This is from the Sky News Website
---
Maxine Carr has won an indefinite order to protect her new identity.

The former girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley already had an order preventing the media from revealing details of the new life.

But is it right that Carr's identity should be protected for the rest of her life?

Carr was convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice after providing a false alibi for Huntley on the weekend in August 2002 when 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were murdered.

Orders protecting the identity of people are normally reserved for those who have committed far more serious crimes, such as Mary Bell, who killed two young boys when she was 11, or Jon Thompson and Robert Venables, who were 10 when they killed James Bulger.
---

But even though these people have committed serious crimes, is it right for them to be entitled to a whole new life?

Look at the cases of Jon Thompson and Robert Venables. They have hardly received any "punishment" as such. Since the uproar a while ago before the boys release, everything has gone very quiet. SOMEBODY knows where they are, and one day it WILL get out.

Maxine Carr's case is slightly different, but the question is SHOULD she get lifetime anonymity? Will she spend the rest of her life living in fear?

What are your views on this?

This is from the Sky News Website
---
Maxine Carr has won an indefinite order to protect her new identity.

The former girlfriend of Soham murderer Ian Huntley already had an order preventing the media from revealing details of the new life.

But is it right that Carr's identity should be protected for the rest of her life?

Carr was convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice after providing a false alibi for Huntley on the weekend in August 2002 when 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were murdered.

Orders protecting the identity of people are normally reserved for those who have committed far more serious crimes, such as Mary Bell, who killed two young boys when she was 11, or Jon Thompson and Robert Venables, who were 10 when they killed James Bulger.
---

But even though these people have committed serious crimes, is it right for them to be entitled to a whole new life?

Look at the cases of Jon Thompson and Robert Venables. They have hardly received any "punishment" as such. Since the uproar a while ago before the boys release, everything has gone very quiet. SOMEBODY knows where they are, and one day it WILL get out.

Maxine Carr's case is slightly different, but the question is SHOULD she get lifetime anonymity? Will she spend the rest of her life living in fear?

What are your views on this?
I like to consider questions like this. For me the question revolves in whether the law and the prison system are respected in the country. If someone is charged, this goes to court where defence/prosecution play it out, then freedom or sentencing then possible release. If someone has paid the price ie gone to prison then when released they are entitled to return to society safely. In the case of people involved with any crimes relating to children it is a highly emotive topic and quite rightly. Are they a danger to society? That for me is a question of the law again and the penal system. Should they have a right to anonymity? If they were known, people, one assumes, would take the law into their own hands and then mayhem would result. Like the freedom they have or not...for me, the law is where it is at. Anonymity has to be enforced I think to protect the law and the whole system. I dont think living in hiding is an easy option myself.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Tonee here. I guess if 'life' meant 'life' then this question wouldn't come up all that often, but broadly speaking I'd say that once their sentence is complete then people should be allowed to start again and if they require a change of identity to do so then I have no disagreement with that. Like Tonee I don't think it's an easy thing to do and of course these individuals can never get away from themselves or the memories of what they did, so I'm sure they suffer longterm.

I agree with the principle of anonymity once a sentance has been served. Whether or not we consider the sentance to be adequate/long enough, that is the fault of the justice system or the sentencing judge, not the offender.

Once the offender has served the punishment given them by the law of the land, they should have the fight to rejoin society.

In Maxine Carr's case, the judge felt that her life would be in real danger without anonymity. Plus I dont really think that anonymity is such a fantastic thing, to have to move away from your home, family, friends, everyone and everything you've ever known? Seems like both options are pretty damn tough.

Plus I dont really think that anonymity is such a fantastic thing, to have to move away from your home, family, friends, everyone and everything you've ever known?

...plus the fear and worry of being uncovered at some point. There was an excellent play on television about this a couple of years ago, where two young girls who had murdered the younger brother of one of them met up as adults with disastrous results. Does anyone else remember it?

