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 saw an article this morning where a social worker said that the older girl was the most volatile girl she'd ever worked with.

Andrewofgg: .... the social worker should not have been discussing her - not even anonymously.

This was a statement made at the trial: At the trial, one of her support workers told the court the older girl "was the most volatile person" she had ever worked with. From www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35977027

I'm loath to say this because I would not usually think or say something like this but after reading about what happened and thinking about it over the past few days I do not think these 'girls' have any place in society and I do not think 15 years in jail is going to suddenly make them fit to be. They need punishing and I think prison is of course where they should be, but exiting after 15 years isn't going to make them 'normal' and suddenly upstanding citizens.

Andrewofgg "herecomethepotatoes Would you seriously have wanted to see the ten-year-olds who killed Jamie Bulger sentenced to death and executed?""

Yes. My MSc (lingusitics) research involved analysis of language of convicted child murderers. The things those boys did (and some of what I read hasn't made it into the public domain, or at least not for available for the general public) has an effect on me still. I wouldn't have wanted to see it but yes, they should have waited on death row until their 18th birthday and then execution (by the most humane method).

Some people are born 'wrong' and can't be fixed.

Sorry robinia I thought the article was by the social worker.

herecomethepotatoes I have always been against the death penalty in all circumstances. But telling ten-year-olds that "we are going to keep you alive for eight years then execute you" is a bridge too far even for most supporters of it. Even in Saudi Arabia or Texas or China that would be unthinkable.

Andrew - I'm not suggesting taunting them! Is the death penalty preferable to life without parole - based on the premise that they could never be safely released into public life, as in the case of Jon Venables.

A genuine question. Which is more humane? If someone is so evil that they should be kept away from the general prison population, in an environment where they can't hurt themselves or others and would pose an immense rick if ever released, it's surely difficult to argue that the kind thing to do is keep them under such stringent conditions until they pass away from natural causes.

I assume you accept that some are beyond rehabilitation and isn't 'no chance of parole' a breach of a law or right? Should the carrot of release keep being dangled when anyone of sound mind (and in a position to influence such a decision) can see it should never ever occur?

Bringme your Facebook searching skills are way better than mine. Their names are quite common so had put it down to that. I wish I hadn't searched at all as I think it's right that they're anonymous.

Some people definitely should not be released. I live in Finland which has very short (comparatively speaking) sentences for murder but also has the capacity to keep people in prison indefinitely if they are deemed not safe to be released. Perhaps that capacity is not used enough but its there at least.

As for prison being about punishment - being in prison is the punishment, everything else about prison should be about rehabilitation and keeping dangerous criminals out of society until they are rehabilitated (if they can be, and if not, then indefinitely) because it is absolutely pointless to punish for the sake of punishment. It doesn't reduce crime, it doesn't reduce recidivism and it doesn't help society at all except for making self-righteous people feel better. Would you rather have a safer society with less punishment or a more dangerous one so long as the criminals are being 'properly punished'?

I assume you accept that some are beyond rehabilitation and isn't 'no chance of parole' a breach of a law or right?

The sentencing guidelines already include the ability for a judge to impose a whole life tariff and the ECHR has already ruled that such tariffs are not a breach of human rights because they can be reviewed in exceptional circumstances. A prisoner sentenced to a specific term who does not meet the criteria for parole at the end of their term will be reviewed. I would agree that there should be a mechanism by which a prisoner who, after X number of reviews shows no progress towards rehabilitation, could be taken back to court and have a whole life tariff imposed.

I'll never agree to capital punishment though, no matter how heinous the crime. If by imposing these sentences we are sending the message that murder is the worst crime you can commit, then state-sponsored murder is equally wrong. Even the perpetrators are still human beings. They're not dogs to be put down.

God, judging by the Facebook of the apparently less culpable more easily led of the two she was a scary, violent, evil thing well before this happened. She was publicly boasting about assaulting other children yet it appears that no charges were brought. The justice system in this country really is shit, the police just don't do anything until someone's dead or dying.

I find herecomethepotatoes idea of locking up children for 8 years then killing them absolutely repellent. Coming from someone who is supposed to be a functioning member of society, that mentality actually scares me - how can anyone think that is an acceptable or appropriate response to children who commit crimes?

The case is harrowing, in as much for lifting a lid on the harrowing, chaotic existence of children 'in care'. Like Rochdale, it forces us the confront children growing up with no one to love, care and protect them. I cannot even imagine what that must be like, but I do know as a society it shames us all. Those girls killed Angela Wrightson, but we all let her down and we can't absolve our responsibility entirely by inventing ever grimmer ways to punish children.

"How were two young girls allowed to abscond from care so much, to the point they used the police as their taxi service?"

About a year or so ago I answered the door and found a boy standing there, looked to be about ten years old.

He said he had lost his friend and didn't know how to get home, and could we give him a lift to a place at the other side of town, about twenty to thirty minutes drive away?

