The price of naming Baby P’s carers
Updated on 11 August 2009
The release of Tracey Connelly and Steven Barker’s names may mean the state could have to pay for their protection if they leave jail.
The names had been withheld until today partly to avoid prejudicing jurors trying them in a subsequent case.
But mainly it was to protect the identity of Baby Peter's four surviving siblings. All four of those children are now in care.
Now there are questions about the extent of protection they will need upon their eventual release which may have to include giving them new identities.
On Channel 4 News, Anna Motz, forensic psychologist and author of The Psychology of Female Violence debated the naming decision with Sarah Sands, deputy editor of the Evening Standard.
Ms Motz warned that the naming argument deflected attention away from the issue of protecting children.
She said: "I think what is very interesting is that its given rise to, as what was predicted, a huge, somewhat hysterical outcry although I am curious about what we learned by naming these individuals.
"I also think there is a kind of comforting fantasy where if we know where evil is located, ie the three people who have been named, then the rest of us are safe. Very sadly that is just not the case."
She revealed that since the death of Baby Peter, there had been 30 more child-abuse related deaths. Many of which, she said, were caused by parents or carers.
