing the appetite of the public (which I agree is totally the wrong reason).

Families of criminals have to deal with the consequences of their relatives actions all the time.

As for the sentence, give them life with a minimum of 25 years before anything is even considered.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Always difficult with children. If life were to mean life then there's no bother in naming them but I think very few people will think a couple of 14 year olds (at the time) should be locked up for ever any more than they should face a hangman. If we believe that they can one day understand the enormity of what they did, understand the hurt they caused and most importantly show true remorse and a desire to "make good" of their lives, then naming them only keeps them in the news and makes any subsequent rehabilitation more difficult (Bulger case). On balance, I would say don't name them, there's no need, there's no public interest to be served by doing so and it's just pandering to the press. They are going down for a long time that's for sure but I'd be optimistic that they can one day be released on licence.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Whist I do not really agree with name& shame/guilty by the press etc, once found guilty then I think it should be on public record.


However to be brutally honest, I think more about the poor victims......and my feelings are for them only.

 

[Hobbit]

Much discussion in the media and on talk radio over the case of the two 15yr olds found guilty of the horrific double murder of the mother and her daughter.

But should they be named? And should their sentence be life with no remission?

You'll not be surprised that I feel that naming is only to satisfy the appetite of the public - and that I see no benefit to anyone or society from doing so - in fact could easily completely blight the lives of their families who are completely innocent. They should not be named.

And I am also a believer in forgiveness - and often the loved ones of those so wronged can find it in their heart to forgive the perpetrators - because they understand that forgiveness gives some freedom from the tyranny of hatred, anger and despair that would otherwise be a ball and chain they would carry for the rest of their own lives.

Their sentence will be indeterminate - but given their young age I believe that these two children should in time - likely a long time - be given the opportunity to make their reparations to the family and to society.

But I suspect that I may be in the minority on having this view.

I quoted all of your post, even though it is only a few posts up. Great words, well thought out and posted, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything unreservedly. I see no reason, for me, to add or query any aspect of it.

If there's anything that does worry me, it is the way certain elements of society revel in a vigilante mentality.

 

[Norrin Radd]

hang em

 

[user2010]

Get rid A.S.A.P

 

[USER1999]

Not fussed about naming, but they appear to know exactly what they were doing, so life should be life. It's a long time in the cells, may be 80 years odd.

I'm a great believer in sentencing 150 year sentences, with 10 years off for good behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Don't believe in naming people but only because I don't want to see people looking for revenge and then consequently breaking the law themselves.

The pair should be locked away for life without zero luxuries and they should never be able to life a decent life - thet lost that right when they took two lives and showed zero remorse for the act

 

[Ross61]

I see no reason to name them. Anybody who knows the victims and the perpetrators will already know. Who else needs to know their names.
I admit, out of interest I would like to know the relationship of the guilty pair to the victims to understand why they did what they did. I haven't read too much about the case, but I haven't seen any mention of a break in. Is either a close family member?
Personally I think a long prison sentence is applicable, but not to lock them up forever with no chance to live a life in the future.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Not bothered by naming and don't think it serves any real purpose. However for those guilty of the crime, life should mean life with no parole and there should be separate wings/prisons for murderers where the conditions are significantly tougher than normal. Make it a proper sentence

 

[chrisd]

I agree with the majority that say there is no need to name them, that is, as long as their sentences are served in full and not releasing their names doesn't mean special treatment and an early release

 

[SocketRocket]

Much discussion in the media and on talk radio over the case of the two 15yr olds found guilty of the horrific double murder of the mother and her daughter.

But should they be named? And should their sentence be life with no remission?

You'll not be surprised that I feel that naming is only to satisfy the appetite of the public - and that I see no benefit to anyone or society from doing so - in fact could easily completely blight the lives of their families who are completely innocent. They should not be named.

And I am also a believer in forgiveness - and often the loved ones of those so wronged can find it in their heart to forgive the perpetrators - because they understand that forgiveness gives some freedom from the tyranny of hatred, anger and despair that would otherwise be a ball and chain they would carry for the rest of their own lives.

Their sentence will be indeterminate - but given their young age I believe that these two children should in time - likely a long time - be given the opportunity to make their reparations to the family and to society.

But I suspect that I may be in the minority on having this view.

Whether they are named means nothing to me so I agree that the Judge should decide.

This was no act of manslaughter where someone kills in reaction to threat it was a very cold hearted calculated act and sinister murder by two young people who should know better. They deserve to pay the price of such an act and for me that's life in prison with no parole consideration for 50 years. They knew exactly what they set out to do to these two people so should take responsibility for their actions. That is unless there is some form of proof that they were mentally incapable of realising the severity of their actions.

Regarding forgiveness: If this was my family then forgiveness would not be possible, I see that as condoning their actions which would not be possible, whether you consider such emotions as right or wrong that's what they would be. I can understand that your christian beliefs allow you to take a different view and I would not condemn them.

