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.

I've worked with children in care and when I first started I was staggered at the lack of any sanctions against the parents who abused and/or neglected their children and caused the damage to little minds and bodies that grow up to do something like this. You can't stop them having children but we had some well-known repeat 'offenders' who had child after child after child, all of whom were removed at birth. And already those brand new children were damaged by the mother's lifestyle choices throughout pregnancy, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, chaotic home life etc.

On the local news report when this case first came to light, it was reported that the girls saint hey didn't know you could kill someone by beating them. They thought it had to be a gun or a knife! And yes, what sort of 'care' is being provided (and paid for) which allows two early teens to be out all hours, drinking and smoking and worse. Where are the adults?

The girls said they...

But punishment won't rehabilitate these girls. They need appropriate behaviour taught and modelled, which is highly unlikely in secure units and, later, prison

So what do you suggest then? They tortured and murdered an innocent victim, secure units/prison is about punishment for their crime.

There's a book called The Psychopath Whisperer (very interesting read) goes into some detail about what can be done to rehabilitate young people, he talked about a secure unit that developed a method built around rewards that did really help people and improved their outcome. (It's a while since I read it, and I can't find it, so details here are scant, sorry!)

In cases like this it's patently clear that the social worker role isn't helping. Children like this, showing disturbing behaviour, need professional help, not placing into care with people who do not have the skills to deal with this.
I find it worrying that in too many cases with troubled children (going by experiences written about in a support group on FB), SS will swoop in, blame parents regardless of what's going on, remove the child and do a half arsed job from there. There is no effort to discover what is going on in the child's mind and how things can be improved. Children who need specialist care are abandoned to the system. Sometimes, through sheer luck, these DC will turn themselves around. More often they don't.

What is happening now is that if a child won't engage, professionals back off. In cases like this, where the girl was clearly showing disturbing behaviour, if she wouldn't engage, then she should have been placed somewhere where professionals could have continued working with her, and she didn't have the opportunity to go out and buy cider, or befriend vulnerable people.

I know this is very idealistic though, and lack of funds will be to blame.

I agree with lunar, bill and herecome.

I don't think they (sadistic and/or premeditated murderers) should ever be let out. I don't care how rehabilitated they may become; they took someone's life so they have to lose their life (either figuratively, by way of life imprisonment, or via the death penalty). The person killed will never get a 2nd chance so they shouldn't either. I also think prison should be much harsher then it is. Inmates should lose all rights and access to everything including internet/TV/games/radio/gym and socialising. They should be kept locked up for 23 out of every 24hrs; prison should mean something; it should be so horrible that you never want to go back and it should be a real punishment and deterrent which it isn't atm (IMO).

Then again my views are probably considered extreme and I think we're far too soft on criminals nowadays.

This happened in my town- I believe I'd spoken to Angela at work at least a couple of times. What happened to her is horrific and at this point, debating if the girls can be rehabilitated is a moot point- they tortured someone to death and should be locked up.

Meant to add: In situations where ppl have broken the law I don't care how bad a childhood they've had. Many ppl have awful childhoods and don't behave like this; it's not an excuse and I wish ppl would realise this. Nothing justifies this kind of sadistic behaviour.

Whilst I agree nothing justifies the sadistic behaviour, we (presumably) are all looking at it as rational non-criminal adults.

I remember reading years back about rose west's family background; her father had repeatedly raped her through her childhood and came round to the marital home she shared with Fred for sex with her. Fred prostituted her. Nothing could ever justify her behaviour, but how was she supposed to ever get a handle on 'normal'? And whilst some people are very strong minded and astonishing characters who manage to overcome horrendous backgrounds ( (flowers) for you Anchordown) others aren't, and an abusive home life fractures an already weaker mind. Who knows what rose west's father had gone through to make him the sort of man who raped his daughter? But that chain of abuse could have started years before. It's a crying shame that more store is set by enriching a few people financially than by enriching our wider society through education and greater mental health support before these horrific crimes are perpetrated.

