Should criminals be kept anonymous?

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

keith16

What do you think?

AnonoBoy

If they don't want to be caught they should stay anonymous alright.

IM0

no, but they shouldnt be named until proven guilty either

Ryuji_w

For sex based crimes yeah until tried and convicted as guilty,
everything else nah go for it

A0

Named and shamed.

Peregrine

When proven guilty, all rapists/terrorists/mass murderers must be publicly flogged and then jailed for life or put to death. If that gives them publicity then so be it.

This might not be a popular opinion..

Seachmall

We have a right to know who is living in our community that poses a threat to us.

However that can often restrict the chance of the criminal reforming as they can find it difficult to reintegrate into their community.


I think if someone still poses a threat they shouldn't be released and if they are, and thus are rehabilitated, they should be allowed anonymity.

But obviously the legal system doesn't work that way, so I'd say it should be decided on a case by case basis.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Sh1tbag OToole

In this social media laden world I don't think it makes a difference. Information will get out no matter what. Whats a criminal supposed to put on his CV after he gets out of jail? Travelling south east Asia for 5 years?

Gatling

Nobody see the case on Tuesday where a nut job from the late 70's early 80's murdered 3 kids and impaled them on garden railings secured a super injunction in the UK he and his crimes couldn't be reported by the press because it could harm his chances of being released from prison and put his life in danger

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

mattjack

Seachmall wrote: »

We have a right to know who is living in our community that poses a threat to us.

However that can often restrict the chance of the criminal reforming as they can find it difficult to reintegrate into their community.


I think if someone still poses a threat they shouldn't be released and if they are, and thus are rehabilitated, they should be allowed anonymity.

But obviously the legal system doesn't work that way, so I'd say it should be decided on a case by case basis.

If you are given the right to know everyone who you feel poses a threat to your community , you risk individuals delivering their own extra judicial form of justice.

Best leave it to the legal system and Gardai.

Cookie_Monster

Once guilty everyone should be aware, until then a certain level of anonymity should be allowed unless the suspects forgo it.
Look at all the sex accusations thrown around, even if the accused is proven innocent such an accusation will stick with them and potentially wreck their lives, this needs to be guarded against.

wolfpawnat

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. After that, if the crime involves being a risk to other members of society, such as rape, causing grievous bodily harm, manslaughter, robbery, etc, then name and shame the bástards. Declare it from the rooftops. I am not too pushed about knowing the man down the hall didn't pay maintenance to an ex, or if your one upstairs didn't pay parking fines, but real dangerous people, yes I want to know who they are!

On a side note, those two lads in Britain were just plain mental.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Seachmall

mattjack wrote: »

If you are given the right to know everyone who you feel poses a threat to your community , you risk individuals delivering their own extra judicial form of justice.

We're already given that right except in exceptional circumstances (such as when the offenders are underage). Journalists are, for the most part, allowed to publish names, ages and locations of where the offenders live and (in some cases) the courts are open to the public to observe the hearings and trials themselves.