Rehabilitation (teenagers' murder conviction) *Harrowing subject*

[lougle]

I started a post and lost it all. I'm struggling to marry my usual stance on rehabilitation (Christian concept of redemption, Grace, etc.) with the news reports of the two young girls who have just been convicted of Murder (I won't link to the news stories as they are horrific).

Given that these girls could be released from detention before they are 30 (starting sentence is 12 years), do you think that our justice system can rehabilitate these girls so they are safe to live in society? I'm not sure I do, which is so unlike me. I even manage to feel sorry for Hitler and have compassion for the boy he was before he turned into a murderous man.

I wonder if it's because the woman they murdered was vulnerable (alcoholism) and I know that my DD1 is going to be a vulnerable adult (SN brain condition)? Perhaps I am projecting my fears onto the situation. I just can't comprehend the nature of this murder and can't understand how these girls got to this point.

Tbh (and I promise I'm not being flippant) I wonder about this with non fostered teens. I have small children but once they're teens how would I physically stop them walking out of the door?

Some of the harrowing posts from parents at the end of the tether on the "teenagers" board highlight that you cant and while it's easy to assume that it's "the parents fault", these things are a lot more complicated.

There used to be specialist residential care for kids like this, with qualified staff. They couldn't just walk out the door. The one I knew was closed down because of the cost.

True

I feel that there are very few people who can't be rehabilitated with the right support, supervision and slow, gradual reintegration into society.

Something about this case has unsettled me. From what I've read, I don't think prison is the right place for the older girl once she leaves the (presumably) young offenders' institute. She sounds like a very vulnerable person; in need of intensive support - a secure psychiatric facility would be much more appropriate, with a view to rehabilitating her slowly to the point where she can one day function (obviously with support and supervision).

The younger girl actually sounds like the more calculating one - she attempted to deny that she played any part in it and by all accounts egged on the older girl, and she certainly wasn't reported to have as terrible a start as the older girl. She's the one I'm really struggling to sympathise with - and honestly, to be so cold at such a young age, makes me wonder if rehabilitation is possible. But I still think it's important to try.

I have sympathy for Angela and her family, I really do - but I don't think "lock them up and throw away the key" is an appropriate reaction to the two teenage girls - the oldest of whom didn't seem to be mentally functioning as a teenage girl, from what I've read.

In order to evaluate the rehabilitative function of our jails, I think we need to look at what other countries do. The US works on the basis of punitive justice, with long sentences for small drug offences. Their re-offending rate is massive from what I remember. Norway focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration, and their re-offender rate is much smaller.

This child was, and had been, in "Care" and had a lowered IQ. There should have been a tracker on her phone so she could be traced at all times. The murdered lady in question was known by many adults, possibly including local tobacconists and off-licences, to be purchasing tobacco, alcohol and allowing those and possibly drugs to be taken at her premises by underage children - she should have been visited by Police repeatedly and her landlord should have been informed. These children should not have been given money by their "Carers" when they knew full well what it was being spent on. There should have been an intensive programme of intellectual and psychological therapies in place to deal with this child's recognised intellectual, psychiatric and behavioural issues. AND YES, IF SHE OR ANY OTHER 12 OR 13 YR OLD WAS STILL ABSCONDING AND PUTTING THEMSELVES IN DANGER THEN SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A FACILITY WITH DOORS LOCKED AT BEDTIME. When a child is taken into Care because they are absconding and engaging in the behaviours which you describe then that Care should involve strict supervision with doors locked at bedtime and supervision to/from school etc with psychotherapy, behaviour therapy to try and correct any issues. It should not mean taking problem children away from parents who can't cope to house them somewhere that lets them continue with the behaviours which the parents or foster parents found to be problematic in the first place, otherwise why not just let them do what they want at home? The only thing being solved by taking them into "Care" is that no-one now is being annoyed or inconvenienced by their behaviour.
This intellectually impaired and otherwise damaged child was not being " cared" for, she was being fed, clothed, given money and ALLOWED to run feral by a Service which we pY for.

Ubiquity ah I hadn't seen that. Must have been after the sentencing report as that's all about the older one's attempts. Not surprising though, I guess the trial was a lot of action and attention and now it's all over and they're facing reality.

Ah I thought it was just the older one who'd had suicide attempts. In which case both of them need serious intensive support - not people calling for them to be "strung up" :(

I admire the judge greatly. His summing up was simple and clear. He understood the vulnerability of the girls and yet conveyed the seriousness of the situation.

Itsall, we will have to agree to disagree, personally I don't think punishment I.e prison is "pointless" after someone a commits a crime at all, otherwise we would have a lawless society.

It's been reported that the older one has an in of 70. That is really, really low.

She needed way more support than the state was ever willing to spend on her.

Was the IQ done before or after she was charged?

n which case both of them need serious intensive support
Well given what they'd been charged with and faced with I'm sure a lot of people would try to commit suicide, and we would be more able to do so were they in the same situation the girls were (ie probably less secure). We also don't know whether these were serious suicide attempts (doubtful given the frequency) and more a ploy used by the defence.

They were serious attempts, a clerk saved her life in the court building.

My first point still stands. They knew what they were facing. Suicide attempts are not always the result of serious MH issues that need 'intensive support', in this case they were the results of someone not wanting to face up to their actions.

I am not sure we can state with certainty that they knew or know what they are facing.

They might not have MH issues, either specific mental health conditions or major depression or anything else. Behavioural disorders or emotional disorders (maybe compounded b low IQ) might also render them incapable of appropriately responding to their situation, or making good decisions that would have kept them from the circumstances they now find themselves in.

It's the older girl who has tried to commit suicide, although it's easy to get confused when no one can be named. The younger girl has a higher IQ and a better mental state, which is quite scary really.

They are discussing the case now, saying the girls will spend between one and three years in a juvenile detention centre where they should be able to access appropriate help, but after that they will be transferred to an adult prison with less facilities and support. I suppose neither girl was judged as severe enough to require completing their sentence in a psychiatric unit or hospital setting, so an adult prison is suitable for adults, but it doesn't feel that there's a great chance of rehabilitation there.