In reference to Jason's point, I think you're missing something, Kim. The reporter wrote what he was supposed to: what, where, when, how and, as much as possible, why. Forgive a dated reference: "Just the facts, ma'am". What you're looking for, I think, is what's known as a "human interest story". It goes more into detail about the people involved in the incident and their backgrounds. I don't know the venue of this crime, but I would expect people are going to want more information about the woman who was killed so brutally and the boy who did it.

The problem with that Kim is that by definition a felony IS a crime against the state. If it is not the state logically has to permit vendetta.

In Italian city-states it used to be common in law for people who wished citizenship to swear to renounce the right of revenge.

I wonder if making murder, and other felonies, a crime against the state has something to do with how we write, think, and speak about victims?

The victim becomes faceless and nameless in our justice system.

Now, I think the reporter is suffering from ennui or the blight of being "non-judgmentally neutral."

A good reporter would've been outraged, and written a piece about the poor woman, her family, how this crime affects the whole community.

Isn't it because a lot of them do it for attention and so publishing them would be a reward?

This is of course a horrific story, but many states, for decades and decades, have laws disallowing the publishing of juvenile offenders unless/until there is a determination to try them as adults. Because the 18 year accomplice was named, my guess is that the reporters here had little choice at the point the story was being published. Because most of these statutes have been in place for so long, that alone is not necessarily a sign of "how morally corrupt our society has become." (Remember, this comment is not referring to the overall case, just the point about "sparing" the alleged perpetrator.)