I get that we should protect the innocent, but it needs to be balanced in favour of other victims when it comes to with such serious crimes.
We issue names of adult accused rapists before they’ve seen their day in court, and we do so because other victims often do come forward.
Just earlier this year, a restaurant owner in Whitby was accused of sexual assault. “Investigators want to ensure there are no further victims”, so they released his name and something like 10 other victims came forward. That’s just how it is with sexual assault. It’s never just the one victim.
For instance, it’s hard enough for victims to come forward after a sexual assault if they feel isolated or “the only one” who experienced it. As a kid, it’s extremely difficult.
However, if a victim hears that their attacker has done this to other people who have come forward, it might give them the courage to also come forward. We hear this all the time when serial rapists are called out by sometimes dozens of victims after their name is published.
If the attacker is unknown, they might simply get away with those unreported assaults.
This perp might have molested neighbourhood kids, and you’d never know to ask your child if anything inappropriate happened if they remain anonymous.
Withholding the name of an attacker only serves to protect the attacker, not the victims.
They give the age of the boy, a specific date range, and the specific camp and physical location. Hopefully that is both enough for victims to identify the boy and to protect their own privacy from the general public.
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.
I’m not a fan of individual protection trumping that of the greater public. Where it can be reasonably identified by other means is the right approach first, but if that’s insufficient there should be exceptions.
This “can’t be named” rule really doesn’t help the unknown victims, does it?
The assailant is a minor who also should remain assumed innocent until guilt is proven.
This is the cost of protecting minors charged with crimes.
I get that we should protect the innocent, but it needs to be balanced in favour of other victims when it comes to with such serious crimes.
We issue names of adult accused rapists before they’ve seen their day in court, and we do so because other victims often do come forward.
Just earlier this year, a restaurant owner in Whitby was accused of sexual assault. “Investigators want to ensure there are no further victims”, so they released his name and something like 10 other victims came forward. That’s just how it is with sexual assault. It’s never just the one victim.
I would assume the victims know more details than the public
That’s not what I mean.
For instance, it’s hard enough for victims to come forward after a sexual assault if they feel isolated or “the only one” who experienced it. As a kid, it’s extremely difficult.
However, if a victim hears that their attacker has done this to other people who have come forward, it might give them the courage to also come forward. We hear this all the time when serial rapists are called out by sometimes dozens of victims after their name is published.
If the attacker is unknown, they might simply get away with those unreported assaults.
This perp might have molested neighbourhood kids, and you’d never know to ask your child if anything inappropriate happened if they remain anonymous.
Withholding the name of an attacker only serves to protect the attacker, not the victims.
They give the age of the boy, a specific date range, and the specific camp and physical location. Hopefully that is both enough for victims to identify the boy and to protect their own privacy from the general public.
“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.
I’m not a fan of individual protection trumping that of the greater public. Where it can be reasonably identified by other means is the right approach first, but if that’s insufficient there should be exceptions.