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.

Who says anyone has a psychopathic personality disorder? And how long is 'long enough' then

Im not saying anyone has a psychopathic pd, I was agreeing with lidika who stated they dont believe everyone can be rehabilitated, an example is psychopathic or anti-social personality disorder, because of their inability to feel compassion or remorse, 2 pretty essential qualities I feel in the rehabilitation process.

And regarding long enough? Well thats not my decision, but some sentences are completely inadequate.

They did feel remorse. But at the time the 'high spirits' were more likely to be high on drugs/drunk.

Not to be rude but how would you know how they felt/feel? Both the police and the judge have said the girls have shown no remorse throughout the entire investigation. They haven't been drunk/high throughout the entire court case etc. They're both denying they ever intended to murder her or cause serious harm of any kind.

Oh,I read there were tears in court? Maybe I misread

I imagine Mary Bell does feel guilt - she is considered to be a functioning member of society at this stage I imagine. Rehabilitation from a crime of that nature would surely involve guilt, recompense to society (jail term), and then a chance to live a "normal" life? I don't know, I'm not an expert.
I have thought over the years that a child who commits such crimes must have surely endured a tormented childhood and most high profile cases have shown this to be true - Bulger, Bell, this case now being discussed (I don't know the names of the accused).
I don't know what punishment is suitable - given most were in a dysfunctional home environment, could prison only be better? Or detention, whatever it is now called.
Violence begets violence, no question. What we do with that fact is still beyond our justice system.

tears in court? Maybe I misread

They were in tears when they had their guilty verdicts read. I don't believe that's genuine remorse for their actions but rather regret because they know they're going to be sentenced now.

Reading the comments about a sociopathic dx etc, I'm not sure this fits a lot of cases (disclaimer: I'm not an expert).
Environment, upbringing, family, domestic violence etc could have normalised responses to the point where a child thinks it's ok to respond with violence because that's what everyone does because that's what happens at home. It's not, but by the time they find that out they are paying the price in a criminal court.

Dontlaugh I didnt say they had a psychopathic/sociopathic diagnosis, I mentioned that in discussion about whether everyone can be rehabilitated. I agree with you about the normalizing violence part, its the old nature versus nurture debate.

This case is a terrible one. Hartlepool is one of those sad towns, once a booming industrial and shipping town which began to sink in the 60s. By the 80s the town was badly deprived and didn't even have a cinema let alone youth clubs.

There are decades of social issues there and the girls in question from what I've read, seem to be completely detached from the community and their families.

At just 13 they were drinking litres of alcohol and taking prescription pills which they got from one of their Mothers.

I have a dd soon to be 12 and looking at her and then at these girls....I feel desolate because I don't think anyone has any idea of how to break such cycles. Where do you start?

There was a case in the US. It was really awful, like this, where a girl was tortured and murdered. One of the girls responsible has been released now and someone linked to her Facebook page (on a US forum I sometimes visit) and she seems to be a perfectly normal member of society now. She has a partner and a child. I think they probably rationalise what they did, maybe they had a shit childhood or bad things happened to them.

One of the girls had drawn a picture which seemed to be of her killing a woman with a knife before the actual murder.

Why? Were they watching hours of violent films online? Why would they obsess over violence and murder?

What they did...slowly bashing her to death with tables and other things is beyond comprehension....but we have no idea what they've been exposed to to damage them in such a way.

I am not a sympathetic person which I acknowledge.
I would lock them up and throw away the key.

In case anyone is interested, it was the Sandra Sharer case. Be warned, it was an awful case.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shanda_Sharer#Melinda_Loveless

Hartlepool is a lovely town now. Beautiful marina and lots of places of interest. Sadly there's a dark element to it. So many towns have that side.

Of course, laguna I hadn't read that as you saying that these particular individuals had a sociopathic dx, I understood that you meant it as a generalised comment - but I do think as a society we try to rationalise such awful behaviour by medicalising it, and so we all try to put frameworks on it, like "she must have been sick, psychopathic, sociopathic" etc. What we need to realise is that actually sometimes these behaviours are a consequence of upbringing coupled with pathology, which society has no way of coping with. I won't say we can't predict it, because we can actually in a lot of cases, and that's what saddens me. The cycle can be broken but only with concerted effort, government involvement and money, and resources developed locally focused on infrastructure, enablement, education. All the boring things that never make it onto manifestos, cos they're too busy investing in Panama

I don't know anything about this case, but 12 years is the term after which they become eligible for parole. They won't automatically be released at that point. If the parole board considers they're still a serious threat to society, they won't be released until such time as the PB is satisfied they are rehabilitated.

