THE protection of the identity of young offenders -- covered by the phrase "cannot be named for legal reasons" in reports of court proceedings -- may draw on the high-minded notion that juvenile wrong 'uns deserve a chance before being tarred for life.
But aren't there times when tender years are no excuse for outright wickedness -- especially when the youngsters are quite old enough to understand not just the difference between right and wrong, but truly extreme wrong?
Such as mugging an 83-year-old woman for her handbag and inflicting facial injuries on her in the process.
And such as attacking a man in his own home with hammers while in pursuit of cash -- so viciously that the victim suffered a collapsed lung, a smashed rib and other injuries. In the dock at Burnley Crown Court convicted of just such dreadful crimes were four teenagers. In the case of the mugged 83-year-old, her attacker was a 15-year-old girl. And the youths who took part in the hammer attack were aged 14, 16 and 17.
All had their identity protected. Why?
In cases so shocking and malicious, surely, naming and shaming should be mandatory -- not just as deserved punishment for the crimes, but also for the sake of protecting the community whose rights and safety ought to be put before the hurting the feelings of young thugs who never gave a thought about hurting the persons of their victims.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article