Death of James Bulger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger's abduction and murder.

The pair were found guilty on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on a lifelong licence in June 2001. In 2010 Venables was returned to prison for violating the terms of his licence of release.

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990 – 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, when aged two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, near Liverpool, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half miles (4 km) away in Walton, two days after his murder.

Van carrying the boys responsible  for the murder of James Bulger

 

"James Bulger being abducted by Thompson (above Bulger) and Venables (holding Bulger's hand) in an image recorded on shopping centre CCTV".

Up to five hundred protesters gathered at South Sefton Magistrates' Court during the boys' initial court appearances. The parents of the accused were moved to different parts of the country and assumed new identities following death threats from vigilantes.

A controversial publication ban in Britain was imposed for another reason: to protect the killers of two-year-old James Bulger from vigilante justice. Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who were 10 years old when they beat the toddler to death in 1993, were given new identities when they were released in June 2002.

The judge imposed a permanent publication ban on any details about their new identities or where they will be relocated. He said that the press's continued interest in the case left the two vulnerable to harassment and violence.

This case would be an example of a publication ban it was imposed to protect the 10 year old kids that muder a 2 year old child. This is a very shocking and sad story, that got alot of people angry about. It got alot of parents worried about their own childern being abducted. Robert and Jon was  youngest convicted murderers in modern English history.

Publication bans

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/publicationbans/

In Canada a judge can issue a publication ban to protect the identity of a victim or a witness, and by law judges are required to issue bans to protect identities of victims of sexual assaults and witnesses to sexual assaults who are less than 18 years of age

During a trial, anything that is said or presented in court while the jury is away cannot be reported. Only after the trial can the press reveal "what the jury didn't see."
By law, judges must grant a publication ban on evidence presented at bail hearings and preliminary inquiries if requested to do so.

In general, publication bans exist to:

1.  Ensure a fair trial for a person accused of a crime. 
2.  Ensure transparency of proceedings so Canadians know that crimes are prosecuted, and     punished if proven.
3.   Ensure privacy of people who may be affected by the information divulged in court.

Publication bans are often imposed when children are involved, to protect them from harmful publicity. In Ontario, it is illegal to reveal the names of children involved in hearings regarding their custody. In fact, publishing any information that would identify them, including their parents' names, their ages or sometimes even the school they attend, is banned.
Federal laws, including the Young Offenders Act, prohibit identifying in the press anyone under the age of 18 who is involved in a criminal proceeding. This includes the accused, witnesses and victims, unless the victims have died.


I think publication bans in these cases are good to have because most of the time the media can go crazy and can involve harming someone or stocking them; they might even take matters in their own hands and hurt a person that is accused of a crime that is not yet proven in the court. Alot of the time it is paparazzi involded in making the story more than it is by the stories and pictures they put up on magzines and news papers. I agree that there should be a limit in involving media in the courts for protection and privacy of people who maybe affected.