• Only for the most heinous of crimes. It's part of the history of Criminology. Remember the Blood Countess (Countess Bathory) or Vlad the Impaler? Even in recent times we have them, Jack the Ripper, The Vampire of Dusseldorf, Richard Ramirez (the Night Stalker), Killer Clown (John Wayne Gacy).

    It's all for sensationalism and to get the story read. If it's for someone that did one or two things, it's stupid to give them a name.

    February 25, 2010 at 12:07 a.m.

  • Some use the term "Victoria Economic Destruction Concoction", but I prefer to use "Taxpayer Rapist" or "Wallet Molester". A = A

    February 18, 2010 at 12:24 p.m.

  • The answer is, "No, we should not use them." The reasons given show laziness or lack of thought. I had the same "glorifying" sentiment just the other day while listening to the news. And "The Underwear Bomber" shows no respect for the tragedy that he
    wished to incur upon hundreds of people. We use
    "Smith prison escapee" quite a lot, for example.

    February 18, 2010 at 12:14 p.m.

  • How about names like, "Dumb as Dirt and Evil and Sin"? Quite a few fall under that catergory, so then we'd have to use numbers, also, I guess. Never mind.

    February 12, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.

  • If there is a publicized manhunt for a criminal who has not yet been identified, there is no other way to refer to him/her except by some contrived monicker that the public will recognize. Then, once a suspect is apprehended, it is obviously useful to refer to him by the pre-ID handle. So really, it is pretty hard to escape the practicality of using a name to refer to the "Twilight rapist", instead of constantly using media space to refer to him as "the suspect in the case involving a series of rapes that took place during the twilight hours". But care should be taken to choose a monicker that does not glamorize of glorify the crimes or the criminal.

    February 12, 2010 at 5:09 p.m.

  • Son of Sam?

    February 12, 2010 at 2:05 p.m.

  • We probably could not stop the giving of names to criminals if we wanted to but we can certainly elaberate on how discusting this criminal is and the fact that this kind of scum has to be stopped and removed from living as a free American. JustPatsy

    February 12, 2010 at 1:02 a.m.

  • CHRIS: TWILIGHT RAPIST is more palatable in a family paper than the any of the vile things your readers would like to publicly call that sorry, manhood deficient, chicken manure, no good, worthless, individuals.

    February 12, 2010 at 12:07 a.m.

  • I caught that.

    Glorify? That would be impossible.

    Because the word Twilight is associated with the book series? Is that why someone thought it "glorified" the criminal? I thought everyone but me hated that book.

    February 11, 2010 at 9:54 p.m.