Pjen, you won’t win this one. As liberal as this board is, you’ll find few here who agree that he should be released from prison as a living man. As far as we’re concerned, the fact of his release is a regrettable technicality that ought to be corrected.
Whether the name change is $137 (as it is where I live) or $137,000, if his new identity is improperly disclosed it is a simple matter to change it again, and it is still not much compared to the cost of keeping him locked up for many more years. What it comes down to is there really isn’t much of an issue at all.
I understand the OP’s concern. It makes perfect sense to me. The guy’s paid his debt to society, he’s returning to it, and the authorities are aware that he is in physical danger because of it. They tale the personal security of their citizens at known (though unspecified) risk seriously, and will devote resources to attempt to keep them safe.
In America, not so much. The police see themselves as people who keep order, intervene in ongoing crimes, and clean up the mess afterward. They do not see themselves as some kind of crime prevention bureau. We have more of a Wild West mentality as far as individuals are concerned. We suggest people get guns if they know of a credible threat – but ex-felons don’t even have that option.
And we go the opposite direction when releasing people. particularly sex offenders. We trumpet it, we practically invite citizens to take some kind of revenge, and certainly to discriminate in every possible way against former offenders.
The fact of his release isn’t a fact. His legal team tried to use the the Mary Bell precedent in order to keep his hoped-for progression towards freedom a secret. The courts disagreed. He’s not on parole, and may never be. It seems to me that the anonymity afforded by issuing such a reporting restriction is very rarely used, and his case is outwith the scope of those that have been issued.
There are four known Mary Bell orders in place:
Mary Bell herself - a child, who murdered children. If Gita Sereny’s book about Mary Bell is even half true, it’s a tragedy for all concerned, and Mary Bell deserves a chance at a life of her own. She’s been out in the community for 40-ish years.
The Bulger killers - children who murdered a child. A terrible, terrible business.
Maxine Carr - The only one known who was an adult at the time. She gave a false alibi for her boyfriend, who murdered two young girls. She wasn’t involved in the murders (wasn’t even in the same part of the country at the time) and served a jail term for perverting the course of justice. The tabloid frenzy surrounding the case made it impossible for her to be safe on her release. The tabs still occasionally hound her though, skirting close to breaking the law.
That response of mine was to someone suggesting that the man in question should just be killed- a fair riposte I believe.
I do believe that the European sensitivities on these issues are more humane and more acceptable than the US consideration of human beings as objects to be killed or abandoned. It’s a moral thing.
All men are equal in their humanity; where have I learnt that?
Thank you.
A clear and astute analysis of the difference of approach in the European and American systems.
That ‘regrettable technicality’ happens to be part of the rule of law.
The legal fact is that he has a right to be considered for parole. If he meets those conditions, he has the right to parole (there can be no political interference in the matter.) If he has the right to his freedom, then the system must enable that to happen. To enable it to happen, given the current right of the press to refer to him, this right may be required to be removed from a new identity created for him.
The provision of a new identity and the creation of a Mary Bell order are two separate issues. When Maxine Carr was so protected, the judgement in that case widened the scope of such orders (now renamed Identity Protection Orders).
The Maxine Carr case:
Maxine Carr, the former girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley, has been granted an indefinite order protecting her new identity by the High Court.
She was freed from jail and given a new identity in May, after serving 21 months for lying for Huntley.
Last year the High Court granted a temporary order, saying her identity and whereabouts should be kept secret for her safety.
The new order, granted by Mr Justice Eady, was not contested by the media.
Mr Eady said it was necessary to protect “life and limb” as well as Carr’s psychological health.
The order bans publication of any details which could reveal her new identity, including any description of where she lives or the nature of her work.
Earlier, Carr’s lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC argued such an order was justified on the grounds laid down in the previous cases of child killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson and Mary Bell, where similar permanent injunctions were granted.
He said: “There is a real and significant risk of injury or of worse - killing - if this injunction is not granted.”
The 27-year-old former classroom assistant was convicted in December 2003 of conspiring to pervert the course of justice with Huntley, who killed schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in August 2002.
Carr had given Huntley a false alibi by lying about her whereabouts on the weekend when the two 10-year-olds were killed.
Such Identity Protection orders actually cover seven people- Mary Bell herself, her daughter, her grand-daughter, Maxine Carr and her daughter, and the Bulger Killers.
The press may not make any identification of them or any details of where they live work socialise etc.
I agree. As an aside, wasn’t there a case fairly recently of the Home Secretary intervening to get a tariff changed after the fact? I’m blanking on the name though.
Do you off-hand know what the legal basis is for, say, informers to be given a new identity? It’s not Mary Bell, clearly.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
That response of mine was to someone suggesting that the man in question should just be killed- a fair riposte I believe.
[/QUOTE]
Yes…and it came across as smug, condescending and superior. No worries man…it’s expected.
You should have read the fine print. Murdering 3 children tends to void the warranty in most cases. The ironic thing here is that you are fretting over this guy being outed to the community in the press because your sensible fellow citizens would probably string him up if they found out he moved into their neighborhood, all the while bashing us barbaric Americans for saying it would be better to simply leave him in prison for the rest of his life, where he’d be nice and safe.
I’m more alarmed by the casual acceptance of the notion that the press may be ordered not to report on the functions of the state’s criminal-justice system.
Not to mention passive-aggressive, ehe.
Exactly, though I’m trying to limit my use of ‘ehe’ to a minimum these days. I’m on a 12 step program…
Haha, it seems to be working. 
Britain doesn’t have freedom of the press; it has rule of law.
Must be a moral thing.
More humane? The whole point of this thread is your concern that fellow Britons will carry out a vigilante revenge killing of this man.
1641 wasn’t that long ago, I suppose