Child offenders need lifetime anonymity, says review

Just read this on the BBC website and while i agree with this for low level crimes, surely this shouldn't happen for serious crimes like the Bulger murder or the brothers who tortured 2 other boys?
What do you think?

Child criminals should be given life-long anonymity, a government-commissioned review has recommended.
Ministers are considering introducing a law to indefinitely ban the media from identifying young offenders.
Currently, anonymity granted to under-18s by the youth or crown courts in England and Wales expires when they become adults.
The Ministry of Justice said it will discuss the proposals "with interested parties".
If such a law had been in place when Robert Thompson and Jon Venables murdered two-year-old James Bulger, the public would never have known their identities.
The recommendations are part of a review into the youth justice system in England and Wales by child behavioural expert, Charlie Taylor, to reduce reoffending.
The report states that 69% of children sentenced to custody go on to reoffend within a year.
Boy torturers granted anonymity
Mr Taylor says the current system "must evolve to respond... to the challenges of today".

Under current legislation, child suspects are granted automatic anonymity in the youth courts and are routinely granted the same if they appear at crown court aside from exceptional circumstances.
But once a child turns 18, their name can be reported.
The report says this "risks undermining their rehabilitation as their identity could be established on the internet even though a conviction may have become spent for criminal records purposes".
Instead, Mr Taylor recommends automatic anonymity should also be granted in the crown court and the reporting restrictions should last the lifetime of young defendants.
'A step too far'
The Just for Kids Law charity welcomed the recommendation, saying: "Being named and shamed for what they have done or accused of doing prevents them ever being able to move on."
Penelope Gibbs, vice chair of the campaign group Standing Committee for Youth Justice, said children must be given the "maximum possible chance of rehabilitation".
"There's good evidence that the kind of vilification that is associated with a child that has committed a very serious crime being identified, destroys those chances of rehabilitation," she added.
But the Conservative MP for Kettering, Philip Hollobone, told the Times "the public has a right to know" the identities of those convicted for serious offences.
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, also hit out at the proposal, telling the Times: "The idea of a blanket ban would be against any concept of open justice and the public's right to know and is a step too far."
The Ministry of Justice has said it would "discuss these proposals with interested parties, including the Home Office, media and youth justice interest groups in order to better understand the case for change and consider the appropriate way forward."
Earlier his month, Justice Secretary Liz Truss announced two new "secure schools" for teenage offenders.
The schools - which were among Mr Taylor's recommendations - will focus on maths and English and will also provide apprenticeships

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38457472

Why does the public "have a right to know" who has been convicted of a crime?
Does the public have a judicial role? No. Should the public judge people or police their area? No.
Lynch mob mentality.

I personally think that adults have to live with their crimes and the consequences so why should a child when they reach adulthood get off scot free with a new identity and the chance to start a new life and start again.

Surely part of rehabilitation is acknowledging your crime and the damage you have caused? If they get a new identity they can for all intents and purposes get on with a new life and never look back, you can't say the same for their victims can you?

Wander, if that child, now an adult, is living anonymously in your community, after previously committing a serious offence, would you be happy if he/she befriended you or your kids, and you were ignorant of there background. How do you know they will not reoffend, when it appears , according to the stats, that a high percentage will, and you are offering, through ignorance of the facts, yourself, friends, and family, as potential victims.

You can't punish an adult for something they did as a young child. As abhorrent as Thompson and Venables are, if their new names were put in the public domain there would be a lynching.

And while there's no doubt these two twats deserve it, many who did something bad when they were young kids won't. But they'll get the same treatment.

Society needs order, not street justice.

Interesting. I remember the Norwegian case well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtml

gloswhite wrote:Wander, if that child, now an adult, is living anonymously in your community, after previously committing a serious offence, would you be happy if he/she befriended you or your kids, and you were ignorant of there background. How do you know they will not reoffend, when it appears , according to the stats, that a high percentage will, and you are offering, through ignorance of the facts, yourself, friends, and family, as potential victims.

So what would you actually do if you learned that someone living near you had offended as a child? Assume that rehabilitation and them maturing into an adult person hadn't changed them? Isn't there an equal chance that an adult with no childhood record would start offending? I thought most adult sex offenders were victims rather than perpetrators during their childhood anyway.
So would you go as far as breaking the law yourself - based on a hunch that they haven't changed?