I found it quite disturbing (but it was still good)

tonee makes a valid and extremely relevant point. If justice was actually seen to be done - would the offender need anonymity??

What about Mary Bell? I am a bit woolly about the whole thing, but I seem to remember that she has been outed a couple of times and has been given new ID twice or even thrice, her daughter applied for anonymity [and was refuesed I think]. I wonder how much that woman has cost the tax payer? Not only the prison stay, but then the safe house, the new id, house etc [x2 or x3]??

But for the victim's family, would justice ever be seen to be done?

Thinking about it again, I feel there is a case for anonymity being compulsory for certain serious crimes. The offender gets a new identity and the opportunity to start again - getting nothing other than normal benefits in support of them starting over with their life.

And selling their story, albeit anonymously or in heavy disguise should be a definite no-no. As indeed should be any media speculation and investigations.

The family of the victim could at least do what they could to move on with their lives without recurring reminders.

I'd expect fat chance of media co-operation though...

I personally think that Maxine Carr has been sentenced by the general public in relation to her ex-partner's crimes, not her own.

She was only ever charged and found guilty of perverting the course of justice - in delaying Huntley's prosecution, and was not proved to have had any part in the murders.

But in the public psyche, her crimes are on a par with those of Myra Hindley.

I personally think that Maxine Carr has been sentenced by the general public in relation to her ex-partner's crimes, not her own.

She was only ever charged and found guilty of perverting the course of justice - in delaying Huntley's prosecution, and was not proved to have had any part in the murders.

But in the public psyche, her crimes are on a par with those of Myra Hindley.

Its the media circus that makes the public get psyched up like this imo, you read one paper and it says one thing, then you read another and it says completely opposite.....its been like this for years and its getting worse, people dont seem to realise that when reading a tabloid paper, you are mainly reading that particular reporters point of view on the story, they dont give a toss about whether its the truth as long as it sells the papers!

Maxine Carr was sentanced and has served her time - I find that there is something about her that I dont like, I dont know what it is, she has what I call "dead eyes" and I find them disturbing, but I wouldnt wish any bad on her, she was stupid in what she did, and my god has she paid the price for it, she must be one of the most hated women in the UK, but, does she deserve it? We dont know her, we dont know why she did what she did and we struggle to understand why she did it.

The only way this woman will have a life on the outside is by remaining anonymous (IF thats at all possible in this day and age - with media hacks sinking to the depths they do for a story), it galls me that we the taxpayer have to foot the bill for all this, but with the media circus whipping the public into a hate fuelled frenzy there is no other way for her!

Maxine Carr did what many women (and men) have done and lied in order to, protect/defend their partner, husband/wife, child etc. She is not the first and most certainly will not be the last person to lie in court, or to make up an alibi. She has served her sentence for her utter stupidy, there are many others out there who have done the same as she has, and not even as much as received a slap on the wrist for it. The recent horrific case of Jodi Jones - Luke Mitchell's mother lied as she said he was in the house at the time Jodi was killed, but in actual fact she was lying. The charges against her were dropped, but she done the same as Maxine Carr! It was not however, the first time that Maxine Carr has lied in order to protect Ian Huntley and many think that if she had told the truth in the previous cases then Huntley would have been banged up or at least had a convinction against him and would not have been given the job at Soham, so in effect although she didn't actually murder Holly & Jessica, she did play a part. BUT, just how many killers, rapists etc get off because of evidence given to the court by a significant other, and how many times does that person then go on to kill, rape etc again.....

I do have a problem with anonyimity in the sense that completely innocent people could end up in a devestating situation. John Veneables and Robert Thompson were granted life-long anonyimity after their release for murdering Jamie Bulger. Both are young men now, can go out meet someone, marry them, have children with them...........can you imagine the effect it could have on those innocents who know nothing about their pasts if they found out just exactly who they were..................How could you cope knowing your father is the murderer of a 2 year old child? At least if they were released and had to keep their own identies then it is up to the person who later on meets them to decide. I do however, see why they had to have their identities changed, but I can't helping thinking of how I would feel if I suddenly found out that the person who I thought was my husband was in actual fact someone else.

