Tragic death of teacher

[Drake]

I've no wish to open a can of worms on this. A youth has been arrested for allegedly causing the death of a teacher at a school in Leeds. According to reports, the youth cannot be named "for legal reasons".
It maybe because i'm getting older and grumpier . . but to my mind if a person allegedly kills they should be named, whatever their age.
Am i being to harsh do you think.
My sympathies go to the family and friends of this teacher.

[mrjemm]

Why do they need to be named? Why do we need to see a face? Grim curiosity? Fear of facing them in the streets?

Newspapers, and presumably some element of the public have a gruesome love for 'naming and shaming', yet I seem to recall something about our legal system involving investigation, collation of evidence, judges, juries, police and so on. Trial by media, as it's become known is a saddening and sickening growth industry. I am personally not a fan of lynch mobs, as evidenced by my reaction to the threads regarding Emma Wray(?) a year or so back.

How far does it go? Look at the prevalence of news regarding the 'Yewtree' investigations, and how many well known faces have been publicly named, and subsequently cleared. Yes, you could say "there's no smoke without fire", but who are we to judge? Again, how about we trust our legal system for a change? How about making sure what people are accused of are guilty before they are ruined by publicity? Fine for the guilty, but how about those not?

Again, why would you want to know their identity?

[thirdcrank]

The restrictions on the naming of juveniles involved in court proceedings date from at least the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and that may well have re-enacted earlier legislation. There are provisions for the trial judge to remove this right to anonymity in certain circumstances. I don't think that the immediate aftermath of something so horrible as this is the best time to be rationally considering changes to something that has applied for at least eighty years.

[kwackers]

How far does it go? Look at the prevalence of news regarding the 'Yewtree' investigations, and how many well known faces have been publicly named, and subsequently cleared. Yes, you could say "there's no smoke without fire", but who are we to judge? Again, how about we trust our legal system for a change? How about making sure what people are accused of are guilty before they are ruined by publicity? Fine for the guilty, but how about those not?

Actually I think Yewtree is a good example of why it's not so black and white. Without the publicity and the names I doubt there'd have been any cases brought to court at all.

[al_yrpal]

They should be named each and every time they offend so that we law abiding people can clearly identify criminals. How many times have we seen murderers with 20 offences that no one is aware of because they are too young? People being tried should have all their past offences revealed to juries too. We are too soft on criminals. That's why we had the riots.

Al

[Vorpal]

I've no wish to open a can of worms on this. A youth has been arrested for allegedly causing the death of a teacher at a school in Leeds. According to reports, the youth cannot be named "for legal reasons".
It maybe because i'm getting older and grumpier . . but to my mind if a person allegedly kills they should be named, whatever their age.
Am i being to harsh do you think.

My sympathy to the teacher's friends and family. What an awful thing.

If the young person is named, people will blame him, whether he is actually guilty of anything. And if the young person is is never charged? Or charged and found not guilty? Or even, turns out to be a victim himself? There have been tragedies where it turned out that the apparent perpetrator was actually a victim himself, and this sort of thing is more likely when it is a young person. Juveniles are generally not considered to have the same level of culpability as adults.

This is not speculation on the case, not intended to divert blame. I don't know much about the case, and cannot comment on the specifics.

[yakdiver]

"Dad,Mum this is my new boyfriend" comes to mind..... name and shame

[[XAP]Bob]

Named when convicted, maybe - not when it is alleged.

Maybe juveniles should only be named for second offences?

[byegad]

I had a pupil, aged 12 pull a flick knife on me, I disarmed him. The head of the school excluded him for a short while ASFIK no other action was taken. Several years later the same individual murdered a local pensioner, with a knife.

[Vantage]

"Innocent until proven guilty"
The key word being "Proven".
Say someone is accused of kiddie fiddling. It goes to court. Accused is named. Every Tom, Dick and Harriet forms their own opinions having never heard any facts, only rumours started by other Toms, Dicks and Harriets. Same folk vandalise the accused home, car, threaten his/her family or worse.
Accused is then found innocent.
Too late. The damage is done.

Naming and shaming before a verdict is given. Brilliant idea.

[jezer]

Please, no comment until the court case reaches a verdict.

[kwackers]

"Innocent until proven guilty"
The key word being "Proven".
Say someone is accused of kiddie fiddling. It goes to court. Accused is named. Every Tom, Dick and Harriet forms their own opinions having never heard any facts, only rumours started by other Toms, Dicks and Harriets. Same folk vandalise the accused home, car, threaten his/her family or worse.
Accused is then found innocent.
Too late. The damage is done.

Naming and shaming before a verdict is given. Brilliant idea.

There are many instances were victims only come forward when they hear that someone has been charged. In the case of Seville we would never have known the scale nor is it likely it would ever have been investigated and hundreds of people would have gone to their grave without any recourse to justice or even having their story believed.

I'm not claiming it's right (and in this case there's obviously nothing to be gained by naming) but it's not the black and white issue some might think.
Ultimately I think if the case has been referred for prosecution then there's definitely smoke and I reckon that depending on the crime then someone somewhere should be able to say "naming this person is in the public interest" and give the go-ahead (as opposed to the current system were people are apparently routinely named).