What is happening now is that if a child won't engage, professionals back off. In cases like this, where the girl was clearly showing disturbing behaviour, if she wouldn't engage, then she should have been placed somewhere where professionals could have continued working with her, and she didn't have the opportunity to go out and buy cider, or befriend vulnerable people.

It's not just about funds, though - what you propose is that The State restricts the liberty of teens in their care when they are making what the state considers to be poor choices. There are ethical, as well as economic, considerations - a child is locked up and forced to receive interventions. Who decides when a teenager crosses the line and is "bad enough" to receive enforced support? What about kids who behave in the same way while still living with parents? Do they get removed, too?

I think it's right with any case involving a child killer that they get the opportunity to be paroled and have a life. The onus is on them, supported by the system, to rehabilitate. As they grow I hope they are supported to look closely at what they did and find that remorse that will help them move beyond. Yes what they did is horrific, but I can't bring myself to write off kids completely. They are old enough to work hard to earn the right to be released when the time comes.

Pretty, no you're right, but I think in this case she was known to be showing very disturbing signs yet nothing really was done to address this.

I suppose the vast majority of children with difficult backgrounds behind them will turn out ok, damaged yes, but not murderers. You can't predict which children need the most support to prevent things like this happening.

I never said they should never be let out. I just said I'm unhappy with the current system of supervision and don't believe it keeps the public safe. I think with an improved system of supervision, specifically one which puts public safety above the wants and desires of the offender, release could be safe and possible. But the current system where convicted murderers are actually having offences involving drugs and violence covered up by the people who are supposed to be monitoring them? No thanks.

It also really annoys me that the Norwegian case is trotted out every time this sort of thing happens. That case involved 6 year olds who weren't really aware of what they were doing or even what the concept of death meant. Totally incomparable to two teenagers who behaved with deliberate calculated sadism.

Nobody has yet mentioned the "Heavenly Creatures" murderers. They don't seem to have had damaging upbringings, and they did both lead blameless lives after they were released from jail.

But the current system where convicted murderers are actually having offences involving drugs and violence covered up by the people who are supposed to be monitoring them?

There is nothing to suggest that the foster Carers and social workers "covered up" previous criminality. There will, undoubtedly, be a serious case review.

The reality is that while in foster care, had they been caught committing crime, the police and criminal justice system would have dealt with them. Clearly, whatever they were guilty of (if anything) did not warrant a custodial sentence. And contrary to popular opinion, it's not illegal for teenagers to drink (it's illegal to supply them with alcohol). It's also not possible to prosecute someone for taking drugs. Possession, yes, supply yes, but a teen who is identified as suffering from the effects of an illegal substance is not arrested.

You could argue that the Justice system should be harder on children who commit minor offences in order to ensure they are forced to access the services they might need - but it seems a somewhat draconian measure.

I assumed Bill was talking about Jon Venables there.

Jon Venables had drug offences and violent offences covered up by the people who were supposed to be supervising him. He also broke his parole conditions in other ways like entering Merseyside of which authorities were aware. This isn't disputed as far as I'm aware. The financial cost and reputational damage of those offences being dealt with was deemed to be too great so they were hushed up and he was let off. He was only recalled to jail when he was discovered viewing child porn. And that was only discovered by accident when the police went to protect him, not because he was being well supervised.

Oops, sorry bill - misread your post

Anchor, in the case of the Slenderman attempted murder one of the girls is still in a MH facility, having been diagnosed with childhood onset schizpohrenia after her arrest, iirc.

Obv the other was easily led, an issue in and of itself.

I think the link between unrecognised and untreated childhood MH or emotional disorder or PD issues and terrible crimes is clear. When you throw abuse or neglect or exposure to Xrated or very violent media into a situation where someone may already have some innate problem the outlook can be bad.

