Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An unforgivable crime?
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 71 (324400)
06-21-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Modulous
06-21-2006 10:31 AM


Re: these are the things we can do without
Modulous writes
quote:
What would be just? Should we torture them to death over the course of several hours? Would that be justice?
Funny how you should mention this. For many years now, a part of me tells me that that is indeed justice while another part says no. The debate within me continues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2006 10:31 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 62 of 71 (324402)
06-21-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Modulous
06-21-2006 10:31 AM


Re: these are the things we can do without
quote:
Then we have the understanding of the pain it would cause others, the concept of 25 year in prison (almost three times the amount of life they already had), how it would affect them and their family and their friends, how it would affect their own lives in total.
Legend writes:
how is the lack of understanding of any of the above a mitigating factor for what they did ?
Modulous writes:
Because these are the things that shape morality and deterrent. If you are unable to grasp the full ramifications of your actions, should you be punished as if you are?
Still don't understand. Lack of understanding of the pain it would cause others, mitigates their actions, how exactly ?
Same goes for all the others.
Modulous writes:
Does the fact that they wanted to get him lost mean they should serve more prison time?
No, it just shows that they intended to cause distress, at a minimum. It shows that they planned to cause emotional damage, at least
Legend writes:
I say that, in this particular case, their age shouldn't be a mitigating factor for their actions and therefore they should serve a much longer term than they did.
Modulous writes:
And what we need to know - is why? Why shouldn't their age be a mitigating factor?
I thought I'd already explained that: Because they were fully aware of the immediate consequences of their actions and their effect on their victim. The same way an adult would be.
Modulous writes:
All that has happened is that they have been taken out of custody, and they can be put back in again at any time.
so they are free to live on their own, make friends, watch telly, go out, have an income, etc.
Where does the punishment or deterrent come into that ?
Modulous writes:
Do you think that justice can ever be served by humans in this case? What would be just? Should we torture them to death over the course of several hours? Would that be justice? Do you think that putting them in prison for fifteen years (what the Bulger's thought was reasonable), is more just? Is it just enough?
I don't know if it's enough but it's definitely 'more just'.
Modulous writes:
It all boils down to whether or not we should treat preteens as adults.
No it doesn't. It boils down to treating each case on its merits instead of hiding behind the absolute morality of '10 yr olds can't consciously do evil things'
Modulous writes:
So far I've just seen emotive pleading to the horrors of their crime (which I have agreed would warrant a greater sentence had they been adults). The only case I have seen with any merit is for fifteen years rather than eight.
you're the one who keeps asserting that pre-teens shouldn't be tried as adults. Maybe you could tell me why that should apply, in this particular case.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2006 10:31 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2006 12:58 PM Legend has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 71 (324407)
06-21-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Legend
06-21-2006 11:19 AM


Re: Let'em all out!
that's just another way of saying 'come on...they were only 10'
Well? I mean, come on - they were only ten.
If, instead of 10-year-olds, we were talking about two adults with the minds of 10-year-olds - in other words, profoundly retarded - would you still have a major problem with letting these people out after 8 years of close supervision and treatment in the appropriate facility? Would you be calling for their life imprisonment, or indeed, even their execution? Especially when we could be pretty certain that they weren't going to do it again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Legend, posted 06-21-2006 11:19 AM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Legend, posted 06-21-2006 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 64 of 71 (324410)
06-21-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Legend
06-21-2006 12:46 PM


Re: these are the things we can do without
Still don't understand. Lack of understanding of the pain it would cause others, mitigates their actions, how exactly ?
Same goes for all the others.
I'm not sure how you don't understand. If you don't fully understand the ramifications of your actions, it is unfair to treat somebody as if they did. That is why we don't imprison crazy people and why we have leniency for juveniles. Why else do we not try juveniles as adults?
No, it just shows that they intended to cause distress, at a minimum. It shows that they planned to cause emotional damage, at least
I think the magnitude of that crime is dwarfed by the crime they actually committed. What sentence does 'planning to cause emotional damage' need? Probably a 2 months sentence?
I thought I'd already explained that: Because they were fully aware of the immediate consequences of their actions and their effect on their victim. The same way an adult would be.
So you do think we should try children as adults? The reason we don't, is not because of the immediate consequences, but because of the totality of the consequences - which 10 year olds are not expected to know (and in this case it is agreed they didn't).
so they are free to live on their own, make friends, watch telly, go out, have an income, etc.
Where does the punishment or deterrent come into that ?
The eight years in custody, the ban from their home town, the disowning of the family, and the constant vigilance over them. Knowing that if they step out of line, they could end up in prison.
If you think living like that isn't punishment...
No it doesn't. It boils down to treating each case on its merits instead of hiding behind the absolute morality of '10 yr olds can't consciously do evil things'
Nobody is suggesting 10 year olds cant consciously do evil things. Of course they can, this case is a clear example of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Legend, posted 06-21-2006 12:46 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Legend, posted 06-21-2006 3:45 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 06-21-2006 3:55 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 65 of 71 (324476)
06-21-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Modulous
06-21-2006 12:58 PM


