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.

Great post, streakybacon.

I actually do think some people are plain evil, but that's partly because I was married to a very evil person who I had to flee from, I knew him very well and I knew his mother was also evil and he suffered at such an age where I guess it effected him so massively he just couldn't have normal empathy for others as an adult.
Do I feel sorry for him? Yes. Would I EVER trust him around me and our child again?
FUCK NO

Maybe people who haven't met fundamentally evil people don't want to believe that they exist.

I must say it is very difficutl if not impossible paint this case in black or white.On one hand the killers were children themselves albeit very distrbed ones to have been able to plan and carry out such a horrendous act and yet if we agree it is abnormal for children so young to do this then we must agree something "out of the ordinary" should have been done to address the case. Having said this, I do feel inclined to beleieve that children as disturbed as this are more prone to go on to become equally disturbed adults and to commit further crimes although I confess i have no statistics to support this. Something "different" should have happened to confront this situation other than perhaps treat it as a normal crime at least in order to make sure as much as humanly possible that they do not go on to do it or other crimes again. I know as a parent I would never be able to see them as children had I been on the receiving side of their evil act and yet something must have been very very wrong for them to do such evil. Every time I see those CCTV images on TV i feel so upset.

I yhink for many people 'justice' was seeing children tried in and an adult court.

And custardo was right- lowering the age of criminal consent was about a politician being populist rather than a responsible decision.

I don't care who what when why they understand etc.

Should they be free to be around other potential victims of theirs is the question

I think what went wrong with the original trial was not so much the way it took place but the way in which it was reported and sensationalised by the tabloids. Adults also commit horrific murders but never receive such public vilification. What does that say about our view of children as a society?

I don't agree. The way the trial took place was everything wrong with the case. The only reason the tabs were allowed to report on the case was because was held in an adult court. Other, juvenile proceedings would have been subject to reporting restrictions; defendants woukd not have been identified and we would not be in this mess now, frankly.

The only mess now is that they're able to be free IMO

I think we should follow this example.

Children should be treated differently and I do think putting children through the adult court system is wrong Honestly, read it. It shows a different way.

I see what you mean now. So why were their names revealed? I don't understand why it was necessary for anyone...

DuelingFanjo those killers were age 6, not 10.
And the victim was left to die of cold, not to be ran over by a train.

Definately a massive difference between aged 6 and 10 IMO

Our public would have been more forgiving if venebles was only 6.

I don't remeber the details of how the the boys came to be identified ( I'm sure there is someone on here who remembers) but basically in adult court, defendants can be identified unless the judge makes an order for reporting restrictions. In this case it either the order wasn't made or the judges order was overturned. If the boys had had anonymity from the beginning we wouldn't have this hysteria now.

Pregno - Do you really think that people who gave committed terrible crimes aren't released into the community every day? You just don't know about them, so you don't worry about them!

The age of criminal responsibility was not reduced especially for this case. It was 10 when I was a child. My view is that children, even those with a bad upbringing, know at this age that murder is wrong, even if they can not fully appreciate quite how wrong. And comments about not realising James was dead could have been an attempt to evade punishment rather than not understanding.

Trying them in a normal adult court was wrong but encourages more sympathy for them than trying them in a different environment.

Many people have difficult upbringings, they don't all commit murder - and extremely brutal murder. So there was, and possibly still is, more to this than just their upbringing.

Personally I believe that they needed to be treated differently to adult prisoners but that justice for James required that they spend some time in an adult prison. They were released too soon.

The age of criminal responsibility was NOT lowered for this case.

The age of criminal responsibility was NOT lowered for this case.

Saying it twice as it doesn't seem to be registering.

No I hear you TAtt! Didn't michael Howard get involved in the sentencing though?

There was some messing around at the court of appeal about whether a child has to know what they did was "seriously wrong" before they could be tried in an adult court.

People are getting confused between that and the age of criminal responsibility - which is 10 and has been for years.

And yes the government did try to get involved in sentencing.

stewie most people with children I think would realise there's big mental differences between age 6 and 10.
At aged 10 in my opinion they're more likely to be aware of their actions.
I would still think a 6 year old throwing rocks at a toddler is an evil little shit who needs a good beating themselves.
But certainly at aged 10 how dangerous they are and their criminal mentallity becomes far more serious.

'they both should have been hung/ exiled/ key thrown away aged 10 or not IMO'

That is just about the most hideous opinion I've ever read on this forum.

I'm with streakybacon and SGM on this.

I got busted for shoplifting when I was 10 years old - of course I fucking knew it was wrong!

As an aside, one thing which really bothers me about all of this is that if there is/was evidence of child abuse by/towards Venebles - why the fucking fuckety fuck was he sent on outings with his dad?

So much for an independent judiciary

I have a 10 year old sister with lots of 10 year old friends, they're capable of taking care of my toddler if I'm upstairs, they are very caring and CERTAINLY have empathy, real little mummies they are, more mature than you'd imagine. I also remember being 10 quite well.

"DuelingFanjo those killers were age 6, not 10.

And the victim was left to die of cold, not to be ran over by a train.

Definately a massive difference between aged 6 and 10 IMO

Our public would have been more forgiving if venebles was only 6. "

No she was also hit with stones. There is more to the article that the ctiminal age of reposibility. It shows a local community and a community at large who didn't get into a massive vigilante frame of mind and a Media which dealt with the issue with some understanding - unlike what has happened in the UK.

Honestly the stupidity of some people in the UK astounds me. Why, in this country, do we have such a large amount of people who would go to a court to stand outside and jeer and spit and throw things We seem to have so many idiots in this country (including the press) who are unable to behave in a reasonable way when it comes to issuse like this.