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.

i am the same age as these two, at the same age i had watched the chucky film alot of people gave reference to during the case. (pnts did not know it was older brothers)

at 10 i certainly did know right from wrong and i do believe their trial was fair. obviously didn't affect them too much if the sniggering in the dock reports were true.

imo they should still be in prison for what they did and again, if you believe all you read they probaly had a damned sight better childhood being away from their families with all the security, education, boundaries and day trips they recieved whilst serving their punishment.

so how many of you that think ten year olds should take adult responsibility will be handing over your car keys on their tenth birthday? or allowing them to drink/smoke/do you think they should be allowed to vote?

If a ten year old is old enough to serve a full life sentence for murder then surely he's old enough to drive a car? or have sex? or vote for the next government? Or legally drink? And if not, why not?

Nobody is saying that these two children should not have been accountable for their actions. But they were children. And while it is possible to feel utter contempt for the crime they committed it is also possible to empathize with the fact that society and their families repeatedly let them down until the time they committed this crime, and then society turned on them, and instead of acknowledging that it (society) was in some way to blame for the fact two children became murderers, poured hatred on two young boys who were still just children themselves.

So John Venables came from a loving and stable home? Really? And you really think that a ten year old wakes up one morning and thinks "I know, I'll go out and murder a child today." without any previous indication that there is something amiss with this child's behavior? Really? You don't think there would have been previous indications that this child was disturbed in some way?

Even if the parents were aledgedly loving parents, did they seek help for this child before he committed such a horrendous crime?

If they didn't abuse him physically why did they not spot that something was wrong before this?

Failing to spot such seriously disturbed behavior is just as much neglect as if they had abused him physically or emotionally.

I don't care what kind of home they were from.
Do they pose a significant danger to my chilren? If so, throw away the key.

you don't care ? so why did you start a thread, why do you want to discuss/debate.. or only want to hear people baying for blood

you should care, we should all care, we are all part of a society and a community. we shold all watch out for our neighbours, friends and vulnerable children and people in general, we should alert social services where necessary, and not turn a blind eye

it has been said very often on here amongst other places, what kind of boy/man would Baby P have grown into.. he died as a victim of incomprehensible abuse, but it is quite likely, had he lived, he would have replicated some at least of the suffering he had to endure. and he would then no longer be a victim?

"I don't care what kind of home they were from.
Do they pose a significant danger to my chilren? If so, throw away the key."

Surely that should be an ongoing question though. At ten they posed a signiffican danger (presumably) not to mention the fact that they were accountable for their actions and thus needed to be removed from society in order to protect society from them as well as to protect them from society.

But you cannot assume that their actions as ten year olds meant that they would pose a signifficant risk to your children for the rest of their lives.

We can make that judgement of adults, because they have matured and they are responsible as adults.

But we cannot make that judgement of children.

We can think it from an emotional pov, but it is a knee-jerk opinion that has no basis other than an emotional reaction.

God OP you are a complete prat.

I have recently started working with kids who are abused in all kinds of ways and it makes me pretty sick to read the hate and vilification of those two boys who were let down at every turn.

And neither of them came from good, normal families. Both of them were abused, neglected and had a lot more insight into evil and sex at a young age than was appropriate and right, a lot more than they were able to process in their immature, damaged little minds.

And I hope you people saying you would beat your child for throwing rocks at another child realise that they are probably doing it because you have failed at your job in being a parent and bringing up a properly socialised human being as you have actually taught them that beating someone, causing them physical pain is right. They look at you when you are hitting them and they see someone who is supposed to love them, protect them from pain and be there for them actually thinks it is ok to hit them, cause them physical pain - you are showing them they have no self worth - so why the hell would they think hurting someone else is wrong, someone who they don't have any sort of emotional tie to - because you - you who hits them tells them it is ok to hit, you do it to them and so they do it to someone else - if your child was doing this it would be your fault not theirs.

Believe me - I see very very few children who are like they are for other reasons - I would say that 95% of them are like they are because their parents have failed in bringing them up properly - most of all their parents have failed to show them how to deal with their emotions.

Anyway I could go on and on - but please think those of you who said you would beat your child about the lesson you are teaching that child whilst you are casuing it pain.

Great post Lululmaam.

madame when you start a post to me saying 'god you are a complete prat'
do you really expect me to read on? What a waste of post that may have been good which i will never read :-(

I started this thread as I'm concerned about dangerous people being free to hurt others again.
Their background/reasons/excuses mean nothing to me.

lulumaan remember earl;ier we mentioned that in this thread.
My veiws are yes they may be victims themselves, probably are, I can have sympathy, and even forgive them.
But quite simply whether or not I feel sorry for them is completely irrelevent, 'are they dangerous' is my concern.
If they're dangerous lock them up, lock them up in friggin sactuary if you like, I don't care where, it's not just about punishment, it's about keeping them AWAY from my children and keeping MY children safe.