 

[ger147]

No need for naming/shaming IMO, and of course no matter your own personal views, pre-meditated murder in this country very VERY rarely means a whole life tariff. In the case of two 14 year olds (they were 14 at the time of the offence) a whole life tariff seems particularly unsuitable.

There must be at least some attempt at rehabiliation in the fullness of time if they show genuine remorse as they reach adulthood.

 

[jusme]

I quoted all of your post, even though it is only a few posts up. Great words, well thought out and posted, and I wholeheartedly agree with everything unreservedly. I see no reason, for me, to add or query any aspect of it.

If there's anything that does worry me, it is the way certain elements of society revel in a vigilante mentality.

I also agree with the sentiments. Having worked in the criminal justice system many years ago, it is always interesting as to how much information is never available to the public. I have read many an article on cases I worked on and could only smile at the obvious conclusions that the general public would reach based on what was written/released to the public. The reality is sometimes drastically different. I doubt people would have the exact same feelings if they had access to ALL the information.

 

[super hans]

I also agree with the sentiments. Having worked in the criminal justice system many years ago, it is always interesting as to how much information is never available to the public. I have read many an article on cases I worked on and could only smile at the obvious conclusions that the general public would reach based on what was written/released to the public. The reality is sometimes drastically different. I doubt people would have the exact same feelings if they had access to ALL the information.

i also doubt your derisory attitude would be the same if the general public were allowed the same availability to the information that you had access to.

I'm pretty sure 'I could only smile' if your mother and sister had been murdered, and all i had to base that on was what was written/released to the public

deary me

 

[Sweep]

Personally I think a long prison sentence is applicable, but not to lock them up forever with no chance to live a life in the future.

In my view these are fine sentiments, until you remember that the chance to live a life in the future is EXACTLY what they have denied their victims.
To be honest part of me agrees that there is little point in naming these young murderers, but also part of me thinks why not? If they are in prison for life it won't matter. If they are released just give them another identity. This may need to happen anyway as many of the public will know who they are, especially in the local area. It won't be secret for long.
I wonder what the differences are between this case and Thompson and Venables who murdered James Bulger. They were 10 at the time and seemingly named.
I don't think we should underestimate the need for social justice. Let's not focus our worries over the perpetrators and instead be concerned for the victims and their families who must be experiencing unimaginable grief. When considered in this context I really don't care about those that caused it. It's not for us to forgive. That would be easy and meaningless. Forgiveness is for those close to the victims and that is a different matter entirely.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I have no problem with them being named.I do however think they should be locked up for a very long time. So they aren't over 18, I doubt very much they didn't know what they were doing. Why should they be allowed their freedom in a couple of years and see their families when the victims will never have that opportunity again?. Sometimes you have to call them what it is/they are...and in this case murderers. I also don't believe you can rehabilitate deliberate actions, accidental yes, but not deliberate. A turd still smells no matter how much air freshener you spray.
Sadly I think we get carried away with trying to save or help the perpetrators rather than the victims.
I can understand those who would preach forgiveness, it is very laudable, but if they were my family that had been murdered I could never seek anything other than suffering for those found guilty for the rest of their life.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have no problem with them being named.I do however think they should be locked up for a very long time. So they aren't over 18, I doubt very much they didn't know what they were doing. Why should they be allowed their freedom in a couple of years and see their families when the victims will never have that opportunity again?. Sometimes you have to call them what it is/they are...and in this case murderers. I also don't believe you can rehabilitate deliberate actions, accidental yes, but not deliberate. A turd still smells no matter how much air freshener you spray.
Sadly I think we get carried away with trying to save or help the perpetrators rather than the victims.
I can understand those who would preach forgiveness, it is very laudable, but if they were my family that had been murdered I could never seek anything other than suffering for those found guilty for the rest of their life.

Yet there have been plenty of examples where the family have forgiven the perpetrators of the horror that has been inflicted on them. And the truth I often see is that those who forgive seem to be able to reach some acceptance and peace of mind over it - whilst many who do not, seem to be perpetually tormented with anger and despair.

And I do not believe that you can have judicial decisions, on such as naming or sentencing, based upon whether or not the closest relatives to the deceased forgive or not.

For the rest of us - well frankly it is none of our business. The perpetrators of such a crime are not going to be released if there is any chance of them carrying out anything remotely similar - and so the risk to the general public in the distant future (because whatever the sentence - it will be distant) will be minimal if not non-existent.

We claim to be a Christian country and society (though I have my great doubts for the vast majority on that these days ) and Christianity preaches forgiveness (to explain my thoughts on this)

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Perhaps the real problem is that we don't punish effectively any more, and so there is most often the thought of getting away with a soft sentence if caught, and that perception is definitely the view by society in general.

Of course we could take a leaf out of the religious leaders of years back when dealing with "heretics" and put offenders on a bonfire.