Lifelong Anonymity

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Reports that the youngest terrorist ever convicted in Britain has been granted parole, I also read that he has been granted lifelong anonymity by the Judge.

Leaving aside the argument about his release, I just wonder what others think of someone who commits a crime at a younger age, like Venables and Thomson, being granted this favour

[WD40 720]

Thoughts are this is one for the non football section. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

 

20 minutes ago, WD40 said:

Thoughts are this is one for the non football section. 

Sorry, I thought I had.

Pedro, can this be moved please?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

There was me expecting a thread about the current L1pswich town squad....

[Nuff Said 5,088]

23 minutes ago, WD40 said:

Thoughts are this is one for the non football section. 

Once upon a time, being moved to the non-football section would have been a guarantee of life long anonymity.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,675]

Bit odd that all we know is he's the youngest and that's it.Then again the idea that a child, presumbly around 12 or younger, was planning to commit a terrorist act is pretty horrifying

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

6 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

There was me expecting a thread about the current L1pswich town squad....

He said anonymity not failure 😆

[Bill 1,788]

30 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Reports that the youngest terrorist ever convicted in Britain has been granted parole, I also read that he has been granted lifelong anonymity by the Judge.

Leaving aside the argument about his release, I just wonder what others think of someone who commits a crime at a younger age, like Venables and Thomson, being granted this favour

I expect there's a good deal of cost involved as well as a fairly cynical means of keeping them on leash as well

 Firstly cost. Revealing the person's name would invoke huge amounts in keeping the nutters from enacting self righteous 'justice;'

And there is the thought that the person might well see that protection as a reason not to be thrown to the wolves

It should also be borne in mind that they are not simply given a new ID and then allowed to wander off

This 'anonymity' means they will be watched for the rest if their days, and it is more of a licence than freedom'

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

This is such a murky and difficult area. But I don't think they should ever be released out of respect for the victims and their families. These are the people we need to be concerned about and they are all too often forgotten about while offenders receive all manner of help and rehabilitation. Yes it's probably unjust to lock someone away for their whole lives for a crime committed when they were a child, but imo, it's a greater injustice for the victims and those affected that those responsible are ever set free.  But tough imo, what the families of those affected are going through is far worse so I don't think these people should ever be allowed to rejoin society. 

 

[king canary 7,578]

It really depends on how you view justice and what it is for. Is it for rehabilitation or is it for punishment? If you believe in rehabilitating people like this then anonymity is essential- otherwise he'll struggled to ever get a job and move on with his life, becoming a functional member of society. 

[Bill 1,788]

It might be that those sentencing him have a bit more knowledge  of this case than we do, as

"The position is exacerbated by his autism, which manifests itself in his obsessive behaviour.

"This, combined with his need for recognition and status, makes him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation.""

[The Real Buh 3,423]

look at the time boys

[Nuff Said 5,088]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

It might be that those sentencing him have a bit more knowledge  of this case than we do, as

"The position is exacerbated by his autism, which manifests itself in his obsessive behaviour.

"This, combined with his need for recognition and status, makes him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation.""

Nah, why waste a perfectly unfounded knee-jerk reaction?

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

16 hours ago, Bill said:

It might be that those sentencing him have a bit more knowledge  of this case than we do, as

"The position is exacerbated by his autism, which manifests itself in his obsessive behaviour.

"This, combined with his need for recognition and status, makes him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation.""

Speaking  from personal experience  Bilious?

[king canary 7,578]

2 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Speaking  from personal experience  Bilious?

Not sure if it is meant like it, but this comes across as a pretty unpleasant and personal jab that I don't think is your usual standard.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Not sure if it is meant like it, but this comes across as a pretty unpleasant and personal jab that I don't think is your usual standard.

 I am giving him an out. You obviously  don't  know / remember what he accused me of.  Until then I thought he was relatively  harmless.  ... but he is toxic with occasional bouts of reasonableness ( not sure if that's a word).  If he stopped his assertions that we are all one and therefore are responsible for what each other had said,  he may find life more pleasant.  

This, combined with his need for recognition and status, makes him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation.""

This is the bit I was referring  to. I now realise that the autism bit may have been misconstrued...... should have quoted only the relevant  bit. My bad, apologies to all but one.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

20 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Reports that the youngest terrorist ever convicted in Britain has been granted parole, I also read that he has been granted lifelong anonymity by the Judge.

Leaving aside the argument about his release, I just wonder what others think of someone who commits a crime at a younger age, like Venables and Thomson, being granted this favour

Hmmmm.... it really depends on the circumstances.

The two female accomplices of Ian Watkins were granted anonymity because otherwise it would compromise the identities of the victims / potential victims.

That wouldn't matter if those children were taken into care as they could be given new identities, but it could be the case that they'd gone to live with their father or grandparents, in which case you wouldn't change their names.

Its not always used to protect the perpetrator, sometimes its used to protect innocent people or their victims. 

In respect of Venables and Thomson, I do believe that as they were children they were owed a second chance at life. But Thompson seems to have taken that chance, and Venables hasn't. 

Venables subsequent convictions and his status as an adult now I feel should lose him that right, Thompson should be able to keep it for now. 

[Indy 3,283]

Funny, but with modern techniques we can be more sure of convictions and seeing first hand how major crimes impact on families and close friends I don’t believe we should be so lenient on convicted criminals, especially habitual criminals or serious crimes like murder or being complicit to helping major crimes.

I know lots of people say that punishment should be to re-educate and mould these criminals to reintroduce them to society, yet those who’s lives have been devastated have to cope with their lives with minimal support. Doesn’t seem right to me.

I’m probably controversial but we have seven billion people on this planet so if these hard nosed criminals do serious crime and can be convicted without any doubt I’d be OK to see the death penalty reintroduced. Never mind anonymity and the huge cost to do this, we wouldn’t miss these people.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Indy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I did expect that the OP would widen to the death sentence etc and that is fair enough as it all comes under the umbrella of how do you deal with people convicted of serious crime.

I was mainly considering the question of anonymity. Venables and Thomson were incredibly evil and their actions can never be excused. Is it right that the state continues to succour these individuals, particularly Venables who is obviously a paedophile.

In such cases, isn't it fair that the public, particularly those with children, should be entitled to know these individuals are in their area?

 

[Indy 3,283]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I did expect that the OP would widen to the death sentence etc and that is fair enough as it all comes under the umbrella of how do you deal with people convicted of serious crime.

I was mainly considering the question of anonymity. Venables and Thomson were incredibly evil and their actions can never be excused. Is it right that the state continues to succour these individuals, particularly Venables who is obviously a paedophile.

In such cases, isn't it fair that the public, particularly those with children, should be entitled to know these individuals are in their area?

 

Yes I know I’m in the minority, but like I said I know someone who went through serious incident and it not only wrecked his good lifestyle, but his immediate family too. The level of support to them was non existent yet those who were serial offenders (car theft related) didn’t get a very long sentence, in fact only the driver got juvenile detention then prison for a couple years yet they had to live with the consequences for life! I’m all for second chances but why should we fund those who have no contributions to society?