The law recognises that teenagers are still growing and developing. The frontal lobes of the brain which govern stuff like impulse control and decision making are not fully developed until the early 20s. It's why teenagers sometimes make very silly impulsive decisions. Thankfully much of the time it will be stuff like drinking too much alcohol etc.
The brain development is also affected by things like attachment, affection etc in early life. If you have a child who is neglected for example their brain will likely develop more slowly.
So a teenager who does something terrible like this may do so because they've made a stupid decision. They may express remorse etc. They still need to pay a price but the likelihood is that at some point they will have to reintegrate into society hence the law often protects their identity...until they are convicted at least.
I am no expert but did a bit of reading around this after the case of the mother and daughter (Katie Edwards) murdered by teenagers. They expressed no remorse though as far as I can tell.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Also, teens not showing remorse is indicative of mental illness, not a typically developing teen/young adult mind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do understand development of the brain and have studied at university from birth through adulthood, I was asking strictly in regard to the admitted murderer not allowed to be named.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is honestly really frightening that they were given new identities. Somehow the rights of these child killers have more weight than the public to know that there are killers in their midst? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree. I think one of them was back in jail after having child *advertiser censored* found on his computer, the other I think is living a life, somewhere. Not sure, it's controversial and I don't want to derail the thread.
What is SM?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/45
I'm not sure why it was brought in specifically but have a feeling it may have something to do with Jamie Bulgers Killers. They were given new identities upon release IIRC and the media found out who they were and something happened
I think this may have brought in the act. It is up to the court and the judge whether the identity of the minor is protected or not.
(I'm going off memory and may be totally wrong)
Usually refers to social media.
I do understand development of the brain and have studied at university from birth through adulthood, I was asking strictly in regard to the admitted murderer not allowed to be named.
I think in this case they mean selective mutism
Not self mutilation?