James Bulger's mother demands right to find freed killers

[suzywong]

as reported in the \link{http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml\news of the world.

Should she have the right?

Discuss

Nuture on the other hand is saying people cant make a rational choice. To argue that point what about all the people who grew up in violent and appalling conditions who don't follow their peers examples and become wonderful caring beings

As I understand it, genetic research is increasingly suggesting that it is not a case of nature or nurture but of a complex combination of both.

Simplistic press reporting of scientific research doesn't help matters: when "the gene" for Condition X is "discovered" it is usually the case that a gene involved in Condition X has been disovered. It will take a combination of genetic triggers to produce Condition X. It seems to be the case that environmental factors can actually influence some of these genetic triggers as well.

Am I making any sense?! I'm not sure!

I guess I'm trying to say that I don't believe there's an "evil gene": the awful coincidence of having a genetic predisposition to cruelty, along with a brutalising environment, is going to result in a very disturbed individual.

There's probably a lot of luck in finding the right parenting approach, too. Some people with an inclination towards agressive behaviour may benefit from very firm parenting, helping them to establish strict boundaries. Others may find the example of a more relaxed, "softly, softly" approach more useful.

I've no idea what I'm trying to say any more, so will shut up .

I don't think she should have the right.

Haven't read whole thread, sorry if it's all moved on from the original question.

I think you're making perfect sense BFM!

And I also agree with Fairyfly, it's too simplistic to say its nature or nurture, I just think we don't know enough yet to say why people do these things, but I agree we shouldn't always assume that it is always the fault of the parenting. We've all heard the stories of well brought up, loved children suddenly running off and joining a religious sect/ terrorist cell / or becoming drug addicts or whatever.

I think anyone who claims to know what drives people to commit horrific acts is kidding themselves.

Also about the mental illness aspect - that is very much determined by society. In some societies, things that we would consider abberations are either normal or revered. (So St. Catherine of Siena hearing voices of the saints would now be diagnosed as schizophrenia or another mental illness, for example, rather than being canonised.)

joolstoo: most of the current thinking on brain development points to a combination of nature and nurture, with nurture as the key element (and the only one that is under the control of parents).

fairyfly: plenty of abuse happens in 'good' middle class families. i don't think anyone looking from the outside in can know what kind of parent someone is. it's totally wrong to blame the mother as abuse is generally inter-generational: people that are abused have been abused, often to a greater degree themselves.

babies that are consistently ignored never develop the capacity to empathise and in the most extreme cases have no sense of self at all and therefore cannot conceptualise the 'other'.

it's widely acknowledged that early environmental factors play a key part in deviant behaviour of most kinds.

for a simple analysis of some of the most up to date research read oliver james' 'they f*ck you up'.

if you're really interested search out the research that is extensively gone into in his footnotes.

it's very very interesting stuff: and the reason why psychotherapy and the study of brain development are coming closer and closer together.

for anyone really interested the man at the forefront of this stuff is allan schore at UCLA medical school, and a very good (if a bit sciencey) paper of his is this

to answer bloss's post about retributive justice making the killers realise that james' life was valued, i couldn't disagree more.

punishment doesn't make damaged people realise that, love does. when someone values you, you can then value another.

rehabilitation wouldn't be complete until they had realised just how valuable the life they took from james was, but punishment is nothing to do with how they might come to that realisation.

aah - sophable - we come full circle

may they realise how valuable James' life was by meeting his mother?

Can I recommend anyone reads Sue Gerhardt's new book "Why Love Matters" to learn about the physiological changes a lack of love / affection makes to a brain from Day 1. Your brain grows humungously from 0-1, and almost as much from 1-2. After that it continues to grow through your childhood then the connection making slows right down. Children who are not repsonded to appropriately have brains that develop differently. They are not born different, it is 'done' to them, whether knowingly or unknowlingly bu their parents and society at large.

absolutely peskykids.

jools: how would seeing james' mother help either party?

I don't blame the mother sophable, i just don't think there is a formula at all

i know, i know ff> you said that you feel sorry for the mother that gets the blame...i was just saying that it doesn't mean that parenting isn't the problem but even if it is, blaming the mother is redundant....that was clear as mud eh?

I think this is one of those issues where most people know how they feel and don't understand the other side's view at all. I know I certainly feel that way.

Most puzzling to me is, if some people are just born "wrong", or are just "evil", will punishing them make them good? Is punishing someone for how they were made any fairer than punishing people for having the wrong hair colour?