I do not think the Wisconsin parents who allowed their daughter to become so obsessed with the Slenderman world were adequate parents. This is an interesting article -- '"cool parents" play fast and loose with the rules to try to teach their kids about good music and cool films, while always risking corrupting them too soon.' The comments are interesting too.
I know a family whose father is determinedly counter cultural and really up himself about it. The children have been affected because in order to get his attention and approval they have to demonstrate commitment to sticking it to The Man. 'The Man' for the children really means school. I seriously doubt anyone at home would notice if any of the children had symptoms of MH issues or emotional disorders because the parents are so busy clapping themselves on the back for their individuality and celebrating the originality of their children that little details like that get overlooked. The secondary school flagged the two oldest children after numerous infractions, and luckily for them it offers a wide range of good services and alternative educational options. In many places they would have juvenile records by now but the school made sure they were worked with to the extent that they left with qualifications. Their home life remains functional in many ways (there is no physical neglect or abuse) but the narcissism of the parents is probably insurmountable, so the youngest child is heading down the attention seeking route and will probably engage in self defeating behaviour too.

Kesstrel, that is most interesting. Thank you. I think the suggestion that early identification and intervention could make a difference due to malleability is an important one.
Anchor -- I don't think this is a question of making excuses or explaining away behaviour, or implying all children in a certain sort of home environment will have the same outcome. The question of nature/nurture or nature-nurture is very important. The victims of horrible crimes committed by children and youths cry out for some sort of improvement in approaches or of our understanding of what makes young people do such things, and better ability identify the perfect storms from which these children come. Will there ever be enough money available to train staff and maintain the level of services make a real difference? Possibly not. But at the moment much money and effort is apparently being wasted and the human cost of generational dysfunction is massive.

" don't care how rehabilitated they may become; they took someone's life so they have to lose their life (either figuratively, by way of life imprisonment, or via the death penalty)."

The problem when you're talking about 12 year olds is that they are as they are because of what was done to them, of being very dangerously and seriously starved of love and affection and potentially having been brain-damaged in the womb etc etc.

I think very few children who murder are likely to have had secure attachments as infants - and of course this can happen in "naice homes" as well as more obviously dysfunctional ones.

No probs pretty, wasn't very clear.

who knows? are they psychopaths in the making, or just 2 very damaged kids.

The damage is done now, as I cant see them being rehabilitated- the stain of their crime will never leave them- they will always be know as having tortured a woman to death and I suspect that they will be in and out of prison forever now

they wont go on to have a normal and happy life. as they are now in a system where they will be both vilified, and making new vicious friends

Criminal sentencing in the UK has three elements: punishment, rehabilitation and protection of the public. The prominence of the three will vary according to the crime though punishment is generally the least prominent (unlike the States where it is the primary goal). We are not especially good at rehabilitation simply because the public prefers to pay with further crimes than to pay a little more tax and invest in rehabilitative programmes for offenders and ex-offenders. By the way, I accept that it is unfair that someone will have more investment in him by committing a crime than if he doesn't but this is not about morality: it is about the overall interests of the public and the country.
The release date of these girls will hinge on the third element: the extent to which they remain a threat to the public. This will be considered at Parole Board meetings from time to time and unless they can show real change they will not be released early (and I haven't looked, but they might have a sentence which would allow their continued detention unless and until they can show low or no risk to the public).
But that said, throughout the criminal justice system you will find women and girls who but for their association with another, would not have committed crime. That does not exonerate them from their personal responsibility and nor should it, but it does mean that it may not take very much work to give them the personal resources to resist coercion and to become confident and responsible citizens in their own right.

I've just read some newspaper reports about these girls. The older one was from a dysfunctional family while the younger one, parents were still together and worked. So totally different backgrounds. It scares me how evil they seem to have been in the attack on Angela.

Together they are evil. But separately people commented how sweet the girls are. Hopefully kept apart could give them time to change their future.

I just heard that they've been sentenced to a minimum of 15 years each.

The details are horrifying, as is how normal this was - the snapchat of the back of the police van, with "Van again" written on it...

The police van thing is because they were using the police as a taxi service I think so repeated experiences. It wasn't after they had been arrested. They may have been exactly as flippant after they'd been arrested though, sadly.