Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
One thing that really infuriates me is when someone commits, and is found guilty of a serious crime such as manslaughter or murder, and then cannot be named for legal reasons, can someone explain why this is invoked by the justice system.
It is my opinion that anyone no matter what age who is found guilty of a serious crime should be named.
"Gudlucker" this is due to the whole system been "PANTS" i totaly agree with you on this & ive never understood it as well....its the same when u watch these "Police Camera Action" programmes showing driver's been blue lighted & chased by police that are in a nicked car & going the wrong way down a road then when they are stopped there face's smudged out so we cant see who they are..WHY they are guilty....
There is only one reason that a convicted criminal's name is witheld and that would be because the offender is under 18 years old, and very often the judge has the power to over turn this.
If you're thinking of the appalling case of the murder of Sophie Lancaster in Bacup then the youths who have pleaded guilty cannot be named because one of their cohorts has decided to opt for a trail, so their names will be witheld until the end of the lads trial, then I would assume that the judge will allow the guilty persons names to be revealed, just as the judge did in the case of the murder of Gary Newlove
I also hate the whole pleading guilty to a horrendous crime somehow gets a sentance reduced, somtimes by quite a time.
"OR" when they know they have done the crime like murdered a child etc BUT as a added insult to the familes of the victim DENIY it..GRRR
I know what you mean,but....
The reason offenders are bribed, if you like,to come clean is both for financial and compassionate reasons.
Anything that prevents families having to relive the horror of events, such as a loved ones murder or rape e.t.c can only be a sensible option.
I can't imagine the pain of having to sit through a long,drawn out courtcase, not knowing if the defendant will be found guilty or not.
Sitting there and listening to what happened in graphic detail, must be truly overpowering and perhaps too much to bear.
No one should have to go through that.
Also as a secondary reason,the financial cost of a trial to the tax payer is absolutely horrendous.
In this instance,i feel they have got it right.
I understand the priciple and i dont know how i would feel sitting through it. I'm sure some people may want the harshest possible sentance available. Financial reasons also, can you put the price on a life? Again i stress the point i wouldnt know. Also from many court cases lately the offender doesn't even have to appear for the verdict!!!! Surely this is a last final insult to the family involved?
I can perhaps understand it, though not justify it, in the case of real juveniles (say under 12s) to aid rehabilitation, but 17 year olds?
They're old enough to face the consequences of their actions, including publicity.
What I am unable to come to terms with is the anonymity given to these people that make malicious and untrue accusations of rape or other sexual assault where the (innocent) accused is named but the accuser remains anonymous.
In caes like this it is my view that the identity of the accuser should be well publicised so that others can be warned off, aware of what that person is like - but even more so, the accused should not be identified as they are not guilty of any offence.
As I pointed out, in the majority of cases of violent crime, any juveniles found guilty are usually named. The reason they're not named until found guilty is so they don't get tarred with a trial if they are in fact innocent
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.