Submitted by liquid_deflation t3_zya7qh in news
Boozeled t1_j254ue1 wrote
I don't understand the reasons for hiding identities of evil people like this, regardless of age.
LenyAK t1_j257r1n wrote
According to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, publication bans help prevent stigmatization of young offenders, which can hinder their rehabilitation.
Future-Studio-9380 t1_j2714km wrote
I'm actually fine with keeping names private for most cases unless convicted. Innocent until proven guilty yet even if found innocent a trial would haunt them forever if names of those tried were released.
That being said, there should be exceptions to this. And if these girls are convicted it should absolutely follow them forever. If this was stealing a PS5 then yea, keep it private but this? Hell no.
Rehabilitation (which stigmatization might hurt) can be a noble thing to attempt but for certain cases people like partners/potential friends/employers should have a right to know if this person they might marry/befriend/employ is a murderer
Ksh_667 t1_j25bgep wrote
I'm upvoting you cos I'm grateful for the info but imo protecting names is not helpful to someone who may feel they're "getting away with not being known" & thus have no incentive not to do it again. I get that they are innocent til proven guilty, I just don't see the hiding of identity having any positive effect.
GoArray t1_j25eddg wrote
What positive effect(s) does releasing their identity, especially prior to conviction, have?
Ksh_667 t1_j25khtd wrote
As I mentioned, it can encourage victims to come forward.
GoArray t1_j25qbks wrote
Specific to this person, that could all come after conviction.
More generally, law enforcement could put out a statement with details asking others to come forward while still withholding the suspect's identity.
Anybody close enough to know her identity, doesn't need the news to tell them. To any other "stranger" victims, her identity does nothing but reinforce confirmation bias.
Being completely honest, you're looking to play internet detective. Wanting to know who she is, understandable as we're a curious species.. but ultimately that's the authorities job, you (the internet) will just bloody the waters.
Ksh_667 t1_j26fp7p wrote
After conviction would be too late if someone had information relevant to this person that could impact tbe case. I'm in the uk & have never been to the us or Canada, I'm not sure what confirmation bias you think I'm looking for & I dont see how a name can give that.
I do like playing internet detective, it's a popular pastime lol. But in this case I dont think sherlock Holmes levels of deduction are required. That's more for r/unsolvedmysteries.
GoArray t1_j26n2yq wrote
See, I thought this was already a thing in the uk and 'western' europe? Basically a tactic to stem blatent defimation.
Anyway, as per confirmation bias, recently a professor quasi connected to another tragic event was named, "investigated" and shamed by the internet. Detectives haven't even named a suspect yet. Yet, the great internet sleuths have already hung this professor with an army in toe. If, for w.e. reason, this prof ends up on the stand you can bet money the jury pool will largely be tainted.. minimal real evidence confirming w.e. they already believe to be true that they learned from fb, or reddit, or w.e.
You (not personally) aren't playing fair, you won't go looking for evidence to clear this person or that they love kittens, you're looking for evidence to support your belief in their guilt.
We know nothing of the case, nor this girl's roll in it, yet look at the comments. Blood's in the water, imagine if we had literally any access to their irl identity.
BestCatEva t1_j25hjkw wrote
But, age 13 makes this a little bit different.
Ksh_667 t1_j25kw1e wrote
Is that the age of the person bailed? Sorry if I missed that. But if there are other victims out there, they should be given every chance to feel they can come forward.
LenyAK t1_j25ckqu wrote
This is their reasoning, I don't necessarily agree. Canada's justice system is too focused on rehabilitation and not punishment, IMO to the detriment of society. But there are certain cases when they will publish a name, such as when are actively searching for an offender.
Ksh_667 t1_j25dryg wrote
I'm in uk & although childrek that we publish names to encourage other victims to come forward, ip punishment but I do get sick of seeing victims treated as less impt than perps.
Edit: looking at this comment this morning, it is nonsense. I was very tired when I typed it & can't make sense of it myself now. There's whole lines missing. Sorry bout that.
[deleted] t1_j25ii4p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j25vmy8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j25kuxu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j25g221 wrote
[removed]
Sluggish0351 t1_j25wo3b wrote
Witness protection. She likely got bail due to cooperating with authorities. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if something happens to them.
DecentChanceOfLousy t1_j27rm8d wrote
Because she hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
A fictional scenario:
Your idiot friends decide to rough up someone. You try to talk them out of it, but follow them hoping you can try to keep them out of trouble. Then three of them pull out knives and decide to stab the guy to death while you watch on in horror. Later, everyone that was there is arrested and charged, including you (which is the right thing for the police to do). Should the press release your name as "vile murderess who stabbed a man to death" before you've been convicted of anything, or even tried?
It's almost certainly not what happened here. But it might be, and we won't know until the facts come out in the trial. There will be plenty of time to release names after the trial (assuming being a minor doesn't exempt her completely). She's not going anywhere.
In general, with a few exceptions (including for public figures, whose trials will be known by the public whether they're released or not), names shouldn't be actively publicized before trial. That is regardless of the crime in question (from jaywalking to murder). Police make mistakes, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The severity of the crime has nothing to do with whether they actually did it.
[deleted] t1_j27e3xu wrote
[removed]
Tartooth t1_j26axsx wrote
Because making stupid mistakes at 15 shouldn't ruin the rest of your life.
Once you're associated with a crime on google, that's it, you're done for. This law is a very good tool too keep the disgusting media churn away from kids
Boozeled t1_j26f8cb wrote
I guess if you consider brutally stabbing an innocent random person "a stupid mistake" that makes sense. A stupid mistake is using a slur as a before being knowledgeable or lying on a test, or maybe even stealing someone's phone.
krakelikrox t1_j279scj wrote
Yeah, I am sure it felt like more than a “stupid mistake” by the victim in this case.
Tartooth t1_j27q1a5 wrote
Thats why they've been arrested and are being charged. There's no need to publish their names.
[deleted] t1_j26chnm wrote
[removed]
midevilman2020 t1_j29329d wrote
Sometimes I wonder if we did this with bullies we would eventually become a society where nobody wanted to be that infamous and therefore it would happen a lot less.
Tartooth t1_j29a97m wrote
Dude, Andrew Tate leveraged being a bully into becoming and maintaining fame.
No need to give them the publicity to bump start their 'influencer' careers as professional assholes
midevilman2020 t1_j2a0zh6 wrote
I mean people who aren’t already famous or public.
Tartooth t1_j2a43di wrote
That's why im saying, no need to give known bullies a publicity bump by publishing their name...
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments