I would hope that anyone in potentially vulnerable placements around this kid should have had their program facilitators informed and then accordingly, the facilitators would be bound to notify all parents/guardians directly. Isn’t that the bare minimum, to contact the families of anyone who might have been alone with the boy directly in such a case? If the first families hear about this is through the media, is that not a horrific failure of communication?
There may be need for exceptions sometimes, but I still don’t see that being the case here. Callously broadcasting such information can easily lead to gossip/rumours that can harm victims &/or everyone around the kid that had nothing to do with the matter.
I would hope that anyone in potentially vulnerable placements around this kid should have had their program facilitators informed and then accordingly, the facilitators would be bound to notify all parents/guardians directly.
I would agree to this for sure. But we have to keep in mind that sexual predators don’t just victimize in one area. He could have been in contact with young kids at school, at a friends house, at the local playground, etc. You can’t possibly know who to notify, especially if you keep his identity a secret.
Even more concerning is that if he’s prosecuted as a young offender, he’ll get minimal jail time and likely nobody will ever know that he’s a sexual predator after he turns 18.
Perhaps when he’s convicted, they’ll lift the ban on anonymity. I’m certain the victims and their family won’t keep it a secret anyway.
And what if the accused minor is innocent? Not saying that is the case here, I know nothing about it, but in general errors do occur sometimes and we can’t burden an innocent person with the massive stigma of being accused of sexually abusing children.
There needs to be balance, obviously. If police are certain enough that there are more victims, age shouldn’t matter.
Whatever code of conduct applies to other cases where the name of the accused has been released should be exercised here.
Being a minor doesn’t excuse the seriousness of the crime, and when the potential for other victims to come forward exists, the justice system needs to accommodate them, not the accused.
…and what if he is innocent? Seriously consider that possibility. The police doesn’t know at this point, and neither do we. The mere association of his name with that crime can ruin his life even if he was completely innocent. And btw I agree the age of the accused should not matter.
Then I would say to have enough of an investigation to warrant publishing his name. Enough reason to believe that the victim is telling the truth and that more would come forward.
My concern is that once a lengthy trial process starts, it’s harder to find justice for other victims. It’s far better to have one trial for all cases, than separate trials just strung along (if that would even happen).
You make very valid points and I think we agree that there needs to be a balance or compromise that is never going to maximize the ability of the victims to obtain justice and at the same time also maximize the protection of innocent defendants. There will always have this tension between these two goals.
“The boy was enrolled in a leadership training program”
I will assume that there are a lot of boys in the same age group, who trained at the same place and time, as this one.
Give a name so at least any other kids this boy may have come in contact with outside this camp can make the connection.
I would hope that anyone in potentially vulnerable placements around this kid should have had their program facilitators informed and then accordingly, the facilitators would be bound to notify all parents/guardians directly. Isn’t that the bare minimum, to contact the families of anyone who might have been alone with the boy directly in such a case? If the first families hear about this is through the media, is that not a horrific failure of communication?
There may be need for exceptions sometimes, but I still don’t see that being the case here. Callously broadcasting such information can easily lead to gossip/rumours that can harm victims &/or everyone around the kid that had nothing to do with the matter.
I would agree to this for sure. But we have to keep in mind that sexual predators don’t just victimize in one area. He could have been in contact with young kids at school, at a friends house, at the local playground, etc. You can’t possibly know who to notify, especially if you keep his identity a secret.
Even more concerning is that if he’s prosecuted as a young offender, he’ll get minimal jail time and likely nobody will ever know that he’s a sexual predator after he turns 18.
Perhaps when he’s convicted, they’ll lift the ban on anonymity. I’m certain the victims and their family won’t keep it a secret anyway.
And what if the accused minor is innocent? Not saying that is the case here, I know nothing about it, but in general errors do occur sometimes and we can’t burden an innocent person with the massive stigma of being accused of sexually abusing children.
There needs to be balance, obviously. If police are certain enough that there are more victims, age shouldn’t matter.
Whatever code of conduct applies to other cases where the name of the accused has been released should be exercised here.
Being a minor doesn’t excuse the seriousness of the crime, and when the potential for other victims to come forward exists, the justice system needs to accommodate them, not the accused.
…and what if he is innocent? Seriously consider that possibility. The police doesn’t know at this point, and neither do we. The mere association of his name with that crime can ruin his life even if he was completely innocent. And btw I agree the age of the accused should not matter.
Then I would say to have enough of an investigation to warrant publishing his name. Enough reason to believe that the victim is telling the truth and that more would come forward.
My concern is that once a lengthy trial process starts, it’s harder to find justice for other victims. It’s far better to have one trial for all cases, than separate trials just strung along (if that would even happen).
You make very valid points and I think we agree that there needs to be a balance or compromise that is never going to maximize the ability of the victims to obtain justice and at the same time also maximize the protection of innocent defendants. There will always have this tension between these two goals.