A deeply disturbing case with more questions than answered but one thing I simply cannot understand - if the age of consent is 16, why cannot this 16 year old be named in reporting about the case? He can get married, lose his life fighting for his country - anonymity after conviction seems odd. Perhaps he's claimed to have been sexually abused in which case he's entitled to lifetime anonymity, even when it's found to be a lie.

It seems that before September 2015 it was possible for 16 and 17 year-olds convicted of crimes in Scotland to be named. It looks as if being criminally responsible and having rights as a child are not mutually exclusive.

Young offenders and accused aged 16 and 17 can no longer be identified in Scottish criminal cases.

The age at which charged youths can be named in the media was raised from 16 to 18 last week in a move to bring Scotland into line with the UK and the rest of Europe.

Previously, anyone accused of a crime lost their anonymity at 16 as they were considered adults in Scots law.
www.pressgazette.co.uk/change-in-identif...nalists-by-surprise/

In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland a minor is a person under the age of 18;[10] this is also true for Scotland.[11] The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland is 10; and 12 in Scotland, formerly 8, which was the lowest age in Europe.[12][13][14]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines children as all “human beings below the age of eighteen years”.
fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2017/mappin...rements/age-majority

Well spotted Jo

A link for those who may want to read up on the guilty verdict.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-47322658

Can I just say thanks to Jo for being so brilliant at finding things?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Can I just say thanks to Jo for being so brilliant at finding things?
Thanks, honey, but I think it was just a lucky Google!

I see that the killer's identity has now been revealed. He looks quite normal, but perhaps most killers do.
www.google.com/search?q=%22aaron+campbel...biw=1535&bih=836

Regulars will of course howl with loathing at me when I repeat that failing to show kindness and decency to the perpetrator means condoning their crimes and slaps the face of the victim. As with priests, vicars, doctors, teachers, comics, DJs and pop stars, guilt or innocence should not, in my opinion, negate kindness. When I was in prison I met many admitted guilty criminals including killers and I tried to treat everyone with equal decency. But I seem to be alone in this. Condemn the crime; make sure it cannot be repeated; but why be nasty or cruel to someone? To me, it offends human nature, as I see it and believe it, to hurt someone unless protecting oneself or another.

What caused this boy to behave in this way? Help him mend the hurt and heal himself whilst still condemning this behaviour.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47330774

And I think there's a clue in that he "has a history of self harm".

JK2006 wrote:
Regulars will of course howl with loathing at me when I repeat that failing to show kindness and decency to the perpetrator means condoning their crimes and slaps the face of the victim. As with priests, vicars, doctors, teachers, comics, DJs and pop stars, guilt or innocence should not, in my opinion, negate kindness. When I was in prison I met many admitted guilty criminals including killers and I tried to treat everyone with equal decency. But I seem to be alone in this. Condemn the crime; make sure it cannot be repeated; but why be nasty or cruel to someone? To me, it offends human nature, as I see it and believe it, to hurt someone unless protecting oneself or another.

What caused this boy to behave in this way? Help him mend the hurt and heal himself whilst still condemning this behaviour.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47330774

I for one admire you for those feelings Doctor King.....life is too short to be nasty...and I am sure it is not out of weakness,just genuine compassion for the rest of our species....you're a long time dead,so make the best of the time we have while alive.

JK2006 wrote:
Regulars will of course howl with loathing at me when I repeat that failing to show kindness and decency to the perpetrator means condoning their crimes and slaps the face of the victim. As with priests, vicars, doctors, teachers, comics, DJs and pop stars, guilt or innocence should not, in my opinion, negate kindness. When I was in prison I met many admitted guilty criminals including killers and I tried to treat everyone with equal decency. But I seem to be alone in this. Condemn the crime; make sure it cannot be repeated; but why be nasty or cruel to someone? To me, it offends human nature, as I see it and believe it, to hurt someone unless protecting oneself or another.

What caused this boy to behave in this way? Help him mend the hurt and heal himself whilst still condemning this behaviour.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47330774


You are not alone. I try to treat everyone well, and with understanding, and so do a lot of others.

