should end up, considering the right to openjustice, reported should end up, considering the right to open justice, reported justice, the seriousness of the case. judges aren t robots, there will be people who disagree quite intently with a judge came to, but it is a broad discretion and you are not going to start tinkering with the court of appeal with the discretion to do that. in cases very often where there are contempt orders made, then there are contempt orders made, then the media will be heard, but that will be one of the interests the family of those involved in the case, and it would all be out in the open by the age of 18 anyway because you re not dealing with the youngest of children. you keep talking about this balancing act between naming killers, especially younger killers and, as you say, they are due to turn 18 and not much time, 12 18 months. what else would a judge have to take into consideration? because it is not only the family of the victim, but the fam
mercer but the sheriff refuses to say it out loud. again, you will not hear anyone from this law enforcement operation use his name. i continue to believe that those media and community members that publicize his name will only glorified his horrific actions. the question is, sheriff right? does naming killers give them the fame they crave. the latest book is the case against the iran deal. also dr. steven sager, co-producer of shattered families, the collapse of america s mental health system. alan, you first, should killers be named? no, i think it s a good idea, you can t stop the media from doing it. it would be unconstitutional but i think the media should play down the names and play up the names of the victims. in israel the media does that. it almost never puts terrorists