An unforgivable crime?

Except for the fact that they spent time in a correctional facility, can no longer speak to their friends. They have forfieted their own history and identity as well as their immediate family's. The only argument in favour of a heavier punishment for the boys would be that 'These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident.'. Should we treat all pre-teens as adults, then?Remember - they were given an indefinite sentence, and they are being released on a life-long life licence. If there is any risk (ie they commit another violent crime) they potentially serve the remainder of their lives in custody. I hope this point of view, from the other side than the myspace bulletin, sparks a discussion that will help make up your mind on the matter, either way.More information can be found here

Their sentence was indefinite - they have been released on parole, which they will spend the rest of their lives on...having to report to a parole officer. They can be imprisoned indefinitely should there be concern about the risk they pose.I think, given the complexities of these situations, this is a pretty good solution. If they remained evidently sociopathic in the 8 years they were in custody, they wouldn't be released.

Yes, some people are able to fool the parole system. I'm not a fool thinking otherwise. I'd imagine it would be much harder for some young adults to fool a panel of experts over a period of years than it is for a school kid to fool a bunch of other school kids and some teachers that you think a certain way. So, in your opinion, we should keep children that commit serious crimes, in prison for their entire adult lives? I don't, and the relevant professionals agree.

If the people that committed this crime were 18 when they did it, I'd agree that 8 years was not enough. Since that is very much not the case, I don't.

Yes, I am suggesting precisely that. These 10 year olds had no problem understanding that it was wrong (I believe that was even established in court), but understanding the full and total ramifications of their actions? No, I don't think they did. Also - I don't think two abused 10 year olds were all that skilled in combating the peer pressure side of the crime.Of course - if you think you have a case for trying and punishing preteens as adults, I'll gladly hear it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well, the board themselves included a judge and a psychiatrist, they would have examined written evidence from their psyciatrisits and the staff at the facility they were held at. It would have included the reports of their psychological tests, their education, their interaction with others, etc etc.I've never had to do that before but I imagine that keeping the truth from the daily scrutiny of the people they came into contact with at the facility so that they will write glowing reports for the parole board would be a lot more difficult than pretending not to be racist for six hours a day/five days a week.I'd imagine that inconsistencies would be evident. Both these boys would have to be quite brilliant to pull this off - and given the fact that they kept wearing blood spattered shoes and paint stained coats after the crime - something tells me that they aren't all that smart. Indeed - it is uncomforting to discuss it. I'd prefer to trust the criminologists and legal experts on this one, the scenario is far too emotive for the likes of us to evaluate it objectively.

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. So you think that we should consider preteens as fully responsible as adults are?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, that's some of the differences. 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. Of course they did, and nobody is saying otherwise - indeed that is why they were convicted in the first place. Pre-meditation is disputable. When they kidnapped him, they only wanted to get him lost as a prank. 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. Nobody is refusing to see that, Legend. That would be stupid. What we are discussing is how should we deal with them?

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? And? Does the fact that they wanted to get him lost mean they should serve more prison time? Nobody is arguing that the killing was an accident. I was pointing out that they did not kidnap with the intent of killing him. That's very different from what I was replying to. You said that people were refusing to see that there are 10 year olds that enjoy causing suffering. I don't think that anyone refuses to see that. And what we need to know - is why? Why shouldn't their age be a mitigating factor? You are once again trying to convince us that preteens should be tried as adults under certain circumstances. I'm happy for you to try and do this if you like. However, you must realize that they are still serving their term - it is indefinite. That means it doesn't end - ever. Not unless something insane happens like the Queen herself grants them a pardon.All that has happened is that they have been taken out of custody, and they can be put back in again at any time. 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?In truth - there is no punishment that fits their crime. It all boils down to whether or not we should treat preteens as adults. If you want to build a case for it, by all means do so. 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.Given that their trial was deemed to be unfair, I think eight years custody and a life licence is enough.

Are you arguing that mitigating factors should not be considered when sentencing somebody?

Our sentencing system does mean what it says. In this case the boys were given an life sentence and an 8 year tarriff. The question is ambigious. It is not perfect. Nor is it as bad as many people would say. I wish a lot of sentencing was tougher than it is. However, I do think that age is a major mitigating factor. Emotive cases like this can blind us to this established legal precedent. An absurd way of looking at it: 'kids you can't make informed choices about the full ramifications of sex, but you can make informed choices about the ramifications of torture and murder'.

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? 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? 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). 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... Nobody is suggesting 10 year olds cant consciously do evil things. Of course they can, this case is a clear example of it.