release or a death penalty?

[Myrrdin]

release or a death penalty?

Shortly a couple of convicted murderers are going to be released. Nothing that new about that. The UK has no death penalty. It's been established under UK and EU laws that they have served their penalty and if the relevant authotities are convinced that they are no longer a menace to society, they can be released.

But this case is slightly different. Theywere both pre-teens when they carried out the offence. Their victim was a toddler. They were caught partly thru the use of cctv pictures. Which have regularly been shown on our TV screens.

It's raised alot of emotions . They have a high public profile. They will have to take on new names and be surreptitously guarded (for their own protection ) when they are released.

They are now in their late teens, early adulthood. Looking totally different to those schoolboy pics, we all recognise. But apparently someone has obtained up to date pics of one of them and published it on an out of the UK website. No doubt rewards are being offered for their discovery both by newspapers for the "scoop" discovery and others seeking retribution.

So questions.
1) Is it justified that they will have to spend the rest of their lives watching over their shoulders, in fear, for a crime that they have seved their time for ? A crime it,s been decided they are unlikely to repeat. Is public release going to be more of a sentence for them, than confinement ?

2) Is it a justifiable use of the unregulated world wide web ? To publish basically a wanted poster ? To use it as vehicle to seek personal retribution ? To endanger someones life?

 

[Valdimer]

Do the crime, do the time. What they did was obviously wrong, but as far as posting their pics on the net, i dont agree with that. Their best option would probably be to move out of the country...

 

[Closet Desire]

The Bulgar case...

What a horrible series of tragedies that will not go away. They've spent nearly half their short lives in confinement. One of them was only ten when they killed that little boy (I think that's right?).

I'm not sure that sending them to youth corrections (where they will go at nineteen) would really serve any purpose at all and they will go "free" only on license from the court with new names and passports. They can be put right back in prison at the whim of the court should they step out of line.

I suppose it's time to put rehab on the line and see what happens. Nobody can excuse what they did, but I do doubt that it was done with the same criminal intent that an adult would have possessed. However uneasy it makes me I side with the decision to release them on the conditions they stated.

 

[KillerMuffin]

What they did was pure evil and ranks right up there with Dahmer and Gacy at their worst. Nevermind that they were pre-adolescents at the time. They knew what they were doing. Have they changed? Have they been "rehabilitated?"

Let's examine. Where did they get the idea to do this? A kidnapping, rape, and torture session doesn't seem like something you'd find on cartoons Saturday morning. How did they choose the victim? Methodically or as opportunity presented? Was this crime premeditated? An accident that grew out of proportion? Considering that they had to kidnap this child from his mother in a busy shopping area, it smacks of premeditation. What did they hope to gain? Money? Enjoyment? Toys? Less homework? What was the motive?

If a child of 9 or 10 is capable of premeditated evil, then is this evil inherent? Are they evil? Or were they just two kids who got out of hand?

I think people can be evil monsters and I think, based on my haphazard readings, that this evilness is something they're born with.

I don't think these two deserve either sympathy or a chance at freedom. I think, based on what little I know about it, they did it for enjoyment, if that's their motive, then if they follow the pattern, they'll do it again.

Bear in mind that these are all my opinions and I don't know much more about these kids than what's been filtered through the media to me.

 

[KillerMuffin]

The Guardian has an interesting little BB set up for the case.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee84cc3

 

[Todd]

Let me get this right:

They were young teens

They murderered

They are late teens

They are being released

Time served??? 6-7 years for murder?????

That just seems so screwed up a life was lost and they only losing 6-7 years of thiers? Lock them up for another 20-30 years.

 

[Myrrdin]

They were around 10 years old Todd, when it happened. There was no sexual abuse involved. They were convicted in a juvenile court of law and sentenced by the judge.
In the British system I don't think a juvenile can be sentenced to life imprisonment (25 to 30 years) Political attempts to have them tried as adults were overturned. Because of the public interest in the case, politicians then tried to increase the sentence. This was overruled by the EU courts. They regarded it as political interfering in judicial matters.
Then they were children. They have now reached 18 years old. Hopefully mature adults.
The parole board had to decide on the weight of phychological experts etc, would they be a danger to society if they were to be released ? If so, the alternative would be to send them to an adult prison, as they are now to old for youth custody.

 

[OUTSIDER]

some time ago when it became apparent that they would be released it was mooted that they would receive new ID's and be put into witness protection and sent abroard to live, but I can't see any new country wanting to take them.

It would mean the UK govt having to come to some sort of arrangement or lie to another govt to get them out of the UK, and what country would take them,would you...?

Sorry I rambled a little there, it's late and I'm off to bed, goodnight all.

 

[Todd]

So age makes a difference to your punish ment when you murder some one? Good to know a tad late.

 

[Angel]

So age makes a difference to your punish ment when you murder some one? Good to know a tad late.

Not just age. Every individual case is different. People kill other people for an infinite number of reasons. Self-defense, insanity, accidental, pure evil...

Age IS a factor. They could have been evil little boys, or they could have been mentally unstable, something could have gone wrong in their upbringing and they could quite possibly be honestly rehabililtated. Or Not.


or or or... there's a whole other side to the story that isn't presented here.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

That is such a tough call...

children really are beastly towards each other, have you seen them. Lord of the flies did have a ring of truth in that sense. They must be taught. Pray tell, what was the penalty for the parents? I am not familiar with that case. Like the Houston case, I really do not want to know the details. I do not want to go there.