He said it was his Mum's house, but he didn't know the actual address, couldn't give us a phone number, and wasn't sure of his Mum's name. He said he only ever called her Mum, he thought her first name was Karen (name-changed for this) and he didn't know her last name. He didn't understand the word 'surname' when I asked him.

He kept asking if he could come inside until we were ready to drive him to the house, which he said he'd be able to give directions too even though he couldn't tell us the street name or number, because he knew what it looked like.

I couldn't let him in, and I couldn't drive him home. For his own sake, I didn't want to encourage him to go into strangers houses or get into strangers cars.

For our sake, we didn't know what he might say had happened to him if brought him inside out of sight.

It was warm and dry, so we stayed in the garden, and I rang the 101 number.

He knew his own name, said he thought he was eleven, and I gave them a description of him. I told them where he wanted to go, and that he didn't know a great deal of information regarding his Mum's name or address. The police said they would check to see if anyone had reported him missing and it would take about an hour to get someone out to us, maybe a little bit more.

I thought that was too long for a young boy to be with strangers.

While we waited, I chatted to him some more and his story got more bizarre. He told us where he'd been with his friend but was pointing in the wrong direction. He kept talking about a placement, and said he'd got nineteen brothers and sisters, some from his Mum and some from his Dad. He didn't know much about the friend who he had been with, other than the friend's first name and his age, which he said was fourteen. Things just didn't add up and from things he said I worked out he was really in care at a place nowhere near the address he'd been wanting to go to.

This took about ten minutes of chatting, and then the phone rang. The police were ringing back to ask if I still had him with me, and if I did, could I keep him with me and stop him leaving if I tried. They said someone was on the way, and since we were outside I could actually see them. Blue lights coming from three different directions.

Three different cars and one van with dogs in it turned up to collect him.

Even he was surprised and said "are they coming for me?" and I said they had the blue lights on just to make sure he was safe since we were strangers. I'd been doing the "don't talk to strangers, you can't get in a car with strangers, never go into a strangers house because you don't know what they might do" talk to him since he first arrived. He had been replying with "I've had loads of lifts, it's alright" and I felt sick at the thought of him being so trusting.

The little the police told me afterwards was awful. If we'd taken him where he wanted to go, he could have been in serious danger. He is not allowed anywhere near either parent, their partners, or the other children in their families.

If we'd let him in, we would have been at risk. They wanted to check our back garden for the friend, who was known for using the younger boy as a distraction, and thankfully we'd had the good sense to lock the back door and windows, plus we have two very loud dogs, so nothing had happened while we were talking to him.

He was known to the police, who greeted him by name and who he chatted to as though they were old family friends.

He and the older boy had been reported missing from their care home earlier that day, and I have no idea how they got away or where they had been until he knocked on our door hours later. Police said they can't keep them locked in the care home, it's not a prison, and they don't have the resources to watch every child for every minute. They said if someone wants to get away, they do, and usually it's the police who find them and bring them back if they don't go back of their own accord.

I just had the feeling that I was glad he'd knocked on our door instead of our neighbours door. Our neighbour is elderly , his house and garden less secure. He's been targeted by burglars before and two boys, even one as young as this one (police said he was nine, not eleven) could have pushed their way in and done anything.

I still wonder what happened to him afterwards, how he might be now. I hope he's getting help and support but I feel he's going to be taking the wrong path as he grows up. So much was against him already. I can't see him living a good life, although I hope I'm wrong. But he seems to have had such a bad start, and was under the influence of someone talking him further down the wrong path. I can't see him getting past that unless, as in this case with these girls, something terrible happens and the intervention is prison and whatever rehabilitation comes with it.

I think that we need to be clear as to what you mean by 'commit crimes'. As I mentioned earlier, I have been privy to many details surrounding Jamie Bulger's murder that most haven't. 20 years on it still affects me. Reading those details changed me and changed my views on crime and punishment and minors.

Those two girls may be children, but, when you torture, abuse and then murder another, you lose the rights afforded to normal people.

What do you suggest? Life imprisonment? Hardly humane, is it? Assuming that some people cannot be safely released, I find the idea of locking them up for life absolutely repellent.

As a supposedly functioning member of society...

Lets try to keep this intelligent and mature without hyperbole and sly digs at one another.

herecomethepotatoes, under your regime how would you propose to deal with those who under the current system are convicted of murder, aren't released on parole because they refuse to admit guilt and show remorse (an essential part of being considered "rehabilitated" but by your standards would indicate they are "incapable" of being rehabbed) then new evidence comes to light which exonerates them - hence why they were never "rehabilitated", because they were telling the truth about their innocence - and released with a full pardon?

There are some people whom it will never be safe to release. Mostly men but all adults. What a ten-year-old says it does cannot prove that s/he is one of them.

herecomethrpotatoes Whatever is said in court, and I understand that you weren't proposing to taunt them, to let them know that in eight years' time they are going to be killed is or ought to be unthinkable.

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

Because it's pointless. A prison sentence is not a deterrent, nor is it particularly effective at preventing reoffending.

It is far more efficient to try and change the offending behaviours/ treat mental health issues.