Yep understand now sophable, the smell of my hair dye is clouding my brain

I think this is one of those issues where most people know how they feel and don't understand the other side's view at all. I know I certainly feel that way.

Most puzzling to me is, if some people are just born "wrong", or are just "evil", will punishing them make them good? Is punishing someone for how they were made any fairer than punishing people for having the wrong hair colour?

NOBODY blames Denise for any of her feelings. How could we? I do think that it would be a dreadful society that actively supported personal revenge though. And newspapers that feed on grief to excite and titillate their readers are disgusting. And I do think that children can never be judged as if they were adults. Yes, some people have terrible, abusive backgrounds and survive them intact, which is wonderful, but others don't. Some people get an illness and die, others don't. It doesn't mean the illness can't kill.

sophable - well you said they need to realise how valuable James' life was to help rehabilitate them - and the person James was valuable to was his mother. So I think they would get an idea from her what damage their actions had caused and realise how 'valuable' his life was.

If you disagree with this arrangement how do you suggest they realise the enormity of their actions (not being flip - I genuinely am interested)

Isn't it the new thing now for victims to confront their agressors (in a controlled environment) - in an effort to resolve issues on both sides? It gives the aggressor the chance to apologise and for the victim to ask why?

Sorry I haven't had time to read this whole thread, so this question may have already been answered, but how do we know that the perpetrators are not aware of the enormity of what they have done? Is anything known of what has become of them during their time in custody?

Message withdrawn

My idea of rehabilitation is that the wrongdoing is acknowledged, repented and atoned for.

So punishment is part of re-habilitation.

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but feel the need to throw my tuppence in anyway. I haven't read all the posts, and am probably repeating what's already been said. I can't even begin to understand what Jamie's mum has gone through, and will continue to go through for the rest of her life. She has lived through an unimaginable nightmare of horrific proportions, and we - and the media - can spend all the time we want debating the rights and wrongs of whether or not she should meet the murderers, and nature v. nurture.
However, and I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I don't think we have the right. She has indicated that she wants to meet them - and surely after everything she has been through, we can allow her this. For whatever reason, she feels she need to, and that should surely be enough. She has been the victim in all this, as well as James, and until we have been through something similar (pray God no-one ever has to again) then I don't think we should pass judgement on her. Let her do what she needs to do.

Message withdrawn

Newspapers like NOW sicken me - circulation means far more to them than the pain of a bereaved mother. I don't think that she should be told the identities of the boys but I hope she can find a way to live with her grief instead of being paralysed by it. My heart goes out to her.

i really believe that living in the body, mind and life of someone that is capable of torturing, murdering, stealing etc is punishment in itself and enough. for me rehabilitation is about whether or not that person can get to a place where they are no longer a danger to themselves or anyone else. people need to be kept out of society for the protection of other members of society until such a time as they are not a danger anymore. in the case of children that committed a terrible act, have been in prison for a large portion of their lives, should never have been tried as adults but were, if the psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists and social workers that have been with them (I presume) all this time feel that they are not a danger anymore, they should be free to live as normal a life as they can. if that includes protection from vigilantes so be it. i'll happily pay tax for that.

i just don't think two wrongs make a right. i don't believe that more human suffering takes away from the original pain that was inflicted, if anything it just adds to the weight of sorrow in the world.

just to requote beetroot's blake morrison quote:

'Is it possible to imagine a place where rehabilitation of lost and damaged children would be a matter of celebration not outrage?'

evidently not.

Anone heard of the bobo doll experiment?

Nature v's Nuture debate has been going on for years and I dont think we can resolve it here

Do think that it is both tho, if some has a predisposition and experience has increased that it can make for a dangerous combination. My point earlier was that there are those who have been abused and go on to make a very postive input into society too so therefore there must be more than just nuture.

Paulosgirl, you have a very good and valid point. I think I will leave the rest of my therorising to my studies.

I hope my comments have not offended anyone, because I really dont claim to know any better than anyone else.

Love and hugs

A survivor who isnt evil!! xxx

I haven't read all this thread, but have read the link to the article and now feel sick to my stomach.

My brother was visciously murdered 2 months ago and the thought that I have to see the face of the p*k (sorry)who stabbed him repeatedly in the back fills me with total fear. We know his name and he has been on remand ever since it happened but thankfully haven't seen any pictures in the media. But when the trial comes up we will have to see him and it is the main reason I don't want to go. But will have to go for my brother's sake. He was an innocent victim of a bully.

My heart goes out to Jamie's Mum. Noone can imagine what she has endured. I am sure all the media attention has made it far worse for her.