Anonymity for Convicted Murderers

Dammer

Not publicly naming convicted murders.

Why are convicted murderers aged 18 or older named, while convicted murderers under 14 years old (at the time of homicide) are not?

Please consider this in the context of our Constitution article 40, which states that citizens are equal before the law.


Article 40 of the Constitution
"All citizens shall be held equal before the law. This means that the State cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens."

randomrb

Dammer wrote: »

Not publicly naming convicted murders.

Why are convicted murderers aged 18 or older named, while convicted murderers under 14 years old (at the time of homicide) are not?

Please consider this in the context of our Constitution article 40, which states that citizens are equal before the law.


Article 40 of the Constitution
"All citizens shall be held equal before the law. This means that the State cannot unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily discriminate between citizens."

The state cannot discriminate unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily but it can discriminate and there are numerous examples of younger children getting exceptions that adults don't. I don't think that argument will get you very far

Samuel T. Cogley

randomrb wrote: »

The state cannot discriminate unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily but it can discriminate and there are numerous examples of younger children getting exceptions that adults don't. I don't think that argument will get you very far

Or indeed very far with his home work assignment :pac:

hullaballoo

Strange that someone looking to make a collateral attack on a Court Order providing for anonymity for minor offenders would purport to rely on the equality provision rather than the one about justice being administered in public.

Normally, when news items spill over into this forum, the outrage is cloaked in some kind of (at a minimum) considered pseudo-legal argument.

Heres Johnny

Drop up to leixlip and ask their names, you'll be told soon enough. They are from from anonymous except in the media

Mod
Perhaps their names are known in Leixlip;, but pls do not disclose their names here

Dammer

I am just curious how the legal system can differentiate naming or not naming convicted murderers purely based on their age.

Whats to stop an 18 year old being tried for Murder and saying he wants anonymity, even if they are convicted, as the State has shown that it will do so for other citizens.

Dammer

hullaballoo wrote: »

Strange that someone looking to make a collateral attack on a Court Order providing for anonymity for minor offenders would purport to rely on the equality provision rather than the one about justice being administered in public.

Normally, when news items spill over into this forum, the outrage is cloaked in some kind of (at a minimum) considered pseudo-legal argument.

I am not attacking anything, I asked a question in this Discussion forum. What is strange about that?

Minor offenders? I would have been of the opinion that someone convicted of murder is a major offender... (I know you meant their age)

Is justice administered in Public, if anonymity is supplied to convicted criminals?

Here's a thought, sometimes current events lead to a robust discussion. On you guessed it current events.

How would you feel if a court order was unconstitutional?
Do you consider our constitution a pseudo legal document?
Or should we just pick n' mix what we like or don't like in it?

Dammer

randomrb wrote: »

The state cannot discriminate unjustly, unreasonably or arbitrarily but it can discriminate and there are numerous examples of younger children getting exceptions that adults don't. I don't think that argument will get you very far

Are these exceptions in the constitution? If not...

rightytighty

Dammer wrote: »

Are these exceptions in the constitution? If not...

The specific ones at issue here are provided for in Article 34.1.

28064212

Dammer wrote: »

I am just curious how the legal system can differentiate naming or not naming convicted murderers purely based on their age.

The same way the state can differentiate between who can purchase alcohol purely based on their age

Dammer

rightytighty wrote: »

The specific ones at issue here are provided for in Article 34.1.

If I understand that correctly, 34.1 is a provision for the government to legislate laws to circumvent article 40. Thanks for that

rightytighty

Dammer wrote: »

If I understand that correctly, 34.1 is a provision for the government to legislate laws to circumvent article 40. Thanks for that

34.1 allows for deviation from the requirement that justice be administered in public in special circumstances. Even in the Kriegel case this wasn’t entirely the case. There were still journalists in court and the Irish Times had twice daily updates on the case.

They weren’t named because of their age and potential consequences for their families amongst other things which I think is reasonable. What further benefit would be got by naming them?

Heres Johnny

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Drop up to leixlip and ask their names, you'll be told soon enough. They are from from anonymous except in the media

Mod
Perhaps their names are known in Leixlip;, but pls do not disclose their names here

I will not, no problem


Mod
OK, thanks

GM228

Dammer wrote: »

I am just curious how the legal system can differentiate naming or not naming convicted murderers purely based on their age.

This is pretty standard in most jurisdictions, it is a principle enshrined under the conditions of the Beijing Rules of 1985, in fact many states have this condition an awful lot longer than that, from around 1908 here and in the UK I believe, the current rule in force here dates from 2001, however in the UK for example the current rule in force on this dates from 1933.

There are rare examples where the rules will be disallowed, the most famous example likely being Jamie Bulgers killers when Judge Morland released their names despite the protections of their identities afforded by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, he released their names as he considered it to be in the public interest to do so, this was extremely rare but allowed for under UK law.

Dammer wrote: »

Whats to stop an 18 year old being tried for Murder and saying he wants anonymity, even if they are convicted, as the State has shown that it will do so for other citizens.

The law is what stops them, any person under the age of 18 has an automatic right of anonymity for any criminal offence, once 18 and over there is no such right, in fact it's not just a right, there is an outright ban on giving their name etc, it's an offence to publish details which identifies them.

Nokia6230i

Perhaps this thread by the OP could've been better worded by querying is the Childrens Act 2001 still fit for purpose and have a general discussion?

Because the day before Boy A & B were sentenced we'd another minor jailed for 11 years for attempted murder & he too will be granted life long anonymity (his victim wasn't).

I'll posit that I think once a crime reaches a certain threshold the individual should be named; the bar being sexual assault, rape, attempted murder, manslaughter and murder.

Perhaps there're other crimes such as "simple" assault (with no sexual aspect) or others?

Instead of granting life long anonymity (Tinder Rapist for example; I think his 1999 conviction was when he was a minor but he was named with it post sentencing when his past was accumulated in the media) perhaps judges should permit it once the individual hits 18 or 21 or 25?

Yes I'm aware that naming the person won't change anything; your money will still've been robbed, your car vandalised etc. but why should the little scrotes be anonymised at all times when they're committing deliberate, and adult, crimes?

It won't prevent them engaging in rehabilitation no more than it does an individual who's an adult and is named for "minor" offences or major ones; it's unlikely to affect whether they engage in recidivism either; it's either in their nature and they want to change or they don't.

We can treat minors/juveniles with kid gloves.....or we can start by getting real and rebalancing the scales of justice somewhat; there's been a number of tipping points reached.

Look at the Lorcan Bale case; while I know his preceded the act by a considerable length of time it could've been made retrospective like the Parole Act recently was; his conviction hasn't done him much harm in his life post release; he's a member of a Christian Church in London and up to the most recent report on him, works in the sanitation dept. of an environmental company or one of the boroughs in the city.

So the precedent of naming people who committed crimes as a minor and for whom no ill effects've been suffered is there; I'd be shocked if his family suffered any backlash either such was the lack of reporting on the case at the time (the family of any such defendants should be left alone; they're also victims in the situations).

That said there was a case earlier this year or late last year where an individual'd been grooming kids online and post conviction/pre-sentencing his parents property was vandalised; you'll always have numpties like that sadly; vigilante scum who take the law into their own hands and think they're the Big I Am....and if caught for it pretend they're the victim....