I know people who write to very dangerous criminals in prison who have done awful things, I frequent a site that gives prisoners support, can we talk to them, help them etc etc? Yes.
Do we think that they should be free for other's to be put at risk?

NO

no, i understand that. your concerns are relevant, but the knee jerk reaction is to hang them/exile them/lock them up, which is totally at odds with you saying you understand

wanting to inflict pain or death on people for committing crimes is not a response i am intellectually comfrotable with, althoguh i do understand it

but you can't say you undersatnd why, but hten say you don't care and that you want to hang them

the two things are at odds

ascertaining if they are still a threat many years after the crime has been committed is important,

one of the Bulger murderers has not been recalled to prison, so for now, we have to presume he is not a danger. mary bell has lived a life of anonymity and not been any further danger.

but you seem to be saying they should be kept away for ever or hung/exiled to protect society

so do you think that they should be rehabilitated or not?

you are coming at it from opposite points

on the one hand you understand and have sympathy but you want them dead or locked away

I agree, the hanging/beating thing is an emotional reaction, lol.
I don't usually believe in those things.

Hey wasn't it easier when we could just ship them off to australia?

I do question whether people who are such a risk to society should just be killed...

Good question, should we try to rehabilitate violent criminals? Baring in mind that they're at risk of re-offending.
Some people would think that they don't deserve the chance, or that society doesn't deserve to be endangered again by them.

IDK

you seem to be taking this to quite a flippant level, which i feel very uncomfortable with

shipping them off to australia.. great for you, but what about people in australia?

in case you don't realise, teh current penal system is also based on rehabilitation, not just punishemnt

pregno Your solution is too simplistic! You seem to have the view that people are born evil (Really? Can you look at a newborn baby and believe that they might be inherently evil?) and that the solution is 'simply' to lock them away for evermore.

I understand your point that dangerous criminals need to be kept away from the public, of course they do but you are still not thinking about what WE as a society can do to prevent such atrocities happening again and again and again. You are also not considering the possibility that rehabilitation is possible for SOME criminals.

You made the point earlier that not all children from dysfunctional families become criminals (thank goodness!) Perhaps we ought to be looking at those individuals to see what is different about them and their lives that has enabled them to not repeat the abuse they suffered.

Maybe there are other influences in their lives; other family members, social workers, counsellors, teachers, youth workers, well-meaning neighbours... someone who has been able to be a positive role model for that person or someone who has been able to offer a sanctuary of sorts for them when they have been troubled.

Maybe, for others, something else in their life has enabled them to escape the cycle of abuse and violence; that could be anything from religion to education to a passion for music or art...something that has helped them to see that there is a very different world out there in which they can be appreciated and can achieve.

Perhaps this sounds idealistic; I'm simply saying we should examine the factors that contribute to a troubled young person going on to be a violent offender or not.

As individuals, what can we do? Be good role models to our own children and to other people's children; be good neighbours and good friends. Not suggesting people need to be interfering but just aware and empathetic.

I honestly think you're being simplistic, merely because it is the easiest option; sorry.

Arg, one cannot joke!
I don't like unfriendly debates, I get upset.

I know having penpals can be part of rehabilitation, I can empathise with criminals on a human level, but them being in public is a whole new matter.
Which is why I think it is possible to care about them but still say throw away the key.

I don't know I think my outlook could be helpful with certain jobs, like working in prisons or psychiatric units, to aim to treat inmates/patients as humanly as possible, but not to forget that they're dangerous..

Oflin, (before reading all your post)
no I don't think people are born evil.
I think they can be damaged in a way that makes them evil and most probably beyond help though.

I agree!
I agree with you all :-)

I think they should have been tried as children.

Thats not the same as immunity from prosecution, at all. IN fact I would argue that immunity from prosecution would be extremly and definitely wrong.

Pregno a Q:

DS1 is 10, he also has an SN that means he is unable to understand the true results of any crime he mighht commit if he were less well supervised than he is. This is entirely the result of the SN but effectively makes him much younger in terms of morality etc with no empathy

Would you want him to be held account of soemthing he did in the same way as an adult with full capabilities?

Also wrt to the throw away the key=- it is not possible for a whole life sentence to be handed to minors in the UK.

That's a fact of law.

i just don't feel that flippancy is appropriate when dsicussing something this serious,

if that upsets you, perhaps you should not have begun this thread

i think the fact you have come at this from two different angles proves how complex this issue is and how a knee jerk simplistic response is just not fitting

I feel sorry for those kids. Their parents must be awful, and their home life must have been indescribably cruel for them to think that kidnapping, torturing and killing a toddler was normal.

the parents should have been locked up, and the children taken for extensive rehabilitation and psychological treatment.

and a true life sentence, i.e detained at her majesty's pleasure seems to be rarely handed out to adults

25 years for murder. not staying in prison until you die

Highlander I think it's great to hear someone in this thread not just with the sympathy for the murders, but actually make a suggestion of their own about what should of happened to the kids.

all i'm mostly hearing is;
'you can't do this, you can't do this'