Jamie Bulger's killers are being released

As I hinted at before, there are marked differences in the way children grasp the finality and implications of death. While these kids were clearly disturbed little bastards for the measure of brutality they inflicted on that poor little tot, there is a distinct likelihood they had no concept of murder per se.

Although no legal eagle, is there not some requirement in the idea of knowingly and willingly that you fully understand what you did?

[quote]A Child’s Concept of Death
Developmental age is a broad term used to describe the maturity of thought process development. Children may be more or less mature in their thinking and processing information, than others, at a similar age. The following are children’s concepts of death, according to common developmental ages:

Infant
For an infant, death has no real concept. Infants do, however, react to separation from parent(s), painful procedures, and any alteration in their routine. An infant that is terminally ill will require as much care, physically and emotionally, to maintain a comfortable environment as any age group. Maintaining a consistent routine is important for the infant and his/her caregivers. Because infants cannot verbally communicate their needs, fear is often expressed by crying.

Toddler
For the toddler, death has very little meaning. He/She may receive the most anxiety from the emotions of those around him/her. When a toddler’s parents and loved ones are sad, depressed, scared, or angry, he/she senses these emotions and become upset or afraid. The terms “death” or “forever” or “permanent” may not have real value to children of this age group. Even with previous experiences with death, the child may not understand the relationship between life and death. Death is not a permanent condition.

Preschool
Preschool-aged children may begin to understand that death is something feared by adults. This age group may view death as temporary or reversible, as in cartoons. Death is often explained to this age group as “went to heaven.” Most children in this age group do not understand that death is permanent, that everyone and every living thing will eventually die, and that dead things do not eat, sleep, or breathe. Death should not be explained as “sleep” to prevent the possible development of a sleep disorder.

Their experience with death is influenced by those around them. They may ask questions about “why?” and “how?” death occurs. The pre-school child may feel that his/her thoughts or actions have caused the death and/or sadness of those around. The pre-school child may have feelings of guilt and shame.

When a child in this age group becomes seriously ill, they may believe it is their punishment for something they did or thought about. They do not understand how their parents could not have protected them from this illness.

This idea may make the preschool-age sibling of a dying child to feel as if they are the cause of the illness and death. Young siblings of dying children need reassurance and comforting during this time period, as well.

School-age
School-aged children are developing a more realistic understanding of death. Although death may be personified as an angel, skeleton, or ghost, this age group is beginning to understand death as permanent, universal, and inevitable. They may be very curious about the physical process of death and what happens after a person dies. They may fear their own death because of uncertainty of what happens to them after they die. Fear of the unknown, loss of control, and separation from family and friends can be the school-aged child’s main sources of anxiety and fear related to death.[/quote]

HG

From memory these kids served 8-10 years in goverment suprivised institutions, which is not far off what an Adult might expect to serve for armed robbery in the UK. Naturally the emphasis should be on rehabilitation but of course we effectively housed them with rapists, car thieves, muggers, armed robbers etc etc etc. They will have learned skills from these new acquaintances and an attitude to law and order that will have made them far more dangerous on release that they were going in.

On the plus side, if the rumour that they have gone to Aus is true then hey presto problem solved…I’m kidding!

I believe that the legal system in the Uk went through a full review and changes in relation to child crime (&punishment) as a result of this crime but don;t have the details…anyone?

So odd coming from you of all people. It’s almost as though someone stole your avatar. :s

You who are fanatical about transforming mangy, neglected, flee-ridden street animals into decent domestic pets, yet you’re not willing to give a second chance to a young child who has been brutalized and deprived of love and support for the first years of his life, a child who NEVER had a chance at all.[/quote]

If the child were a mangy, neglected, flea-ridden street urchin, I would agree with you. If the dog had killed/bitten a person (not in fear and self-defence as most aggressive dogs have done) I would suggest the same: it has a right to live but must never be put in a position where it can kill/bite again. Of course, a dog that kills won’t be extended such courtesies, but one that bites might.

Read what I’m saying: the children are also victims, but potentially dangerous ones; therefore they should be kept under strict supervision at all times. Not punished.

So odd coming from you of all people. It’s almost as though someone stole your avatar. :s

You who are fanatical about transforming mangy, neglected, flee-ridden street animals into decent domestic pets, yet you’re not willing to give a second chance to a young child who has been brutalized and deprived of love and support for the first years of his life, a child who NEVER had a chance at all. [/quote]

No, Stray Dog is taking the victim of the injustice into care.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Life imprisonment for 10 year-olds?

What if they were 8 years old?

How about 6?