 

[OUTSIDER]

Re: That is such a tough call...

children really are beastly towards each other, have you seen them. Lord of the flies did have a ring of truth in that sense. They must be taught. Pray tell, what was the penalty for the parents? I am not familiar with that case. Like the Houston case, I really do not want to know the details. I do not want to go there.

As far as I can remember the parent's where not held accountable, in a way the parents have been as much prisoner's as their children, they've had to live with the shame that they've given birth to a couple of murderer's and they will spend the rest of their life asking them selves what did we do wrong.

 

[alexander tzara]

I think people can be evil monsters and I think, based on my haphazard readings, that this evilness is something they're born with.

I don't think people are born evil but I think that some are possibly predisposed to it because of brain chemistry. A programme I saw about Male Violence showed that low arousal rates (I'm not talking about sexual arousal) are common in many violent criminals (and also, interestingly, in war heros, bomb desposal experts etc). By "low arousal rates" I mean that it takes more stimulus before the fight or flight/ adrenalin kicks in in stressful situations. Maybe a lot of sociopathic violence is commited to get "kicks" because normal activities don't give them the same buzz that normal people get. Sociopaths also, obviously, are able to show little empathy for others and crave immediate gratification of their urges.
But, I think that upbringing plays a strong role too: not necessarily social depravation or abuse (although these are often common in violent criminals' childhoods). I think that a child is much more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour and become sociopathic in later life if he has been brought up in a chaotic environment and not taught proper bounderies. It's terrifying for a child to keep pushing at the boundaries and discover that he can get away with anything, that every tantrum will be rewarded, every whim satisfied. In order to grow into a sociable adult, a child needs to learn rules - which behaviour is acceptable/ which isn't - and feel unconditional love from parents, guardians or other strong role-models/authority figures.

So, upbringing, environment and parenting are important. But I don't think you can punish parents for the crimes of their children. That's just silly. As far as the Bulger case, I think that his killers should remain in prison or a secure psychiatric unit for a much longer period of time (possibly life): not to punish them but for their own and the public safety. I don't believe that they can be successfully rehabilitated - certainly not after such a short period of time - so I think that they may still pose a serious threat to the public. Probably even more of a threat because I think the intense anger of the media and public towards them will only increase their hatred towards society and subsequent anti-social behaviour.
In answer to the thread title, I don't believe in the death penalty but think that violent criminals should be given much longer prison sentences. I just don't believe that very many are rehabilitated (certainly not by the current prison system), so I think the longer they're inside, the safer society is. Ultimately we should be looking at more ways to stop sociopathic tendencies from developing in the first place: schools should teach parenting skills and the importance of giving children boundaries and more research should be done into the physiological aspects of violent behaviour (brain chemistry).

 

[Mischka]

They were around 10 years old Todd, when it happened. There was no sexual abuse involved.

No, they simply methodically tortured and then killed the two year old child. Cameras at the playground showed the two killers slowly and calmly select the boy and then lead him off, holding his hand.

They could have been sent to another prison, but instead they are not only being released, but will be given new identities and relocated to thwart vigilante justice from inflicting on them what they did to the child. At the time of their crime, most future serial killers are still torturing small animals, not humans. I fully expect them both to kill again.

 

[Todd]

Hmmmmm, 10 years old when they KILLED/MURDERED/EXTINGUISHED A LIFE and 7-8 years in juvy is enough to reform them because they were young. But say Charles Manson being an adult when he did is KILLING/MURDERING/EXTINGUISHING OF LIVES was given more than 7-8 years.

Like I say I wish I had of known that age makes a difference, There were a few bullies I would of KILLED/MURDERED/EXTINGUISHED THIER LIVES if I had only know that i would be released and protected in 7-8 years.

 

[mfucker]

age is a bad measure of one's level of maturity, but there has to be some form of measurement. the two boys however, probably knew full well of the consequences of their actions; i'd say life would be a better sentence....

 

[GuyJD]

THAT CERTAINLY SUCKS

I saw that news flash Thrusday evening and was highly pissed off about the matter. I guess that since this is the UK, they will probably have their records erased too. Considering they are going by new names now.

 

[KillerMuffin]

http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/bulger/

This is one of the few really good accounts of the crime itself, rather than the trial, that I've found. Which was actually by accident. I was looking for Edmund Kemper, whose also in there, but irrelevant.

The crime was horrific and heart rending. What those two monsters did that little boy is beyond unconscienable. Rehabilitation nothing. Punish them to the full extent of British Law and then some, I say.

However, eveyone's opinions aside, British Law has had its say and it says let them go free. British Law must be respected.

Anyway, what gives with this European Court thing? They decided that the Brits were wrong and shouldn't have done any of the two monsters sentencing the way they did and that the trial wasn't fair.

 

[OUTSIDER]

The European court is somewhat of a two edged sword, on the one hand it's made us let these two fucker's out and on the other it has forced the govt to retract many bad decision's, so it's a kinda good bad deal.

 

[IndianaJones]

"Is it justified that they will have to spend the rest of their lives watching over their shoulders, in fear, for a crime that they have seved their time for ? A crime it,s been decided they are unlikely to repeat. Is public release going to be more of a sentence for them, than confinement?"

This judicial dilemma reminds me of a traditional Arab approach to the punishment of murderers. And I believe it's still the law in some of the gulf states. The judge may offer the family of the victim the choice of 1) death 2) a money fine 3) release the killer "into God's hands." Keeping in mind, of course, that God is not always merciful.