Nature or Nurture

[kneeshooter]

On SomeOtherSpace I just got sent a circular about the James Bulger case. The basic theme of it is that the two murderers (let's not beat around the bush) should be locked up rather than given any chance of living a normal life.

Now, this is exactly the kind of issue that starts a good row - hence my posting it here. I think that they should be allowed to try and resume as normal a life as possible when released from custody, including anonymity if that is necessary, as long as they are properly monitoried by the authorities. Surely the best chance of avoiding reoffending is to help them make something of themselves, not for tabloid reporters to hound them?

Of course, one of my MySpace contacts clearly doesn't agree - so what do you think?

Comments

[ant-girl.livejournal.com]

I would tend to agree with you. Especially as they were so young when they did it.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

If the purpose of jail is to punish with no hope of rehabilitation, we should have just killed them.

They've done their time, they should be given the chance to start their life again.

[snoww-wwhite.livejournal.com]

i think bsad parents make bad children.... this system is fucked, locking them up is fucked up, letting them go is fucked up too...

[snoww-wwhite.livejournal.com]

*bad parents

[wulfboy.livejournal.com]

I think they should be allowed to have a life. I doubt very much they will ever be able to do so, having spent their formative years institutionalised, and with the hysteria that will welcome their release. They killed someone; I like to hope that there is a chance that they have been rehabilitated, understood what they did, and can live with the consequences of it all.

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

I refuse to row. It gives me blisters.

[kissmeforlonger.livejournal.com]

I read Gitta Sereny's excellent book on Mary Bell which had a section on the boys who killed James Bulger. If Mary Bell can live a normal life and have a family, there's no good reason why they can't - provided they have really been rehabilitated.

Life in care with psychiatric help is probably a better place for them to grow up than in their family.

[kingandy]

Yeah, I'm broadly of the opinion that the prison service exists to rehabilitate rather than lock away forever. If you're going to do that, you may as well just execute them, as it'll be cheaper and more humane in the long run.

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

As a taxpayer, more than enough of my money has already been wasted on their upkeep. 9mm rounds are cheap, and there'd be a queue around to block to pull he trigger, aye, and no-one would lose a wink of sleep over it.

[ikkleblacktruck.livejournal.com]

They should have been executed. Rehabilitation is a joke.

[anatosuchus.livejournal.com]

Rehabilitation: Restore to health or normal life by training or therapy after imprisonment, addiction or illness."

Why do you regard this as a joke?


NB: I didn't put the definition to be condescending, merely to check we were on the same page.

[ikkleblacktruck.livejournal.com]

Pretty much what maleghast said. Leopards don't change their spots, no matter how much conditioning you impose.

[load-of-flannel.livejournal.com]

Interesting...

On that basis anyone caught speeding once should be banned for ever automatically.

[ikkleblacktruck.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, yes.

[load-of-flannel.livejournal.com]

Excellent,

Just checking you were being equitably facist. What do we do to vandals?

Do you draw distinctions between crimes motivated by neccessity and crimes motivated by choice?

[ikkleblacktruck.livejournal.com]

Ooh, vandals, let's see.... break their legs?

Crime is crime. In a recent Darkmoon Faire survey, this same kind of question came up - you catch a man poaching in your liege's fields, who claims he was only trying to feed his family (and your liege is well known for his harsh taxes) - do you execute him on the spot as your liege would expect, or let him off with a warning etc etc (you get the idea). Execute him on the spot is always my choice ;)

[kingandy]

You're probably not using the right conditioner.

Try Radiant Colour.

[litt1e-n0thing.livejournal.com]

Couldn't see the debate on there, being a proud non-myspacer ;)

Let them go, it was fucking *ages* ago, they've served their time, sorry if they weren't the typical murderer age that means they die or are old & frail to the point of total uselessness before release - that's how the system is, tough shit. They were what, about 12?
Jesus fucking christ, who hasn't done dumb stuff when egged on by mates at that age? Not to the point of murder, generally, but the amount of attention they've had to suffer, from an early age, for ALL these years, over ONE single murder is just ridiculous. Presumably they've been pretty thoroughly watched & psychiatrically (thass not a word, is it..) assessed over the years, so if the professionals think they're ok, let them go. Stupid one off mistake (MORE than paid for) would be my bet..

[ikkleblacktruck.livejournal.com]

How many murders would be too many, then, would you say?

[(Anonymous)]

Badly phrased that one, didn't i! ..i just mean in comparison to other people that have comitted one single murder (particularly given the age thing, to me that pretty much comes under the category of reduced whateverthewordis, if you weren't fully sober/sane/adult at the time, you shouldn't be treated as though you were a sane, sober, fully functional cold blooded adult killer), the shit they're getting for this is nuts.

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

The "professionals" don't have a great track record here - there are no end of cases of criminals the psychiatrists said were safe who promptly went out and killed/whatever again.

It seems so obvious to me that when someone decides to violate the rights of another, they ought to forfeit their own rights, but the prevailing opinion of society appears to be that the worse you are, the more rights you have...

[(Anonymous)]

True, but how many were high profile case studies from the age of 12 up to whatever they are now? Psychiatrists make a fuck of a lot of mistakes in general, but you'd hope in this case - over so many years, presumably getting some decent ones in as it's such an interesting case - they'dhave come up with some reasonably accurate observations.

I'm generally pretty anti-violence too, and feel that no one has *any* fucking right to inflict their own bad temper & general insanity, physically, on other people, particularly those weaker than themselves, but equally i think one crime at such a young age deserves a carefully monitored second chance before comitting them to the scraoheap for their whole lives, i'd say that's some pretty big violation of rights, comdemning a whole adult life for a 12 year old's mistake.

