To wonder how many people actually understand

[TheLadyEvenstar]

How it feels for the Victim and victims family when a criminal is released or escapes and then reoffends?

I have one hell of a lot of sympathy for James Bulgers family and to some extent understand how she is feeling right now.

1993 little James was murdered, that was also the year i was sexually and violently assaulted, no the 2 were not connected. But one thing that does connect them is Jack Straw made a bad decision on both cases.

He made the final decision on releasing the Bulger killers and also the final decision on moving my attacker from Rampton to Prestwich hospital - the result in both has been awful.

For Denise and her family they had to be notified when these 2 were released, and now that Venables is back inside after commiting another crime - level 4 child pornography - just one less than beastiality and violent pornography/acts.

For myself I was contacted in 2006 to tell me the criminal who attacked me had escaped and was on the loose. Took from November 2006 - March 2007 for him to be caught and then only because he reoffended did that happen.

I know the dread i felt daily and the pain it caused me and my family. Imagine being glad your Dad, in my case, was no longer alive to know he had escaped and that the man who had hurt me was on the loose to do the same to another woman.

Its easy to say, they were children/too young/difunctional family etc but at the end of the day the sympathy should not be with the criminals but the forgotten victims - THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS. Because they will never forget what their child/parent/sibling went through.

I don't much believe in offenders of this calibre making ammends.

can anyone please give me 3 examples of offenders of this sort (murderers / torturers etc) actually going on to make a meaningful contribution to society.

I'm serious.

Please. If any one can, I'll happily apologise for my view.

I'm sorry for your experiences, they sound truly awful and I wish you peace.

However, your last post has just made it all about revenge, you are asking how would you feel if your grandmother was killed by a ten yr old? In other words, saying that if you and your family were the victim you would not feel that the perpetrator should have anonymity.

The perpetrators in this case were 10 yrs old. Yes at 10 most if not all children know right from wrong but these children were from deeply dysfunctional backgrounds, our justice system would not be worth a rub if we did not consider rehabilitation.

I feel the utmost sympathy for james bulger and his family, the pain must be unimaginable, however, I cannot compare a 10 yr old child to an adult when looking at criminality and how to punish crime.

harimosmummy - I think the argument is the other way round - in order to lock someone up for their whole life you should need to be able to show that it is impossible for them to ever contribute anything to society. I think it's logically impossible to do that. Otherwise you could slip to an argument for locking up people who are LIKELY to offend before they have done so,

Do you know what upsets me most about that argument itsmeorthelord is that people tell me I can't say for sure my dog won't attack people. yet, I KNOW as sure as day follows night, that he won't. But, any (even unsure) act of aggression should lead to his destruction

Yet, humans of 10YO (presumably of greater intelligence than my dog) should be given the chance of rehabilitation and even let off crimes in case it might lead to their discovery?

Really? REALLY? REALLY?

Fucking shocking.

Its not about revenge its about justice being given.

Those questions were just that hypothetical questions about whether 10yr old criminals deserved new identities for their crimes regardless of what it was.

Ooojimaflip - Nope - the argument stands as is.

The charge stands with you to show 3 people have made a reasonable / decent contribution to society before I back down and say that everyone who has caused a crime is worthy of rehabilitation.

My PoV

If giving 10 year old criminals new identities reduces crime, then 10 year old criminals should be given new identities.

Who mentioned dogs??

Have you looked at the stats for how many children who kill reoffend? Very very very few.

There was a link to a fantastic article on here a while ago which detailed the rehabilitation process and discussed reoffending etc. Perhaps if anyone knows the title they could do another link?

I cannot see why it would be shocking to afford a 10 yr old rehabilitation.

harimosmummy I think your post is completely illogical and irrelevant but in any case, surely a 10 year old is more easily rehabilitated than a dog??

Just curious. What would be the outcome of not giving them new identities? And would that be desirable?

Verity, of course your 6yr old understands and has empathy for the suffering of others. My 2yr old understands pain and death and why we don't hurt people. Thankfully we have children that are brought up within a framework where the normality is love, protection, respect, empathy etc. Two ten year old boys didn't come from an average background, wake up one day and decide to commit a crime. Their psychological state and consequent actions were fostered by a lifetime of abnormality and suffering. It's actually a good thing that most assess a child's understanding from the pov of normal psychology. With such serious crime, normal empathetic responses and average understandings are irrelevant.

