• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should murderers have the right of anonymity?

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Only if you feel it is an attack of your self. It is terrible when someone is killed, But if it does not directly attack me or my family, why would I take it as an attack on me?

It is not an attack against you per se, but rather an attack against the collective. Committing a murder entails bludgeoning one of the pillars that allows our societies to exist.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It is not an attack against you per se, but rather an attack against the collective. Committing a murder entails bludgeoning one of the pillars that allows our societies to exist.
Of course i don't defend murderers, but in the same time, they are human beings, and they have the same rights to protection as everyone else. Why should I fear a human being?
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
As if I think your assessment of anybody's motives is meaningful.


Some right-minded people choose not to focus on race and instead engage with the problem.


Except that's not what you want. You want minority criminals to be treated worse. Hence why you are continually pushing this agenda based on race and emphasizing that aspect of it rather than looking at criminal justice as a whole.

If you genuinely believe about equality, perhaps focus less on the conspiracy theory that minorities are being unfairly protected by the law and instead focus on the massive and widespread inequality, hate crime and discrimination AGAINST minorities, both in law and in wider communities.

Do you always put words in other people’s mouths?

Regardless of what you say, anyone can see for themselves what I say.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Of course i don't defend murderers, but in the same time, they are human beings, and they have the same rights to protection as everyone else. Why should I fear a human being?

I wasn't talking about anything related to fear. The purpose of knowing the identity of murderers is not to know who to fear.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Has anyone attacked you personally? So you want their names? And who are us?

'Us' as in society.
Since I am a member of a society, if someone attacks my society I am being attacked, and I want to know who those people are.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What possible reason could there be for name suppression in this case....?
Well, it could hurt his dating prospects when he's eventually paroled.
I can imagine a conversation.....

Girl: Hi, glad to meet you.
Man: Hi, you're even more strangleworthy attractive than your Tinder photo.
Girl: Thanks. Are you involved with anyone at the moment?
Man: No, my last relationship was long ago.
Girl: Oh, how did it end?
Man: I killed her:
Girl: Oh, so you're definitely single now.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Do you always put words in other people’s mouths?

Regardless of what you say, anyone can see for themselves what I say.
They sure can. The undue emphasis you put on race, and the fact that your outrage appears strictly limited to crimes committed by members of minority groups, means people can read past your false front and see the true heart of your agenda.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Fair enough.
That's as close as we can get to knowing who attacked us.
Kind of.

Also, if you do view this in terms of collective response to an individual's attack, you must also therefore accept when it is society's judgement that an individual's name remain unknown to the public - at least if we presume the legal system is working as intended. If it is, then the judge is acting in accordance with society's best interests when they determine that it could potentially cause more harm to society if a killer's name is known than if they remain anonymous. If we see their judgement as the judgement of our society, then we must also therefore grant that the decision to preserve their anonymity is a decision made in the best interests of society too.

At least, that's another way to look at it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But, unless they are a juvenile, why should their name be kept secret?
The most common reason I've seen for keeping a criminal's name secret (which admittedly doesn't apply in this case) is that, in some cases, identifying the perpetrator would have the side effect of identifying the victim in cases where the victim has a right to privacy (e.g. sexual abuse against a family member).

I'm not sure if it applies in this case, but there may be a need to keep the criminal anonymous if there are serious threats of reprisals against the criminal's family.

I'm sure I could think of other reasons, but it's impossible to say what the reason is in this case without the information that's being withheld.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What possible reason could there be for name suppression in this case and how many other cases do you know of where the same rule has applied?

Grace Millane murder: man jailed for life for killing of UK backpacker

if he was tried and convicted I don't see any reason why his name shouldn't be released. It's probably for retaliatory reasons under the banner of safety but considering his natural life is over as a free person, I don't see why his name can't be released.

Maybe threats to his family or something? There could be a whole bunch of things for not releasing the name.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
if he was tried and convicted I don't see any reason why his name shouldn't be released. It's probably for retaliatory reasons under the banner of safety but considering his natural life is over as a free person, I don't see why his name can't be released.

Maybe threats to his family or something? There could be a whole bunch of things for not releasing the name.

Whatever the reason is, his name is out there (nasty internet), and this applies to so many more, even when they are just rumours. That is the reality of the internet, and only restraint orders, such as applying to new identities, seems to stop the spread of such.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In the news.
Murder case brings fresh calls to ban 'rough sex' defence
LONDON, Feb 21 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Men accused of murder
should not be allowed to use rough sex as a legal defence, women's rights
advocates said on Friday, after the killer of a British backpacker was jailed
for life in a case that drew fresh scrutiny on the issue.

Grace Millane, 22, was visiting New Zealand when she was murdered. Her
attacker pleaded not guilty to murder, saying she died accidentally during
consensual sex, but a jury rejected his defence and convicted him in November.

Women's rights campaigners called for a ban on the "rough sex" defence,
saying the normalisation of violent sex in popular culture meant men facing
criminal charges for harming women were increasingly claiming that the
violence was consensual.

Research by the British campaign group We Can't Consent to This found
men avoided charges of murder in more than one in three of 60 killings of
women and girls where the defence was used.

Btw, to anger the liberals....
I found this in The Drudge Report.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The most common reason I've seen for keeping a criminal's name secret (which admittedly doesn't apply in this case) is that, in some cases, identifying the perpetrator would have the side effect of identifying the victim in cases where the victim has a right to privacy (e.g. sexual abuse against a family member).

I'm not sure if it applies in this case, but there may be a need to keep the criminal anonymous if there are serious threats of reprisals against the criminal's family.

I'm sure I could think of other reasons, but it's impossible to say what the reason is in this case without the information that's being withheld.
Yes, reprisals against the perpetrators family makes sense.
 
Top