Should killers be named?

[Keef]

Yesterday, the names of baby peter connolly's mother, her boyfriend, and his brother, were released to the public, along with photos. The judge says this is to boister faith in the justice system. Social workers are worried it will cause a new storm against them, and others worry about the cost of giving them new identities when they're released. So, should they be named, and should they be given new identities at a cost to the tax payer?

[Jeremy]

I don't see how it's in the public's interest to know their names. It just makes the whole issue more complicated for all concerned.

[ratty]

Tend to agree. Perhaps they should have just informed why they were not named and have done with it. However, their names leaked anyway and I would be surprised if there were many people left who did not know their identities.

Sadly I share a surname with one of these scum! Makes me feel ill!

[DaveR]

"Should killers be named?"

They generally are, unless there are exceptional circumstances - open justice and all that. It is usually restricted where identifying an adult will identify a child involved in the case - it's the child's privacy being protected, not the adult's. In any event, restrictions on reporting of cases apply to the media only, so (to my knowledge) there was nothing to prevent anyone who wanted to know the identities of these individuals from going to court and seeing them, and hearing their names read out.

A very, very small number of released prisoners get a new identity, partly because those convicted of the most serious and terrrible cases are more likely to have a 'whole life' tariff - they aren't getting out. In 15-20 years the vast majority of people will have forgotten about Baby P - unfortunately, it is a far from unique case.

[mockney piers]

Bit of weird one this. Criminals names are normally released, so really the difference between this and other terribly abusive parents is media interest. The judge was making a statement in doing this but it seems self-defeating if he knows all it will result in is bloody expensive identity change, lifelong protection type stuff.

Don't know really, we shouldn't need to make exceptions, but that's the world we live in. Do these guys deserve our protection, absolutely not, but thankfully we live in a society where the application of law is as impartial as we (fallible humans) can make it, and for that I am indeed grateful.

[Santerme]

From The Times August 11, 2009

Out of the darkness: Baby P's killers named at last

The three people responsible for the brutal death of Baby Peter can be identified for the first time after a court ruling banning their identification came to an end at midnight.

Tracey Connelly, 28, and her sadistic boyfriend Steven Barker, 33, were jailed for causing or allowing the death of 17-month-old Peter Connelly in his blood-spattered room in Haringey, North London.

He had suffered dozens of injuries after months of abuse at the time of his death, including a broken back and fractured ribs, and had been on Haringey?s child protection register, but professionals had failed to spot the danger despite 60 different visits.

The media have been prevented from naming the couple since last year, when they were convicted of causing or allowing the death of Peter. Both were subsequently tried in connection with the rape of a two-year old girl, although only Barker was convicted. Despite the ban on the mainstream press identifying them, their identities soon became known to users of internet sites not bound by the order or ignoring it.

The lifting of the ban on identification, a week after the second anniversary of the death of Peter, also means that Jason Owen, the third defendant, who was a lodger in the house, can be identified as the brother of Barker ? he changed his name after Peter's death. Owen was also convicted over Peter?s death, but there was no ban on naming him.

The NSPCC has criticised the decision to make the couple?s identities public, asking whether it was in the interests of Peter?s siblings. ?We have serious misgivings about this,? said Wes Cuell, director of services at the children?s charity. ?There is clearly a difficult balance in legitimate public interest and prurience. The concern we have is what impact this [the naming] will have on the lives of children who have already been through the killing of a brother, and question in what way it is in their best interests.? The siblings had already suffered enough ?and respecting their privacy gives them the best chance of recovery?, Mr Cuell said.

Barker had been investigated by police before for a violent assault. Connelly had nothing in her past that would hint at the horrors to come.

They were both from dysfunctional families and the coming together of the pair was, according to one senior police officer, ?the perfect storm? that led to the death of Peter.

Connelly, who was unemployed, loved having in her view a handsome boyfriend and while she spent hours on the internet every day, looking at pornography and chatting to friends on networking sites, he tortured her son for his own amusement.

The Times has been told that having a steady boyfriend was everything to Connelly and the abuse of her child was ?a price she was willing to pay?.

She was terrified that if she complained about the abuse he would leave her. On one social networking site she said: ?My fella is nuts but being in love is great.?

In reality her boyfriend was a 15 stone sadist who not only enjoyed torturing animals but people as well.

The Barker brothers were both charged with assaulting their grandmother, Hilda Barker, 82, at her home in Whitstable, Kent, in 1995.

The pensioner told police that they locked her in a wardrobe to make her change her will in their favour but the case was dropped after she died from pneumonia.