How the FUCK do we know if 10YO reoffend when even the mother of the murdered child can't get answers.

Does not that answer the question?

I have an 11YO DSD. If she tortured and murdered my 21MO DS (which she wouldn't but as an example) NO I WOULD NOT FUCKING FORGIVE HER

It's irrelevant whether you forgive her though. The question is whether she is old enough to be responsible for her actions for the rest of her life.

Is it. Bessie - Two children - who PURPOSEFULLY CHOSE AND STOLE A CHILD WITH THE INTENT TO MURDER.

Really? YOu wanna expand on your rehabilitation plan????????????????

SOme of you are really plain crazy!!

It is possible to have empathy for victims family whilst having empathy for the perpertrators

A crime committed by children would usually be 'not named for legal reasons' In this case, the press and the braying crowd had that overturned and these boys were named. They needed new identities to ever have the chance to lead a normal life after their sentences. Had the case been heard in childrens court, the sentence would have been the same no doubt. They were dealt their punishment through the adult court, they served their sentences. Any crime made after that is a separate thing especially where children are concerned

Whilst I agree a 10 year old knows right from wrong, I'm not sure they can fully understand the consequences of what would come after. A child can understand hitting a friend is wrong, do they understand they will lose priviliges and what the consequences will be? If they did, no child would ever display naughty behaviour

Victims of crime deserve much support and empathy, I totally agree but I also think these boys deserved a chance of rehabilitation working, after we, as a society, let them down in the first place

You do know dogs and humans are different species don't you?

harimosmummy rehabilitation and your forgiveness are two completely different things, do you realise that?

Really? Bessie so my son simply doesn't come into your equation? really????

DO YOU NOT HAVE KIDS?????????

Yes, showofhands - and my dog is more worthy than a lot of humans running around this planet.

Yes, I do have children.

Your son and your forgiveness are not the same as due process and the law. Luckily, the law is not run on the basis of whether you forgive someone.

Children are not deemed to be old enough for trial in an adult court until they are at least 12. This is because it is felt that a 10year old is not able to be responsible for his or her actions in the same way as an adult. Whether you would forgive them or not is irrelevant.

"Just curious. What would be the outcome of not giving them new identities? And would that be desirable?"

Did anyone get the viral text message that was going round in the last week? It named a person whom was supposed to be John Venables new identity.
The guy has had to move home, has received death threats etc, is genuinely scared for his and his family's lives.
He is nothing to do with John Venables, it was a rumour started by someone that probably has a grudge against him.
I think it was in The Sun this week??

Mary Bell has had to move home numerous times when her anonymity has been breached, her dd has suffered quite a lot through this.

So I would guess those are the consequences of not affording anonymity, you would be open to death threats, no security, no possibility of holding down a permanent job, unlikely to be able to form lasting relationships, consequences affecting future generations.

I realise the victim would have lost a lot more, ie their life and the potential that would have held.
However, as I said before, I believe that as a society we have a duty to attempt rehabilitation, for the safety of others and because any future generations would not be guilty of the crimes of their parents.

The concept of right and wrong is not innate and does not exist in a vacuum. It is contextual, and reliant on surroundings.

harimosmummy - no it doesn't. I'm not even making an argument about rehabilitation. I'm making an argument about crime reduction.

I'm sure with judicous google use and an investment of time that I'm not prepared to make at the moment, I could find examples, you could find counter examples and we would end up no further along.

It is a fact that many offenders have gone on to live quiet lives contributing to society by supporting their immediate family and friends, working and paying taxes.

We should follow whatever policy reduces crime the most. Locking people up for their whole lives MAY achieve this, but it is very expensive.

YANBU.

Only thing I have to add is the other forgotten (really forgotten) victims. The innocent families of the offenders who forever have to live under a cloud of hate and suspicion for something that they did not do or have any hand in.

itsmeolord The other thing I can't help feeling is that "an eye for an eye" is an awful way to behave.

I do feel that their sentence was too short, however that is what it is. And pointing vigilantes their way? Just seems wrong, how can you say murder is wrong then (indirectly) condone it.