[litt1e-n0thing.livejournal.com]

..that was me..log in 'tard!

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

But what about a 15-year-old's mistakes, or an 18-year-old's? Where do you draw the line? I would say that a lot of people are as grown up as they're ever going to be at 12-13, which is why in (some) ancient cultures you would be considered more-or-less an adult at that age. I would also say that there are few situations in which the rights of known-criminals ought to take precedence over those of (potential) victims.

A reasonable system would see a psychiatrist who frees someone who offends again get the same sentence. As far as I know, there actually is no consequence for making the wrong decision (if you discount the statistical unlikelihood that the psychiatrist themselves is the next victim, of course).

[litt1e-n0thing.livejournal.com]

Cultures are all different. Over here, 12 year olds are at school, fucking about on playstations, have no real responsibilities at all & aren't expected to take any on for a few years. You can't apply the same reasoning to our 12 year olds as you can to those, for instance, in foreign countries who are expected to look after their families & younger siblings, before shortly being married off & having families of their own.

Lines are always debateable, and age is definately not a set in stone guide to maturity, but for the sake of any law at all there do have to *be* lines drawn, as best they can be, and yeah, nothing's perfect, there will always be mistakes. And 'adult' here is what, 18? Over 14 for criminal prosecution? (i think?)
Putting potential sentences on mistaken psychiatrists - that entirely depends on your opinion of what's worse - people being freed after experts have declared them ok, and there being the odd mistake, or everyone that's ever been convicted of a serious crime being locked up forever, no second chances, even for the converted?

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

If there were a way to give the victims a second chance, maybe, but there isn't. There will always be mistakes and no system is perfect, but the point is that systems do not have to actively look for mistakes to make.

Rehabilitation has got to be a lower priority than protecting the general public.

Oh, tough one...

[maleghast.livejournal.com]

...there is no rehabillitation for what was done and there is no doubt in my mind about that. Some people are evil, and at a time in their lives when they did know that what they were doing was wrong they did it anyway. I don't believe in capital punishment, because it is nothing more than convenience or revenge (or both) and you can't take it back, but I accept that true lifelong incarceration is cruel and costly.

If the professional who are assessing them (and have done for years I might add) and know them far better than we ever can believe that they are not a danger to society, then I don't see that we have any choice but to let them go. In the end, if they have changed enough to be safe for society then they will never escape the prison of their own minds and the full knowledge of what they did; it seems like a small mercy to make sure that someone with a misplaced sense of justice cannot reach into that prison and snuff them out. If anything the greatest and most fitting punishment is to give them that anonymity and let them out (with careful yet non-intrusive supervision of course) and let them see the beauty of a world in which they will never really belong.

[curlwomble.livejournal.com]

If the Probation Service were infallible, I'd say trust their judgement.

If the Courts were infallible I'd believe in capital punishment if they were ever convicted of something of this ilk again.

I believe that the abominations who gang-raped those two girls, tortured one to death then fluffed the execution of the other should be shot like the dogs they are.

But if those two kids have learned the wrongness of what they did and realised that (at the least) they *will* be caught and banged up again if they do it again, then let them out. The risk of another death is a price worth paying for our humanity.

Those bastards aren't human. Shoot them.

[spida-x.livejournal.com]

Its hard to think about this sort of thing without thinking of all teh bad points.
You have to think about who they will be in contact with when they are released.
If they are given a new lease of life different names etc how would you feel if a close friend or relative got involved with them not knowing who they really were.
I think for their safety they would probably be better of locked up for the rest of their life.

[anatosuchus.livejournal.com]

jfs pretty much summed up my position. Permanent incarceration should be reserved for those who pose a contunied danger to the populace. There is a case for "for their own safety" given the appalling vigilante action some people advocate, however this should be at the request of the subjects, not imposed upon them.

[anatosuchus.livejournal.com]

Obviously, "continued" - I wish LJ would sort out editing of comments.

[load-of-flannel.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...

According to the philosophy of our justice system they should be released as they have served their sentence and paid their debt.

However I see no logic that dictates that we should subsequently as a state pay for their protection, police escorts etc.

[rock-n-rollstar.livejournal.com]

I had another friend post about this yesterday too, haha. Loving it.

But i totally agree, plus people would only cause problems and violence and such towards them if they knew who they were. What they did was disgusting, yes, but now that they've been let out, anonyminity is the best option.

That circular always makes me chuckle, though, as they were released like...5 years ago? The authorities, even if they were to pay attention to some stupid chain letter, wouldn't be able to do much about it now, would they?

Apparently one of them was locked in the young offenders home a few doors down from me. Lurvely.

[sixtine.livejournal.com]

True. Both boys are now living anonymously under protection schemes in the UK, despite tabloid whining. There was a huge uproar locally. The story will raise its head again next time there aren't any royal/footballer stories to fill the heads of the plebs.

[sixtine.livejournal.com]

They were less to blame than their carers. What kind of idiot allows a child to watch horror films/play violent computer games? Until someone has an understanding of what is normal and acceptable social behaviour, they shouldn't be exposed to violent fiction. Yes, that applies to LRP too. I have heard people say that by the age of 10 (I think that's how old they were), you know right from wrong. That's only true if someone has spent the last 10 years telling you and enforcing the rules.

Rehabilitate, ensure no continuing psychoses, release. Give people something to live for and they will live.

Liberal (small l) to the core.

[ikkleblacktruck.livejournal.com]

Or just delete them from the gene pool and problem solved.