Jacqueline Cole, 58, a neighbour of Mrs Barker, said: ?She was black and blue. I heard they tried to scare her to death with Guy Fawkes masks.?

When he was not abusing the toddler, Barker, who had a pet snake, would use a large knife to skin live frogs and break their back legs to see if they could still jump.

Dead mice, chicks and dismembered rabbits were left lying around the house, along with his pornography.

A knife-obsessed sadist, he wore combat gear, collected Nazi military memorabilia including daggers decorated with swastikas and was always seen with his rottweiler.

He had been prosecuted by the RSPCA for torturing animals.

I am a great advocate of justice and appropriate punishment rather than vengeance, but this kind of things strains my humanity.

I believe all the 'professionals' who worked on this case need to be named as well because clearly they are failing in their duty of care, and it leads to me ask who else in their pile of case notes is at serious risk.

[sophiesofa]

I believe all the 'professionals' who worked on this case need to be named as well because clearly they are failing in their duty of care, and it leads to me ask who else in their pile of case notes is at serious risk.

I don't believe the 'professionals' names should be revealed, the problem is they simply have too many cases piling up on their desks. The Baby Peter case will/has put off people working in the profession. It must be such an emotional and stressful job and the people involved must be feeling absolutely horrendous as it is. More case workers is what's needed.

I don't see the point in releasing the names of the mum, boyfriend or brother as constructive especially since there are siblings involved.

[macroban]

In the particular case you've used as example it seems like an irrelvance. Over the next few years the health of the convicts will depend on the goodwill of their fellow prisoners and the vigilance of the prison warders.

The more general point of the State with-holding the names of people it holds in custody is a very dangerous slippery slope.

[Keef]

I was wondering when someone would suggest naming the professionals involved. What a very silly thing to say. I basically agree with Jeremy's point above.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Agreed as well Keef

It's easy to read the newspaper reports after the investigations, but I doubt when the professionals paid a visit, saw

"When he was not abusing the toddler, Barker, who had a pet snake, would use a large knife to skin live frogs and break their back legs to see if they could still jump.

"

or asked the mum if she wouldn't mind closing Internet Explorer for 5 minutes as they had some questions

[woofmarkthedog]

Here's my take for what it's worth. The judgement ruling on anonymity ran out. Their names are released, in such heinous cases as this I personally feel it's the only way the Judge can give them a proper "Life Term". They will serve a detention term & then forever have to live with the fear of discovery, much like Maxine Carr et al.

As for cost , well a full life term in prison is expensive so we are in it financially anyway & I don't mind my tax payed going on Justice when served .

W**F

[Keef]

I just don't think a lot of people in this country are grown up enough to be trusted with this sort of information, and that is a very sad thing.

With regards the professionals involved, what good would naming and "shaming" them do? For a start, it would make good potential social workers run an absolute mile from this sort of work, and we'd end up with worse services than we have now. Also, these people were obviously cunning, and none of the neighbours knew what was going on next door either. When you go to a persons house as a professional, you are not expected to check over a child, and if he was laid in a cot sleeping, the worker would not insist that he was awoken, stripped, and checked over.

I just find all the scathing comments about the workers involved, to be massively ill informed, and naive.

Social workers are there to help families, and keep kids in their homes if possible. They are not trained to see through complete pychopathic behaviour. If the people who are calling for these professionals to be named had gone around there, I'm pretty sure they'd have left the house thinking that it was horrible, and that the mum was a chav, and the boyfriend was a thick slob, but does anyone here really think they'd have gone round there, and immediately realised what was going on?

[Keef]

One last thing, it really really bugs me when the press whip up a storm about the tax payers having to pay to protect these monsters, yet seem blind to the fact that it is because of them that it will be necessary!

[mockney piers]

Well said on both points keef!!

[daizie]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just don't think a lot of people in this country

> are grown up enough to be trusted with this sort

> of information, and that is a very sad thing.

>

> With regards the professionals involved, what good

> would naming and "shaming" them do? For a start,

> it would make good potential social workers run an

> absolute mile from this sort of work, and we'd end

> up with worse services than we have now. Also,

> these people were obviously cunning, and none of

> the neighbours knew what was going on next door

> either. When you go to a persons house as a

> professional, you are not expected to check over a

> child, and if he was laid in a cot sleeping, the

> worker would not insist that he was awoken,

> stripped, and checked over.

>

> I just find all the scathing comments about the

> workers involved, to be massively ill informed,

> and naive.