Would life imprisonment still be appropriate?[/quote]

Red herring - age is not the issue. The issues are justice for the victim, and rehabilitation of the offenders, if that is something society considers worthwhile, and I am going to assume it is. If you accept any restrictions at all on the liberty of released offenders, then we are discussing a matter of degree. Would you allow a released multiple child rapist to supervise the bathing of, say, mentally disabled children who would be unable to reject any sexual advances? If you would, on the basis of his past offences, then why would you reject outright restriction on the liberty of Thompson and Venables?

I would further argue that their circumstances prior to the acts in question are only a possible explanation of why these kids acted the way they did. I am not altogether certain how far down this road we should go in sentencing. If a poor black disabled woman who was abused as a child murders a 5-year old is that better or worse than the 5-year old being murdered by a white millionaire stock broking Peer of the Realm? Are poor black disabled women (or whatever cliched minority group would best illustrate this point in your cultural frame of reference) to be considered as having less moral fibre than others? That is of course a reductio ad absurdum (but I think it where that line ends up), but what about ten-year olds who had a fantastic upbringing and did this?

I really do think this is arse-about-face. Or maybe I am arse-about-face? Far better to have these sorts of debates over several bottles of ale.

Where is our (non) resident head shrinker? :wink:

I don’t have any details, but I was in the Criminal Law class of one of the foremost authorities on British criminal law at the time, and he said that this case was the talk of the legal community not only in the UK, but throughout the Commonwealth and in the US. He also said it would have been a lucrative year on the lecture circuit had he been a younger man. :laughing: Oops. I mean: :frowning:

It is interesting to see Mother Theresa’s take on this as a US lawyer and liberal, as well as Nurse Ratchet’s as a, er, an, um… well I don’t know if I can say. But a relevant opinion.

Better to send them to live in Texas. THAT way they know fer sure that if they fuck up again they’ll never get out…ever.

I wonder what sort of a sentence Jamie Bulger’s mum would have got if she’d offed the pair that murdered her son?

I wonder what sort of a sentence Jamie Bulger’s mum would have got if she’d offed the pair that murdered her son?[/quote]

Very interesting point Hex, though i imagine she would have got away with claiming temporary insanity, quite justifiably in her position, it is about what the two gits deserved.

I wonder what sort of a sentence Jamie Bulger’s mum would have got if she’d offed the pair that murdered her son?[/quote]

Very interesting point Hex, though i imagine she would have got away with claiming temporary insanity, quite justifiably in her position, it is about what the two gits deserved.[/quote]

Time served if I was on the jury.

Lock them up and throw away the key, dispose of them (kill them), or reform. Those that can’t be reformed dispose of or lock up. If given the choice between locking up and disposing, I would probably choose disposal for most cases.

I don’t know what it’s like in the UK, I just know Milwaukee. Little kids get their hands on guns and kill people all the time. Little kids beat on kids all the time. I don’t know why (actually I do) people make such a big deal out of someone gettin’ beaten to death and why death is the crucial deciding factor as to how extreme something was. If this kid got beaten (hard) and lived, it just would have been another beating, they would have got some years in prison and been released (no big story there.)

The kid died. So? How different would this have been if he didn’t. Would that make it a little more OK (even if they were just as nasty and violent?) They were just the unlucky two that beat someone like this and he died.

Read this part again (from the Wiki):

That’s some serious shit to be living in. Reading stuff like that bothers me just as much as reading about a kid getting beaten to death. People care about the case because they think “That could have been MY kid.”

When I say society, I mean the UK, Europe, the planet. There’s a soccer field close to my house (back home.) It would take almost no money to get a club together that would take kids off the streets fucking about and on to the field learning about team work. It WOULD prevent murders and beating in the future.

What to do about this ONE case? Not sure. Sounds like what happened was a humaine thing to do considering their age. If not that, what? Locking them up for a long time so they can one day be released and turn into the type of adult that breeds more of these kinds of kids. They certainly wouldn’t have been put in prison for life (because of their age I’m guessing, and is there really a “for life”, I thought that meant 20 years or something.)

Even if I was a parent of the kid that got killed I’m pretty sure I’d feel the same way. I’m not the kind of person that seeks revenge (anymore, I definitely was at a time.)

I can. Bullshit artist. I don;t really grasp the legal; repercussions of this, but it seems to me there should be something. Saw this:

[quote]It was important to establish that Jon understood the permanence of death, which would affect his understanding of the severity of his crime. Jon said that death meant that people could not come back, and had an idea of heaven and hell as permanent places. In fact, he claimed to be scared of television violence. If there was a scene in a movie with