It all to do with the age of criminal responsibility, in the UK its 16. This reflects a child's intellectual, emotional and mental maturity and suggests a child lacks the capacity of making far reaching decisions, in short its felt inhumane for (adult) society to punish someone ( a minor) further ( by naming them) for the ramifications of a crime they are unable to fully understand...i suppose the question to ask yourself is, if not 16 then where do you set the bar? 15?, 14? 13? etc etc
In US the hope is he'll be rehabilitated and not live in stigma. Minors cannot exercise rational thinking until 25+ as the prefrontal cortex is not developed
We have the Young Offender's Act in Canada which protects children under the age of 18 from having their names published when convicted of a criminal act. This protects the family, who are obviously not guilty of the crime, and also provides the child with an opportunity to be rehabilitated and participate in life after time served, by becoming a contributing member of society without any stigma that could be associated with his name. Remember... these are kids... many of them are victims of their environments themselves.
No it`s not reasonable and does little to console the victim`s family and friends. I`m fairly sure that the offender will be well known where it matters most (for now) that being in the community where he lives and where the offence took place.
Why should you need to know? If it could present a danger to the family or friends of the kid, then what does it gain to justify that?
I think so- he's so young- give him a chance to rehabilitate himself- by releasing his name now, you might sabotage any hope he has at a future
This IS unusual as even in the UK ; when a person , no matter their age, is accused or found guilty of MURDER ; their name is released .... <br />
This doesn't sound right ; BUT the judge has the final say unless some attorney makes a big deal over it all ... or a witness comes forward and spills the beans ...