Re: these are the things we can do without
Modulous writes:
If you don't fully understand the ramifications of your actions, it is unfair to treat somebody as if they did.
I think we both agree that they understood perfectly the direct ramifications of their actions, i.e. inflicting of pain and death. Your argument seems to be that they didn't understand the indirect ramifications of their actions, i.e. suffering to families, prison sentence, etc.
My response is: what does it matter ?
They had no problem torturing a 3-yr old, do you honestly think they'd give a toss about the suffering of his family even if they did understand it (which I think they did) ?
Conversely, how can lack of fear of punishment mitigate any crime ? Since when does the line "I'm sorry officer I wasn't aware that I could get 20 yrs for armed robbery, wouldn't have done it if I'd known" is heard in defense of a crime ?
In this particular case, there can be little doubt that the kids knew that what they were doing was illegal as well as morally wrong; they led James through back streets and tried to make it look like an accident when they finished with him.
Modulous writes:
That is why we don't imprison crazy people and why we have leniency for juveniles. Why else do we not try juveniles as adults?
because there are many cases where juveniles do not appreciate or misunderstand the direct ramifications of their actions, e.g. car crime, vandalism, certain types of burglary.
The James Bulger case was not one of those cases. It was intentful, unprovoked and sustained violence. There is no question, IMO, that they didn't know exactly what they were doing and its consequences but they went ahead and did it anyway.
There are no mitigating circumstances here other than the artificial 'they were only 10!'.
Spending 8 years in what is effectively a two-star hotel and then be let out at the prime of their life so they can start again is not just and also serves as no deterrent to any other juveniles who might be tempted to do similar acts.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2006 12:58 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 06-21-2006 6:43 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 66 of 71 (324478)
06-21-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
06-21-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Let'em all out!
quote:
If, instead of 10-year-olds, we were talking about two adults with the minds of 10-year-olds - in other words, profoundly retarded - would you still have a major problem with letting these people out after 8 years of close supervision and treatment in the appropriate facility?
If they were fully aware that hitting someone with an iron bar causes pain and death and they still did it unprovoked and repeatedly, then yes I'd have a big problem with them being let out.
It's always someone else's fault isn't it ?
"Yes M'Lud he was drunk/stressed/uneducated/10/divorced/from a broken home/ etc. It wasn't his fault"
the Teflon shoulder syndrome : nothing sticks!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2006 12:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2006 6:08 PM Legend has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 67 of 71 (324480)
06-21-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Modulous
06-21-2006 12:58 PM


Re: these are the things we can do without
I'm doing this as a reply to Modulus because I can't face reading the entire thread. I checked out the first post and the last page of posts, so forgive me if I repeat things which have already been said.
This case was awful and I have to try conciously not to think about it on a regular basis.
When my son was a few months old and I started to spiral into a horrendous post-natal depression, the question of the release of these two boys made the story headline news all over again. I avoided the news like the plague. Then the inevitable happened and I heard someone describing what had been done to James. It tipped me over the precipice. For weeks, I had vivid pictures in my mind which tortured me. I really couldn't function properly and even now six years on, this is a case that causes me much distress.
My gut reaction as a mother is that I would want those two boys to have done to them what they did to James, except make it last longer. Then I realised that the boys themselves were someone's sons too. How would I feel if it was my son that had done this? Would I disown him at the age of ten? Or would I still love him as my son?
I think I basically came to the conclusion that, while ten year olds have the capacity to knowing right from wrong and understanding what criminality is, it doesn't mean that they do. For example, I'm sure I have the capacity to understand most undergraduate physics, yet I actually know very little because I've never learned any beyond first year undergrad level.
I truly believe that these boys did this because there was something wrong with them, whether it be their upbringing or trauma in their earlier years. I'm not trying to excuse them, not one little bit, but this case reached the prominence it did because it was so unusual, it's not a regular occurrence, it's unfathomable. That's what tells me that it's more than just the evil that humans in general are capable of that caused this.
I don't pretend to know what it is. I don't know why they did it. I have no idea what the proper sentence for them should have been, but I do think that they deserve another chance. They were ten when they did it, they were about eighteen when they were let out. Their "freedom" is not what most of us would call freedom. They will continue to pay for what they did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2006 12:58 PM Modulous has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 71 (324526)
06-21-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Legend
06-21-2006 3:52 PM


