An unforgivable crime?

quote:

---

...the odds that they will commit this kind of crime again are pretty low.

---

oh, that's allright then!I'm actually in a dispute with one of my neighbours but, you know, after I beat him to a bloody pulp chances are I won't do it again.A smack on the wrist then and I'll be on my way.

---

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

quote:

---

I agree with yall that these guys should be out.

---

hell, why not? all they did was repeatedly, intently and unprovokedly tortured a 3-yr old boy until he was dead.I mean how would they know -at the tender age of 10- that throwing paint over one's face actually hurts?how could they know that kicking a toddler, hitting him with bricks, stones and a 22 lb (10 kg) iron bar would actually cause him damage ?I mean we didn't know that when we were 10, did we ?Let'em all out I say!

---

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

quote:

---

If they remained evidently sociopathic in the 8 years they were in custody, they wouldn't be released.

---

you seem to have far more confidence in the British penitentiary system than the evidence suggests.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

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

are you suggesting that a 10 year old's ability to understand the consequences of abducting a toddler, kicking him, hitting him with bricks, stones and a 22 lb (10 kg) iron bar is somehow less developed than a 18 year old's ??

---

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

I don't know how you reach that conclusion but based on personal experience, both my own and every other 10 year old's I've ever known the consequences of such actions are pretty well understood well before that age.Do you know many 10-year olds who will willingly hit themselves with a 10kg iron bar ? I don't think so, as they are fully aware of the consequences of this action.I bet good money that these two wouldn't hit themselves with a 10kg iron bar but they didn't hesitate to do the same to a 3-yr old toddler they abducted.remember, we're not talking fraud or insider trading here, we're talking about rudimentary and sustained physical violence. There wasn't a momentary impulse or single decision involved in this case. It was a series of planned, repeated and sustained actions.They even tried to destroy the evidence afterwards, which shows they were fully aware of what they've done. This is the definition of being a child ?? yes, but never this! so...the only way to learn the consequences of hitting and kicking and striking someone with an iron bar is to go out and do it ?

---

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

please see my reply to Crashfrog below as he raised the same points as you did.

quote:

---

Also - I don't think two abused 10 year olds were all that skilled in combating the peer pressure side of the crime.

---

I agree with that but I don't think it should be a mitigating factor in any case.

quote:

---

Of course - if you think you have a case for trying and punishing preteens as adults, I'll gladly hear it.

---

I'm not making a case for trying and punishing preteens as adults, I'm making a case for moving away from self-righteous moral absolutes and the culture of absolving responsibility that permeates our justice system.

---

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

quote:

---

From what I saw, you only discussed the 10 year old knowing the immediate consequences of their actions (an iron bar hitting a head), not all of the consequences, not the full depth of them, not in the way an adult knows them.

---

IMO, the only difference netween the 10 yr old doing what they did and an adult doing the same thing is that the adult would possibly think ahead in terms of the police investigation, trial and legal aspects, possibly try to make up an allibi, etc.As far as the immediate consequences of repeatedly hitting and kicking someone until they were dead I think that these kids knew exactly what they were doing in a way that any adult would.They showed pre-meditation, callousness and a sadistic streak. The rest is just refusal to get off our self-righteous high-horse and see things for what they are: there are 10-yr olds out there who consciously enjoy inflicting pain and suffering to others.

---

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

quote:

---

You think spending your entire adolescence in prison is a slap on the wrist?
You think spending the rest of your life under observation is a slap on the wrist?
You think living under a fake identity, loosing all your former life and always living in fear that you'll be found out and kicked to death by a bunch of vigilantes is a slap on the wrist?

---

compared to what they did damn right it is!At least they have a chance to live and enjoy the best part of their lives.It's the same chance they've consciously and intentionally taken away from James and his family.

---

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

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.

---

how is the lack of understanding of any of the above a mitigating factor for what they did ?

quote:

---

Pre-meditation is disputable. When they kidnapped him, they only wanted to get him lost as a prank.

---

so, there was pre-meditation to cause harm and distress even if it initially was just to get him lost.

quote:

---

When they did the first injury (dropping him on his head), they walked away from the whole thing only to return a little while later.

---

Which shows intent. That was no accident, no 'I pushed him for a prank, he fell, hit his head and died' kind of thing. They came back to finish him off.

quote:

---

Nobody is refusing to see that, Legend. That would be stupid. What we are discussing is how should we deal with them?

---

Yes, but some posters argue that they should be let out early because when they committed the crime 'they were only 10'.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. The fact that they didn't is a mockery of the term 'justice' and an insult to the victim's family.

---

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

quote:

---

Look, I get that their decision seems obviously wrong to you.
But that's what children do. Make wrong decisions. Their brains aren't even all there, yet.

---

this isn't about their decisions, this is about our decisions as a society to allow kids to get away with murder (literally) because punishing children is not "the right thing to do".

quote:

---

It just seems obvious to me that a 10-year-old doesn't have the same kind of moral culpability for their actions.

---

that's just another way of saying 'come on...they were only 10'

---

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

quote:

---

Is it the severity of the crime and the apparent premeditation, to you, that makes you think letting them out is injustice?

---

It's the old 'crime should fit the punishment' adage. The fact that, IMO, there were no mitigating circumstances, i.e. no provocation, no momentary 'red mist' or lapse of reason, makes this old saying even more hard-hitting.

quote:

---

I think that they were kids and should not be punished as adulta. I think the legal experts would make the right decision in this case and they decided to let them out. I also think they won't do something like this again and aren't bad, innate, and should be allowed out.

---

that's fine and that's what happened. I just don't think it was just.As per the re-offending factor, I can't see how it can even be taken into consideration in a crime of this nature. This was cold, calculated torture not a heat-of-the moment manslaughter.

quote:

---

Would you feel better if the parents of the victim made a statement that they forgive the boys and wouldn't mind them being let out?

---

No, I still wouldn't fell that justice had been served.

---

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

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.

---

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. 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 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 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 ? I don't know if it's enough but it's definitely 'more just'. 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' 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."

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. 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."

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."

"fully" means exactly what it says on the tin : 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. 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! ?? err... apples and oranges come to mind. 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."