I don't know if everybody can be rehabilitated or not. I would guess not. I think we have to dothe best that we can to try to rehabilitate offenders though and to work on strategies to stop people from offending in the first place.

I don't that these two should ever be released. I think sadistic murder (as opposed to a crime of passion and others) should mean life is life.

I'm not quite sure why you mentioned religion and Christian values OP. As the vast majority of the Bible says that murderers should die. Of course there are mutually exclusive contradictions Perhaps "despite my Christian... I'm struggling to marry..."

I'll have to reply to the last post - and suggest that as in the majority of these cases a Bible (or any other religious book) is not a touchstone of justice in these times.
If they were, there'd be a fair few accused burning at stakes/stoned to death/cast out, without any due process. I for one do not wish to return to those Salem times.

The problem I have with this is that I really don't trust the system as it stands to ensure that these girls are actually rehabilitated or behaving themselves when they come out, or even to act when they're not.

The information that came to light about how Jon Venables behaved whilst on licence was truly appalling. Drugs, violence, access to children, entering Merseyside where he was barred for the sake of the victim's family. All hushed up until they forced to act, and even then his viewing of child abuse images and grooming of mothers online only came to light because the police were acting to protect him because he disclosed his identity, not protecting the public.

I suspect that in a decade or so's time these girls will probably be out ensconced in very comfy lives, with partners who may not even know of their pasts and children of their own. My blood runs cold when I think of them having children. I don't even think Mary Bell should have been allowed to have a child, it may have worked out but it was a big gamble and too big a gamble to be taken with a human life. I'm not convinced she is entirely rehabilitated anyway; we know very little about her life since she committed the crime, but we do know that she was happy to profit from talking about them to Gita Sereny which makes me wonder.

Anyway, as Venables shows, in the absence of any other information we are asked to accept that criminals with anonymity are rehabilitated when it may not be the case.

billsykesdog I have to ask you, what is the alternative? In the absence of an attempt to rehabilitate, poor as it is?
Death penalty? Forced sterilisation? Public shaming? Naming?
What?
I really would like to know.
I accept the current system is not ideal but we are living in a first world country, in a democracy.
What is the alternative??

I'd prefer a probation system that managed this type of offender more rigorously with far more restrictions and accountability to an independent body which assesses the day to day management of this type of offender. And they are a pretty small group so it's doable.

At the moment the service managing them has a vested interest in saying that the management of these offenders is working, so they say that it is even when it's not. They also seem to come down on the side of the offender and view them favourably when assessing what they can and can't do - for example getting into relationships or having children or even just accessing the internet or the way their electronic communications are monitored. It would be nice to feel that those decisions were being made erring on the side of caution rather than giving a heavy weight to what the offender wants.

I'm not certain that naming isn't sometimes positive for the general public in terms of protection. Two underage killers who were named were returned to prison, Ricky Preddie (murdered Damilola Taylor) and Learco Chindamo (murdered Philip Lawrence). In both cases the fact they were known and named contributed to the fact that their reoffending was quickly identified and dealt with. And before anybody claims that they reoffended because they were identified; Danny Preddie, who also killed Damilola, was identified too. He has not reoffended.

dontlaugh - My reference to religion was only in reply to the OP's " I'm struggling to marry my usual [Christian] stance on rehabilitation"

Death penalty?, you ask. Yes. In some cases. Jamie Bulger's killers? Yes. Baby Peter's killers? Yes. In this case, I think so, but don't know enough about it.

I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances personally but the state sentencing children to death would be awful.

Bill I think more needs to be done around monitoring people once they've left prison for serious crimes as well but the problem with naming them is the high risk of vigilante behaviour. Their identities should flag up with relevant people (the police for example) but would the general public knowing who they were help with dealing with any reoffending?

I work in a school for children (male) who have suffered the most terrible lives imaginable in the first world. They are largely angry and sad. It doesn't excuse any crimes they may or may not comit in the future but I just hope that at some point someone "in power" will realise that endlessly cutting the funding that has been proven to help these firstly vulnerable and processively dangerous members of society only hurts society as a whole in the most extreme ways.

But Robert Thompson has never reoffended, right?

Mary Bell is a grandmother who has committed no crimes that we know about.

Maxine Carr is married to a man who knows about her past and is apparently besotted with her. She has also committed no further crimes.

So, people can be rehabilitated despite committing awful crimes.