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 don't think psychopatic murderers should be cut loose just because they are young. If they were, lets say, 30, people would say bring back public hanging.

15 years. If they are released at that point they will have spent as long in prison as they had been out of it. I hope that they will be given help to change. That poor woman.

Excellent post Huppopapa. You said everything I wanted to but much more eloquently.

IMO prison should not be about punishment, fear of punishment does not prevent crime.

Prison should be about rehabilitation , about changing lives so they can leave prison and not reooffend.

If these two girls are too severely "damaged" to be rehabilitated in a prison environment they should be in secure specialist medical care.

For people trying to get their heads around the horror of the headlines - the BBC News website has an article about the background life of the victim, Angela Wrightson here and an article about the background lives of the two perpetrators here. Both are really very sad, and harrowing, but I feel have given me more of a picture of the wider situation than some of the sensationalist headlines.

God those articles are devastating. So much human tragedy. Though I was a bit at "She had a relatively stable home life. An only child, her parents are married and her father works as a delivery driver." I don't think you can really tell much about what someone's early life is like based on the fact their parents are married and one of them has a job. It says a lot about how chaotic some people's lives are that this is what passes for "stability" - she could have experienced all sorts of neglect and abuse, and if she ended up in care because of violence at 12, it's probably not likely that "stable" here is as most of us here would define it.

The thing about this case that is frightening and makes me think they cannot be successfully rehabilitated is the fact that they brutally killed her, left the house, then returned.

Anyone else think the judge is right to maintain their anonymity and not allow a repeat run of the media circus which followed the naming of Thompson and Venables?

Andrew yes, I'm glad they haven't been named. It seems strange now that Thompson and Venables were named at such a young age too.

Glad they haven't been named too.

Reading that BBC article I reckon the older girl at least did not really understand what she was doing and clearly has been very fucked up by her home life and views violence as normal and acceptable, she has an incredibly low IQ and probably shouldn't have stood trial at all but been sent straight to a secure medical institution.

I agree that they should not be named, I hope they can be rehabilitated. However the thought that one day one or both could themselves be a mother if they are let out I find hard to stomach.

I agree Natsku the older girl should have been sectioned not charged. I do feel sympathy for her.

ItsAll it sounds like your sympathies are with the prison population rather than their victims.

This is the sort of thinking I genuinely cannot fathom.

The sentencing remarks are at

www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-mr-justice-globe-angela-wrightson-murder/

Kinkytoes, one of the girls meets the criteria for learning disabilities. A civilised society doesn't hold people with LD who are coerced by others into crime to be responsible for those crimes. A civilised society arguably also shouldn't 13 year old girls who are clearly deeply emotionally damaged to have the same criminal liability as adults.

What's there to quibble with there?

This is a truly horrific story and I just feel it's so tragic all round. What those girls did to that poor woman can never be excused but it also stood out to me that, in the case of the older girl, no one was there to see her being taken away at the end of the trial (the younger girl's family were at least), and when asked her date of birth she didn't even know what that meant. Apparently she's also tried to kill herself 3 times during the trial. What they did was absolutely unforgivable but, like their victim, they were extermely vulnerable and damaged themselves and when they all collided this was the terrible result. A very very sad tale indeed....

I think that these two girls are so so damaged. It's utterly tragic that their lives got to the point they did.
Their crime was horrific and there's no excusing it.

But, to me the sentence is right. In 12-15 years time I think they will be completely different people. They could be hardened inmates prone to violence and bullying, drug addicts without any remorse. In which case the parole board and Home Secretary will not let them out. Or they could feel remorse get an education get counselling keep their head down and nose clean and maybe be judged rehabilitated.
Today, we just don't know which road they'll go down.

Op it's not reabilitation

Its removal of children by ss much quicker

Damaged , abused and neglected children do shocking things remember the boys in care who raped a tortured two other younger boys

Society want children kept with failing parents , to wait and see if they can turn things around

We know quite often they can't and the longer you wait the more damaged the children are that's it

As an adopter I feel very strongly about this the children who fair the best are the ones who are removed from birth is much easier to get them permant homes less damage has been done and they get good care from there FC from day 1

Local people know their names, as it was shared on Facebook. I feel disgust, anger, fear of and also some sympathy for these girls. They have been badly failed by their families and by the local authority. How were two young girls allowed to abscond from care so much, to the point they used the police as their taxi service?

That said, they need to be punished for the cruel and callous murder of their victim (another person who has been failed by society, long before her tragic death) and their lack of remorse for what they have done shows me they are dangerous to the general public, and we need to be protected from them. On balance, I think the minimum sentence of 15 years is about right, but I know if I were a relative or friend of poor Angela, I would feel differently. They should only be released if there is no doubt they had expressed remorse and are no longer a danger to the rest of us.

Agree with Catvsworld. I've written here a few times about living next door to people who are incredibly abusive yet allowed to keep their 3 and 5 year olds. There's no way two kids being called vile names, possibly beaten and abused in other ways by a pair of psychopathic alcoholics, aren't doing irreversible damage to their kids. They need to be got out of abusive homes and into care much sooner. Before the worst damage is done. SS come out a few times, then sign them off then leave them with parents who are totally incapable of raising them to be decent human beings. Any victims these kids make as they grow up will be collateral damage.

It's not just the kids themselves that are damaged by this policy of leaving abused kids in situ, but their future victims.

In the case of Thompson and Venables, if you read about it, apparently Thompson was portrayed as the dominant one, and the instigator by the police and the press at the time - yet Venables was the one whose behaviour was actually beyond bizarre, and who was bothering the teachers, more. (I followed the case as I was teaching at the time, and in some of the schools I worked, I felt there were plenty of potential Thompsons and Venables - they weren't as anomalous as society wanted to pretend). And indeed, Thompson by all accounts, has turned his life round and been rehabilitated. Venables - not so much.

The point all this raises is - why does parental responsibility not come into it? I always felt that Venables' parents in particular were seen as more sympathetic and cogent, so the buck never stopped with them - yet the question we should be asking is, how far is the 'parenting' to blame and why don't the architects of these disasters, face any consequences? What can we do to get kids into care sooner, and make care a much more positive and powerful experience that pre-empts the need for rehabilitation?

SS are far too slow in removing kids from problem families - and by the time they do act, the damage is done. Which, the cynic in me thinks, keeps them in work. But doesn't address any issues.

They will go into the children's secure system which will ( hopefully but depends on whether private or local authority) mean they will get some level of analysis/support/challenge/ help with rehabilitation. However at18 (3 or 4 years away?) they will go into adult prison which really is just about punishment rather rehabilitation and punishment and any work done around their crime, lack of remorse, lack of understanding, assessment etc will stop.
Really really not excusing them but can we rehabilitate them? I think we have to try. They have clearly lost or possibly never had any sense of social being or belonging but that doesn't mean to say they never will.

itsall I can't understand why you don't think prison should be about punishment, of course it should! People commit a crime - receive sanctions I.e removal of their liberty.

This case is awfully disturbing. I think 15 years minimum seems fair as a punishment. I suppose you have to hope the parole board/pyschs etc. get the rest right with regard to whether or not they still pose a threat after that.

I found their names with one quick google. Their facebook pages too. One at least is still active. Makes interesting if depressing reading... RIP Angela Wrightson.