Is it in the Public's best interest or Jack Straws best interest? Discuss

[????]

...and I know who my money is on

[ruffers]

The public.

[RosieH]

Surely depends if you want a conviction, in which case you have to say public...?

Don't believe in branding children "evil", but neither have I seen the psychiatric reports from the release. I would rather see a fair trial and someone guilty sent to prison, than Jack Straw publicly eviscerated and a dangerous man walk free.

[????]

and the continued media frenzy stoked by non-disclosure gives him a better chance of a fair trial? He's on license I believe it doesn't technically 'need' a trial for him to be called back.

[legalbeagle]

Also worth asking whether we are confusing "in the public interest" with "what the public find interesting".

[Marmora Man]

Why does the public even have to know that the individual in question has been arrested? Ww're not told of every "on licence" re-offender - this is simply prurience dressed up as right to know.

The individual, the victim's mother and the public would all have been better off if he information had not been made public.

[legalbeagle]

Exactly my point. We have been told because we find it interesting. Not because it is in the public interest to publish this kind of information about an offender out on licence.

[KidKruger]

... so therefore the answer (given the OP's question and legalbeagle's conclusion) is 'NOT in the public interest' ?

[Marmora Man]

NOT in anyone's interest.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Not often I get to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone I respect but often disagree with.. Marmora Man I doff my cap to you

[????]

Come on, get real.....It was always going to get out so has JS helped or hindered the situation since (or indeed Venables)?

[matthew123]

Bottom line is the media have jeopodised what is in the public interest

[ruffers]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Why does the public even have to know that the

> individual in question has been arrested? Ww're

> not told of every "on licence" re-offender - this

> is simply prurience dressed up as right to know.

>

> The individual, the victim's mother and the public

> would all have been better off if he information

> had not been made public.

Agreed 100%. It might not be nice but Jamie Bulger's mother was on telly today saying she has the right to know. Sorry, you don't, and neither does anyone else.

[woofmarkthedog]

Look..

Get real, in this day & age nearly all so called "confidential" material eventually leaks out

Look how much info is already in the public domain & how it got there. There are those who are privy to this so called "protected information" that have a vested interest, moral or skewed; to leak it to the press. Rough justice by proxy & subterfuge as it were

I don't particularly care at this juncture wether Venables "identity" is outed or not, the system had given him a massive chance already.

That he fu*ked it up is his problem. He's incarcerated now and off the streets, and really what is actually being protected here ?

The protection agencies "created identity" ( in it's self a lie ), the judicial system & those who set up this experiment

Nice...!

W**F

[nashoi]

There are similarities to some of the issues on the Baby P thread here. Though I agree that it's not in the public interest, it is in the interest of the public, as LeagleEagle put it. Therefore it will come out, the days when the authorities can stop information from being published are long gone. The law that allows this to be used as a defense is going to have to be looked at, either have the subsequent cases tried without a jury (really not good imho) or just let the information be published as they do in the US, not good either but surely the least worst of the options. I'm not holding the US up as an example of jurisprudential excellence but they haven't descended into anarchy just yet.