In a way, I can understand an unwell person committing a horrible crime better than I understand mob bullying of them.

And now....a Judge has ''Bravely Waived' his right to anonymity...so we can get all the usual rubbish about him we really did not need to know in the first place...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6733191...d-pictured-time.html

So he also enjoyed torturing and killing cats. I seem to remember hearing that animal abuse in childhood is often a feature of killers' and/or murdering psychopaths' backgrounds.

Let's hope the parents can heal from all this.

I haven't followed the case beyond a few snap headlines but, from what I gather today, the boy/young man is now behind bars so I'm wondering what the point is in releasing his name. Knowing human nature, certain types of people - who probably have no direct connection to the case - will feel deprived of their right to inflict swift punishment and will target his family even though his family cannot be blamed for his personal actions. It seems a bit bonkers.

In a way, I can understand an unwell person committing a horrible crime better than I understand mob bullying of them. That really strikes a chord, Honey. Thank you. I think I'm going to have to reflect on that a while.

I wonder how many people here (and more widely) share that sentiment?

I was immediately hit by the mention of drugs. This crime has all the hallmarks of drugs - either the effects of a bad trip and inspirations of harmful chemicals or the connections. How come drugs were so easily available to a young lad on this tiny island? We don't know for how long he'd been on them. Where did the fence get them? From a connection in Glasgow? Had he paid his bills? Was a gang prepared to show him that he should do? In fiction, that sometimes involved capturing and killing close relatives. I wonder whether Scottish plod investigated these connections?

there is an alleged further reason the Judge allowed him to be identified:

The Ghastly Katie Hopkins had been tweeting links to the case followed by links (she deleted one too late that basically claimed there was a connection) with stories of a Syrian family of refugees who had moved into the area.

Hopkins claimed crime had risen in the area (not true) while endlessly identifying the fact a refugees family was somehow connected.

Never put it past an extreme right-winger to link a dreadful crime with funny looking people with a "tinge".

hedda wrote:
there is an alleged further reason the Judge allowed him to be identified:

The Ghastly Katie Hopkins had been tweeting links to the case followed by links (she deleted one too late that basically claimed there was a connection) with stories of a Syrian family of refugees who had moved into the area.

Hopkins claimed crime had risen in the area (not true) while endlessly identifying the fact a refugees family was somehow connected.

Never put it past an extreme right-winger to link a dreadful crime with funny looking people with a "tinge".
Horrible woman. It's disturbing that someone like that can be so influential.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Regulars will of course howl with loathing at me when I repeat that failing to show kindness and decency to the perpetrator means condoning their crimes and slaps the face of the victim. As with priests, vicars, doctors, teachers, comics, DJs and pop stars, guilt or innocence should not, in my opinion, negate kindness. When I was in prison I met many admitted guilty criminals including killers and I tried to treat everyone with equal decency. But I seem to be alone in this. Condemn the crime; make sure it cannot be repeated; but why be nasty or cruel to someone? To me, it offends human nature, as I see it and believe it, to hurt someone unless protecting oneself or another.

What caused this boy to behave in this way? Help him mend the hurt and heal himself whilst still condemning this behaviour.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-47330774

You are not alone. I try to treat everyone well, and with understanding, and so do a lot of others.

In a way, I can understand an unwell person committing a horrible crime better than I understand mob bullying of them.
His defence team apparently argued against his name being released because he "had a history of self-harm, anxiety and depression" (source). But he pleaded not guilty and tried to blame the victim's father's girlfriend despite DNA evidence overwhelmingly pointing in his direction. He had apparently also shown premeditation, e.g. by Googling "How do police find DNA". If he was mentally ill, why didn't he plead guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility? And what about all those with mental illness or with a history of self-harm/anxiety/depression/drug use who don't torture animals and rape and murder small girls?

Why? Why? Why? Indeed - all questions that should have been answered during the trial; let us hope the jury heard all the answers before they decided on a verdict.