And as Flip points out, what is the cost to save these souls, how much do we pay as a taxpayer to protect these murderers. I do think that life should mean just that, it should mean life! They should be locked up until their dying day and then there would be no need to change identities for murderers. However, in the case of Maxine Carr, she did not murder anyone but her evidence given in previous cases, helped Ian Huntley to be free in order to commit murder.

So what you have had done with her Bella, out of interest?

Let her be released from prison and have to face the very real prospect of being lynched?

So what you have had done with her Bella, out of interest?

Let her be released from prison and have to face the very real prospect of being lynched?


Floopy, maybe I haven't put it across well. Personally I think Maxine Carr behaved stupidly but as pointed out many others have done it and will continue to do it, she has served her time. What I am against is murderers receiving annoyimity, they just should never be released. Yes, she has to be protected because of the baying crowd who compare her with Myra Hyndley. There really was no other option open to her but to change her identity and what a heavy price she will have to pay. She will have to reinvent a past, cut off all ties with her family, past etc all because she trusted the man she loved.

I would rather something be done with the baying crowd syndrome and the media coverage. I bet at this very minute there will be a reporter trying desperately to track down Maxine Carr and expose her.

The problem is Bella that lads like Venables and Thompson, however hideous their crime (and I know that it was truly terrible) were very young themselves when they commited it and if their sentence is served, then it's served and they deserve to make a new start IMO. Whether or not their sentence was reasonable is another argument altogether but I personally find it hard to believe that a person is the same at 11 years old as they are in their twenties.

It's a bleak prospect for humanity if no one can ever be allowed to redeem themselves or to make a new start. Yes, I know that James Bulger can never have a new start and that his parents won't ever forget their loss or the circumstances of it, but if Venables and Thompson are ever to make any sort of valid contribution to society then they need to be afforded protection whilst they endevour to build new lives for themselves, and I really think that, difficult though that is to accept, they should be allowed to do so.

What you are saying Voice makes perfect sense, and despite my feelings on life meaning life, I also do believe that everyone deserves a second chance. And I do believe that most people can change. The point I am trying to make is that they will meet someone, get married, have children and but those people and their families will know nothing about them and what they have done. With Veneables and Thompson they have spend their childhood being locked up, getting the a good schooling far better than they would have got if they had not been sent away, so maybe in this case the cloud just may have a silver lining but not for the family of Jamie Bulger. I do see both sides of the coin, and in the case of these two boys they needed to be protected because of who they were, but I am just not sure how they can ever cope with what they have done. What do they tell people about their childhood, how can they live without having to blurt it out at some point? I am sure they will also have the therapy sessions for quite some time. You know what, I am really at sixs and sevens with both views on this.

[QUOTE=Bella]
I do have a problem with anonyimity in the sense that completely innocent people could end up in a devestating situation. John Veneables and Robert Thompson were granted life-long anonyimity after their release for murdering Jamie Bulger. Both are young men now, can go out meet someone, marry them, have children with them...........can you imagine the effect it could have on those innocents who know nothing about their pasts if they found out just exactly who they were..................How could you cope knowing your father is the murderer of a 2 year old child? At least if they were released and had to keep their own identies then it is up to the person who later on meets them to decide. I do however, see why they had to have their identities changed, but I can't helping thinking of how I would feel if I suddenly found out that the person who I thought was my husband was in actual fact someone else.