It may not be pointless to the victims of the crime though ItsAll.

It can be important to the victims of crime to see that the perpetrators are punished, it's an acknowledgement of the wrong that was done to them.

I don't understand how their Facebook accounts can still be active

Not read the whole thread but I too am deeply affected by this story. I feel desperately sorry for the victim and the circumstances that led her to be alcoholic and vulnerable and so desperate for company in a disaffected world that she let these girls into her home.

However, I don't believe people are born evil. These girls are products of their terrible upbringings. The back story of those girls is horrific. One visited her mum on the day of the murder, was given alcohol and prescription drugs by her mum and told to kill herself. Her parents did not attend her trial. She had witnessed violence her entire life, both against herself by her family and witnessing it inflicted on others. Is it any wonder this child turned out to be violent and disaffected herself? I got my info from the guardian and bbc news - the tabloids are obviously incendiary and sway the details perhaps for the sake of sensationalism.

But the facts are the facts and they are every bit as scarring as the Bulger case. But to suggest our legal system kills them in response or locks them up forever regardless of what happens in the next 50 years? To write off the lives of two children who have been failed completely and utterly by their parents and carers? I'm no Christian but my god, these girls need help, support, redemption. They may be too damaged but we are no civilised society if we don't try.

They may be too damaged but we are no civilised society if we don't try.

That's it in a nutshell, I think.

The reality is that on the one hand the human, empathetic person inside most of us wants to say "evil murderers, lock them up, throw away the key and don't for the love of God let them anywhere near mine or anyone else's children."

On the other hand the human, empathetic person inside many of us says "but they were fifteen. They were children themselves albeit adolescents now rather than younger more vulnerable children such as Thompson and Venibles."

It's a very difficult balance to strike when talking about damaged children committing horrific crimes, because on the one hand while it is important to recognise that children who commit horrific crimes often have damaged childhoods themselves, it's also important not to automatically label children who have had damaged or troubled childhoods as criminals in the making.

As anchor and others have said above, not everyone who has been abused goes on to abuse. And yet there is a real danger of society almost viewing the abused as the abusers of the future.

My DP had a horrific childhood, and was fostered permanently from the age of seven. But prior to that he could very easily have become a baby P. He has a disability as a result of the abuse he suffered as a child, that is how bad it was. But the idea of going on to become an abuser himself would never have entered his thought process. Yet people have said to him that it's a miracle he's A, not under psychological care, B, hasn't committed any awful crimes. And have even gone on to say that no-one would ever have held him responsible if he'd become a violent criminal after everything he's been through.

All that being said, it's also important to recognise that when children commit horrific crimes, there has to be something very damaged in their makeup. Because it simply isn't normal for ten year olds to abduct and torture a toddler, or for fifteen year olds to torture and murder a pensioner. And where society has failed these children is in the fact that they got to a stage where they murdered an innocent person and no-one noticed or took action WRT any behaviours which led to the point where they reached that point of no return. Because it simply isn't the case that a child wakes up innocent one morning and goes out and commits a murder before bedtime. There will have been signs that all was not well with those children. And yet no-one noticed or did anything. Why not?

The children are responsible for the crimes they committed, they need to serve sentences for those crimes and hopefully be rehabilitated, if possible. But there are adults who are responsible for the mental state of these children, or at the very least responsible for not having acted on the mental state of these children, to bring them to the point of being murderers in the first place...

A couple of random thoughts on this issue. Apparently the only European countries that imprison children for even offences as horrific as this are Cyprus and France, and they seldom use the powers. Presumably in all the other European countries a more therapeutic regime must work, otherwise they would have changed their systems. Clearly such damaged young people need intensive therapy and support if there is to be any prospect of rehabilitation but here once they reach 18 they go into the main prison system where this is much reduced from what would be available in a secure children's home or training centre.
When I was a criminal defence solicitor some years ago I represented a young man during his teenaged years. He was a habitual their and a drug user. His mother had been a prostitute and he had suffered violence from a number of her boyfriends. She sent him to live with a relation of hers who was into organised crime who got him hooked on heroin and used him as a professional shoplifter. He ended up in YOI for the umpteenth time and killed himself. He didn't stand a chance.

herecomethepotoatoes No hyperbole, I don't care what you have read, the fact you can coolly consider locking up a 10 year old child for 8 years before they are killed chills me to the bone far more than the harrowing details of this dreadful case. It is like a scene from a dystopian sci fi. No reading of cases as a justification makes that mind set any less disturbing.

i always see these threads and wonder how you would feel if it was your child/ family member/ who was murdered
i bet you wouldn't be making these teens out to be victims

Samcro, if it were my relative, once the immediate anger reaction had passed, I would hope against hope that i would still see those girls as the victims they are. Victims of abuse and violence which prevented their emotional development and turned them into (hopefully transient) psychopaths. But I can see how grief might skew that. But the rest of us ought to be able to see it, and allow the scales to drop from our eyes.

i see one victim, but hey lets make evil people victims (hides thread on that)