Re: Let'em all out!
If they were fully aware that hitting someone with an iron bar causes pain and death and they still did it unprovoked and repeatedly, then yes I'd have a big problem with them being let out.
So now it's "fully aware", is it? "Fully" meaning what?
I don't see that a 10-year-old, being, as they are, ten, can be fully aware of anything. That is, after all, why we have such things as laws against statutory rape.
But, you know, whatever. If you have no problem with the idea that a ten year old can commit murder just like an adult, I trust you'll have no trouble assuming that your average given 10 year old can fuck like an adult, too.
It's always someone else's fault isn't it ?
I'm sorry? Did I give you the impression that someone else was to blame, here?
It would be nice if you could address the issues at hand, instead of hand-waving away arguments with ridiculous "tough on crime" aphorisms. If I wanted to hear that shit I'd tune in Rush Limbaugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Legend, posted 06-21-2006 3:52 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Legend, posted 06-30-2006 6:26 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 69 of 71 (324540)
06-21-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Legend
06-21-2006 3:45 PM


Re: these are the things we can do without
Spending 8 years in what is effectively a two-star hotel and then be let out at the prime of their life so they can start again is not just
1) Spending 8 years from age 10 to age 18 is somewhat different from spending 8 adult years in detention. Those 8 years would have effectively become their entire lives by the time they were 18.
2) A two star hotel Know many youngsters who have been in a detention centre?
You're not on the Sun editorial staff by any chance are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Legend, posted 06-21-2006 3:45 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Legend, posted 06-30-2006 6:36 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 70 of 71 (327686)
06-30-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
06-21-2006 6:08 PM


Re: Let'em all out!
crashfrog writes:
So now it's "fully aware", is it? "Fully" meaning what?
"fully" means exactly what it says on the tin :
Legend writes:
If they were fully aware that hitting someone with an iron bar causes pain and death and they still did it unprovoked and repeatedly, then yes I'd have a big problem with them being let out.
I am fully aware of the consequences of hitting someone with an iron bar. I was fully aware of them when I was 10. There is absolutely no reason to believe these kids weren't fully aware too. if you know of any evidence that suggests these kids had mental retardation problems please feel free to present it. Otherwise, take your politically correct sensitivities to the council estates of Liverpool and see how they fare there.
crashfrog writes:
I don't see that a 10-year-old, being, as they are, ten, can be fully aware of anything.
smashing! let's stop sending them to school then, expect them to know math and grammar, respect others and refrain from stealing and murdering. Come on, they're only 10!
crashfrog writes:
But, you know, whatever. If you have no problem with the idea that a ten year old can commit murder just like an adult, I trust you'll have no trouble assuming that your average given 10 year old can fuck like an adult, too.
?? err... apples and oranges come to mind.
crashfrog writes:
It would be nice if you could address the issues at hand, instead of hand-waving away arguments with ridiculous "tough on crime" aphorisms.
what arguments?? your only argument so far has been "COme on they're only 10!". If you can explain how being 10 somehow makes you less culpable of abducting, torturing and eventually killing a 3-yr old boy then go ahead.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2006 6:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 71 of 71 (327689)
06-30-2006 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by cavediver
06-21-2006 6:43 PM


Re: these are the things we can do without
cavediver writes:
Spending 8 years from age 10 to age 18 is somewhat different from spending 8 adult years in detention. Those 8 years would have effectively become their entire lives by the time they were 18.
Yes, and then they'll have another 60 years or so during which to rebuild their lives. Your point??
cavediver writes:
A two star hotel Know many youngsters who have been in a detention centre?
As a matter of fact I've known three. I suggest you get to know some too. Also stop reading those Dickens novels. Times have changed since then, you know!

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 06-21-2006 6:43 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024