Narrow]Not to reduce your argument in any way but in the field of relationships how many people lie to their other half? This is, as I understand it, a moral/ethical position but in real life (I am going to generalise here) there are a lot of crimes/immoral/unethical acts that people do not necessarily hold up their hands and admit to (in/out of relationship).[/B]
And as Flip points out, what is the cost to save these souls, how much do we pay as a taxpayer to protect these murderers. I do think that life should mean just that, it should mean life! They should be locked up until their dying day and then there would be no need to change identities for murderers. However, in the case of Maxine Carr, she did not murder anyone but her evidence given in previous cases, helped Ian Huntley to be free in order to commit murder.[/QUOTE

If life meant life our prisons would be in crisis. It also doesnt account for the increasing services of rehabilitation within prisons. If the key was thrown away, then miscarriages of justice would probably be more prevalent. In one sense, the prison system is so rudimentary if you think about it. If simply removing people from society worked then wouldnt we all be better off? Crime reduced etc. Anyway, I am treading onto another area here.

If the key was thrown away, then miscarriages of justice would probably be more prevalent.

How so?.........

How so?.........
In the context of what I was saying, if life meant life, there would be, by association, no sensitivity to matters relating to the justice system. Very crude projection but do you get my drift? For me it would be going backwards not forwards hence miscarriages of justice and their airing would be a fading memory.....

but I gues the appeals process would still work the same way.

Or are you talking about the death penalty?

but I gues the appeals process would still work the same way.

Or are you talking about the death penalty?
Im kind of talking hypothetically........

I feel very strongly about the justice system or more to the point the lack of justice being seen to be done.

As tonee points out at the beginning of this debate: the question revolves in whether the law and the prison system are respected in the country

IMO I don't think that it is respected, and quite honestly I can see why. I will come to Maxine Carr in a moment. But there are countless cases where sentences are passed and then you have to divide that by 2/3rds, then take off a week her and a month there. So we, the law abiding public, the victims and the police/probation service see that these people are getting 'off' with something. The something being time, time that the judge felt fit for them to serve; we are not seeing 'the punishment fit the crime'!!

If people served their sentences, life meant life, 15 years meant 15 years, 6 months meant just that - then would we feel so much anxst at the likes of Maxine Carr, seemingly 'getting off'??

I am not sure that we would.

I would like someone to tell me that they are happy when someone 'gets off' on a technicality - when it is plainly obvious that they are guilty, this is something within the justice system that just should not happen. If they do IMO the law is an ass. I don't beleive the law is an ass - but if legal loopholes are available then it perpetuates mistrust.

So back to MC - if all were seen to serve their sentances, if justice was seen to be done 'ACROSS THE BOARD' then maybe the need for anonymity may not exist.

Take Charlie Brockett for example: his crime, a fraudulent claim [albeit for thousands] against his insurance company - his sentance: 6 years. Maxine Carr, perverting the course of justice [which didn't, but could have kept Huntley out of jail forever]: 2 years. I personally see no justice in either of those sentances, no fairness and no consistency. Is it any wonder that she needs anonymity??

For me Flip, the most extreme cases are exhibition pieces of the law. I dont mean to trivialise what you are saying but look at the Michael Jackson circus. Is the law even present or is it about the fancy footwork of the legal teams?

Due to the complexity of issues, I would not like to see 6 years meaning 6 years. Your example of Charlie Brockett is a good one. I mean is that really worth a prison sentence ie is he a threat to society? Whereas in a rape case etc 2 years getting out after 1 seems ridiculous esp if internal rehabilitation is refused. For me, it is not about the sentence simply standing as there are complex issues regarding nature of crime, threat to society, integrity of the legal team, even going into the whole area of something like eye witness testimony etc etc etc There is nothing fixed here but I do support the premise of the law and I think that needs to be reviewed in order to elicit the respect and co-operation of the public. How on earth would that be done?

I think the courts had no choice but to protect Maxine Carr with life-long anonymity given the level of hatred against her whipped up by the tabloid press. She seems to have captured the public imagination as a villain, but as Bella says, she is not the first or last to do what she did, and has already been punished more than many.

One thing that worries me about the reaction to Maxine Carr is that other women - mothers, wives, girlfriends, of possible killers may not now come forward if they fear they too could end up a tabloid hate figure in fear of their lives. For instance, somebody somewhere must have an idea who killed Millie Dowler, and is not coming forward, and so he may kill again.