killers of james bulger should not have been prosecuted??

[pregnochicklol]

Oh okay, because they're kids they should just be left to be a danger to everyone else?

Is this woman out of her mind?
Prison isn't just about punishment, it's about protecting others!

And I don't believe for one second that they didn't know it was wrong.
When I was a kid a bully (ring leader) tried to strangle my little sister, she was evil. But even her friends (aged around 7-9) realised her behaviour wasn't right made her release her. NORMAL Kids DO know what's right.

What woman?

England's children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson has said the killers shouldn't have been prosecuted as they were too young to understand their crimes.
It's all over the news this morning.

I don't think they should have been tried in crown court, standing on boxes because they were too small to see out of the witness box. Two little scallies, surrounded by adults in wigs, with no idea what was happening.

But I do think the bulger family needed justice to be done, for the enormity of the crime to be recognised by society.

So yes I yhink they should have been prosecuted, but it should have been handled differently IYSWIM

The issue seems to be that the killers are more technically innocent as they were 'unable to understand' their crimes.
Therefor if they'd been treated like children they would have been released even earlier no doubt.
Venebles has already commited child porn offenses (as an adult) after being released from his already ridiculously short sentence, he'll be out again soon no doubt.
This, after attacking 2 younger children sexually before the bulger case.

He's obviously a massive danger to children and he'll just keep being released WITH protection. (wouldn't want him to suffer would we?)

Am I the only outraged person?

assuming that they were too young to really be responsible for their crimes, wouldn't have changed their sentence?
Are you sure?

We don't really know why Venables has been recalled. Unless you believe everything the tabloids print, of course.

I don't think it could ever have been right to try children as adults, regardless of the crime. Anyone with a ten year old will know that they know right from wrong, but also that they are fundamentally immature and unable to fully comprehend the reach and consequences of some of their actions.

I think this whole argument is about a revenge-thirsty public wanting the chance to attack the attackers. Are children whose upbringing has been so lacking, so damaging that they can perpetrate such acts truly solely responsible for their actions? I don't think most of the public care about that question, they just want revenge.

i agree with stewie with regards to broken society/caring.

kids know right from wrong at aged 10.

whether they understand the wider implications of their actionsor how what they have done affects countless other people - not just themselves and the victim - is perhaps to be debated.

what needn't be debated IMO, is whether a child know a good action from a bad action aged 10.

-

i am not sure whether the law should have been changed specifically for this reason, and perhaps this does warrent discussion, as my knee jerk reaction tells me that it was a very clever someone using the countries outrage for some career/political gain.

-----

AGES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
7 - Switzerland, Nigeria, S Africa
8 - Scotland, Sri Lanka
10 - England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand

Everyone in this thread thinks these countries' laws are wrong?

damaged upbringing is not an excuse

an explaination

not an excuse

yes they were responsible for their actions

yes they did know what they were doing and the degre to which they were doing it. ( they lay his body on the train tack)

they knew. anything else is liberal hippy rhetoric spewing words like 'revenge' to make any counter argument seem emotionally charged rather than reasoned.

Well said SGM.

to be fair pregnochick, just becuase someone else does it - in itself doesn't make it right!

My concern here isn't whether of not they should be punished, should we feel sorry for them, give them another chance, etc..
My first and main concerbn is stopping them from being able to do it again.
Which is why they both should have been hung/ exiled/ key thrown away aged 10 or not IMO

What Stewie said.

She isn't saying they shouldn't have been prosecuted, but that they shouldn't have been prosecuted as adults. And IMO she is quite right.

Scotland about to raise it to 12.

agreed

if you think its ok to hang 10 year olds pregno, then you are part of societies problem

what normal 10 year old doesn't realise that taking a small child away from parents, beating them with bricks, other things i don't really want to write as they are too horrible and leave the battered little body on a train line to be hit by a train, is wrong??!!

the key should have been thrown away when they were locked up. Actually i don't think though that the age should have been lowered just to prosecute them in an adult court: their parents should have been held accountable to some degree for their behaviour.

stewie i have to disagree, whilst coming from a bad home is some way of an explaination for why children kill another child, i don't believe it is an excuse.

i don't believe a 'well' brought up young boy aged 10 should be subjected to one set of rules

but those who have a backstory shouldn't

in fact if you did these things with no backstory, i think there would probably be a mental diagnosis of sociopath

it is becuase there is the awful history that we can put it in some context. but not excuse it

I like Maggie Atkinson, have met her twice in formal meetings when she headed Children's Services in Gateshead and I think she's ace. She genuinely cares about children, wants to see their needs met but is also acutely aware of the underlying practicalities of doing so (budgets, stats etc). I find her extremely fair and balanced and VERY outspoken about injustice.

What she said in the Times interview was that she disagreed about Venables and Thompson having been tried in an adult court at 10 years of age, and I totaly agree that this was inappropriate.

Criminal responsibility - yes, most kids who've been brought up with good moral guidance would understand the implications of the acts committed against James Bulger, but we have know way of knowing how they were perceived by these two boys who had had no such guidance throughout their lives. It doesn't mean that they should get away with it, but that they needed appropriate help and support to deal with the aftermath.

I feel desperately sorry for Venables and Thompson whose lives have been destroyed by parental ineptitude. That doesn't mean that what they did to James wasn't wrong, it just acknowledges that they too were children and needed care and support that they didn't get through their formative years.

Nobody is born evil, including those boys, and I care deeply about two emotionally damaged children who are now emotionally damaged adults.

I think it's very complex - the boys' motivation for the crime - and obviously had much to do with their upbringing.

There was actually evidence that they didn't understand that they had killed James Bulger, their interviews after arrest and some of the things that went on seemed to indicate this.

But if I was James' mother, I would need justice - I can't forget her when ever I think about this awful case.