Protecting Accused Juvenile's ID

[jellybean40]

There is a 16-yr-old here in South Jersey accused of 6 homicides. I wondered what the reasoning was behind the law protecting the ID of a juvenile accused of such a crime.

IS it a law? Is it to protect the parents, or to protect the kid in case he's found not guilty?

The prosecuter is seeking to charge him as an adult, in that case the ID won't be protected anymore, if i'm correct.

The whole case just made me wonder why his ID should be protected, while an adult accused of the same crimes is not.

[Stone]

I'm not a cop (yet) but from what I understand, it IS a law and is done so to protect juveniles for when they get out (if convicted, and would not be a possibility in this case if he did kill 6 people) or if he was found innocent.

In this case I think the chance that they got the wrong person, or that they just can't prove he did it is why they don't release his name.

[207]

16 years old & 6 homicides?? Were these commited in one incident or at different times??

[Don]

Unless the decide they have the wrong suspect here you WILL see his name. He will undoubtedly be tried as an adult and if so he will be identified.

Yes, it IS a law that juvenile arrestees not have their identity revealed. I disagree with the law, but there it is.

[jellybean40]

Originally posted by 207:
16 years old & 6 homicides?? Were these commited in one incident or at different times??

He shot 7 people in 2 days, one survived, so they do have at least one witness. He had a grudge against the first group, who included his aunt. Drugs were involved also. They believe he shot the 2 the following day, thinking that they witnessed the other shooting. I think that's how it goes!

[jellybean40]

Originally posted by Don:

Yes, it IS a law that juvenile arrestees not have their identity revealed. I disagree with the law, but there it is.

Thanks. the story got me curious. they have shown his parents house, and relatives coming out of court, but cant yet identify him. i think the hearing is tomorrow.

i dont agree with it either. if they wanted to protect people who may end up being the "wrong person," then they should do it for everybody at any age. i know we'll hear who is he soon, though.

[207]

Originally posted by jellybean40:


He shot 7 people in 2 days, one survived, so they do have at least one witness. He had a grudge against the first group, who included his aunt. Drugs were involved also. They believe he shot the 2 the following day, thinking that they witnessed the other shooting. I think that's how it goes!

Jeeze.. Let me guess, a lot of people are saying: "But he's a really nice kid"

He's old enough to make the decision to use a firearm to take peoples lives on two occassions.. He's old enough to be tried as an adult.

[jellybean40]

Originally posted by 207:


Jeeze.. Let me guess, a lot of people are saying: "But he's a really nice kid"

He's old enough to make the decision to use a firearm to take peoples lives on two occassions.. He's old enough to be tried as an adult.

YES that's what they're saying. he even was helping an elderly neighbor clean out his house. i do think i heard that he had been in an "alternative school" for a while. and he's not getting toooo much good press because the first group he shot also live in the neighborhood.

[Pigskin]

Texas has such a law, to protect juveniles' identities. It came into being back in the late '80's when people were more concerned about the suspects' rights than the victims'. Supposedly they (the legislature) felt that children (juveniles) should not be subjected to harassment by the public or the media.

The legislature meets every other year (odd numbered) to make new laws & tweak others. In 1997, they made some minor changes to the law regarding juvenile information. When the bill was typed up, whoever did the typing left out the words "law enforcement" when listing the agencies that cannot give out juvenile information. The words were there in the previous law & it was certainly NOT the legislature's intention to omit them but they were. The law was passed as amended & no one caught the error until May of 1998. Several law enforcement agencies questioned whether or not they should give out juvenile information knowing that it was a mistake that they were left out but the Attorney General's Office ruled that, since the wording was omitted, that juvenile information could be disclosed. Our Sheriff's Department claimed that they knew the intention of the law & would not give out the information. Our Department went by the letter of the law &, until 1999 when the mistake was corrected, gave out juvenile arrest information same as adults.

I, personally, felt that it was just to do so. Maybe if a juvenile got pegged by name & address, the public embarrassment might prevent them from doing anything again. Of course, with a lot of these kids, they feel like they have to strut being identified as the killer of six people. Still, I think, if they play the game, they need to be named in the program.