That’s not what I mean.
For instance, it’s hard enough for victims to come forward after a sexual assault if they feel isolated or “the only one” who experienced it. As a kid, it’s extremely difficult.
However, if a victim hears that their attacker has done this to other people who have come forward, it might give them the courage to also come forward. We hear this all the time when serial rapists are called out by sometimes dozens of victims after their name is published.
If the attacker is unknown, they might simply get away with those unreported assaults.
This perp might have molested neighbourhood kids, and you’d never know to ask your child if anything inappropriate happened if they remain anonymous.
Withholding the name of an attacker only serves to protect the attacker, not the victims.
They give the age of the boy, a specific date range, and the specific camp and physical location. Hopefully that is both enough for victims to identify the boy and to protect their own privacy from the general public.
“The boy was enrolled in a leadership training program”
I will assume that there are a lot of boys in the same age group, who trained at the same place and time, as this one.
Give a name so at least any other kids this boy may have come in contact with outside this camp can make the connection.
I would hope that anyone in potentially vulnerable placements around this kid should have had their program facilitators informed and then accordingly, the facilitators would be bound to notify all parents/guardians directly. Isn’t that the bare minimum, to contact the families of anyone who might have been alone with the boy directly in such a case? If the first families hear about this is through the media, is that not a horrific failure of communication?
There may be need for exceptions sometimes, but I still don’t see that being the case here. Callously broadcasting such information can easily lead to gossip/rumours that can harm victims &/or everyone around the kid that had nothing to do with the matter.