>

> Social workers are there to help families, and

> keep kids in their homes if possible. They are not

> trained to see through complete pychopathic

> behaviour. If the people who are calling for these

> professionals to be named had gone around there,

> I'm pretty sure they'd have left the house

> thinking that it was horrible, and that the mum

> was a chav, and the boyfriend was a thick slob,

> but does anyone here really think they'd have gone

> round there, and immediately realised what was

> going on?

Your right Keef . More than likely, id have come away feeling very uncomfortable about the parents, feeling very sorry for the child, sensing that the child was an inconvenience, , hoping my feelings were wrong , but not imagining that they would actually kill it .

[nashoi]

The media blackout was to prevent the jury in the second trial, the rape of a two year old, being aware of their role in the death of Peter. Even reporting the existence of the second trial was banned and in a legal first they were tried under false names. Despite this their real identities and phtotos were posted on many websites. The defence tried to have the case thrown out because of this, specifically naming Facebook where groups naming them apparently had close to a million members. As the internet cannot be gagged in the way the rest of the media can it looks as though the law will have to change.

As for the future, I'm not a lawyer but from what I've read its unlikely they'll ever come out so no new identities will be needed. The rest of her children will probably need and get new id's, certainly if I was one of them I'd want a new name.

As for naming social workers I'm with Keef on this one.

[Santerme]

The fuss about naming the 'professionals' is not actually pertinent as i did not realise sanctions had been taken against those involved.

The final report on this matter was published in May 2009.

Unlike its predecessor, it concluded, unequivocally, that agencies should have saved Peter.

Among its findings were that:-

?Care proceedings should have been initiated in December 2006, following a child protection conference, as the threshold was met.

?Agencies were too willing to believe Connelly's accounts.

?Too little significance was attached to her childhood experience of neglect and alleged abuse.

?Agencies failed to run checks on Barker.

Chronology

November 2006 - Steven Barker, later found guilty of causing or allowing baby Peter's death, moves into her home but this is kept from police and social workers.

December 2006 - Tracey Connelly arrested after bruises spotted on baby's face and chest by a GP. She denies causing injury. He is admitted hospital, placed on the child protection register, then handed to a family friend.

January 2007 - Baby Peter returned to his family after five weeks.

April 2007 - Baby Peter admitted to hospital with bruises, two black eyes and swelling on the left side of his head. The mother claimed it was from a fall on to a marble fireplace caused by another child. The episode is not reported to police.

June 2007 - Marks seen on Baby Peter's face by social worker. She sends him to hospital where bruises and scratches are found. The mother is re-arrested. Arrangements are made to pay family friend to live at the house for two weeks and then for a childminder to take the boy in the daytime.

July 30 2007 - Social worker misses injuries to the boy's face and hands after he is deliberately smeared with chocolate to hide them.

August 1 2007 - Baby Peter is taken to a child development clinic. Doctor misses his broken back and ribs despite the child crying in pain. (This is just wrong!!)

August 2: 2007 - The mother is called to the social services office and told by police she would not be prosecuted following consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service.

August 3 2007 - The boy is found dead in his cot.

A child with 50 injuries in eight months and who had been seen 60 times and in the aftermath of the Victoria Climbie tragedy and it is silly to call people to account publicly.

I don't think so.

[Keef]

Should they have demanded his face be washed, so they could make sure there were no bruises under the chocolate? They don't have the right. I'm with you on the August 1st incident. However, it is interesting that the authors of that very report had praised that very council just a year earlier.

[Cassius]

I don't know if it is just media rubbish but weren't there reports of the filth inside the house including dog (and was it also human) faeces on the floor? Surely that would be neglect even if not cruelty and why should any child be condemned to be brought up in such filth and squalour. I appreciate that social work is a hard job (I had a probation officer as a lodger once and his stories of his average day filled me with horror), but no-one is forced to do it.

[matthew123]

Yes on the surface it seems unfair to name the 'professionals' involved - but are they likely to do a better job if they are made more accountable for their work? i.e. have them publicly named? If a Doctor is found incompetent it'll be in the news so why not anyone else whose incompetency fails to stop the path to death. There will always be excuses on everyside - but you can bet your bottom dollar that any 'professional' with an ounce of intelligence and skill will have cleaned the baby's face of chocolate when taking into account the case history. I suspect what it comes down to is that some of the people in these 'professional' jobs are in fact only amauters. Maybe it is time to increase pay to draw in better quality people for these important social roles because if they're paying peanuts maybe we shouldn't be that surprised.

As for any criminals being named then obviously their jail sentence is inadequate if they require this further punishment. Instead of this hash of justice maybe it's time to reconsider a less expensive sentence for these killers.