Why were James Bulger's killers released?

They were 10 years old when they did it so there was a limit on how long they could go down for. Stephen Lawrence's murderers were under the age of 18 when they killed him and even though they've been convicted as adults who have done other terrible things since his murder and shown no remorse whatsoever... Their sentences were very light because of the ages that they were when they killed him.

What about abu qatada? preventing us from letting him go to jordan to face justice for terrorist offences hes committed over there and before you through the whole 'oh he might be tortured its not fair'

1) who are we to stand in the way of jordian justice to uphold the freedom of a terrorist whos already been proven guilty for suspected offences in britain (and look what sentence he got? an absolutely pathetic one at that)

2) Did he think about the rights and freedoms of the people he helped murder in cold blood? (and if you say thats irrelevant then your supporting the fact that you value the rights of the criminal more so than being any form of retribution to the victims' families)

If you want to start a thread about Abu Qatada, go ahead.

you asked for an example from the EPC i gave you one

It wasn't about whether they should have stood trial was it? Wasn't it about whether 10 year olds can be tried as adults?

Why don't you try reading it, the ECHR ruled the trial was unfair because they couldn't have understood the proceedings at such a young age, I agree they probably didn't, but they had legal representation to act on their behalf that did.

This is the complaint that the ECHR upheld:

"Nonetheless, the formality and ritual of the crown court must at times have seemed incomprehensible and intimidating for a child of 11, and there is evidence that certain of the modifications to the court room, in particular the raised dock which was designed to enable the applicants to see what was going on, had the effect of increasing their sense of discomfort during the trial since they felt exposed to the scrutiny of the press and public.

There was psychiatric evidence that, at the time of the trial, both applicants were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of what they had done to the two-year-old, and that they found it impossible to discuss the offence with their lawyers.

They had found the trial distressing and frightening and had not been able to concentrate during it.

In such circumstances the court did not consider that it was sufficient for the purposes of Article 6i that the applicants were represented by skilled and experienced lawyers.

Although their legal representatives were seated, as the Government put it, "within whispering distance", it was highly unlikely that either applicant would have felt sufficiently uninhibited, in the tense court room and under public scrutiny, to have consulted with them during the trial or, indeed, that, given their immaturity and disturbed emotional state, they would have been capable outside the court room of co-operating with their lawyers and giving them information for the purposes of their defence.

It followed that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in breach of Article 6i."

Basically they are saying that because of the Post Traumatic Stress the two boys were suffering as a result of the murder they committed they were unable to understand the court proceedings, therefore the trial shouldn't have taken place. That's the most twisted piece of logic I've ever heard.

Call me old-fashioned, but do you think there are some crimes that we should consider unforgiveable? There seems to be an attitude that suggests anyone who agrees with the death penalty must be a right-wing nutter. Well I'm on the left and whilst I think the death penalty maybe a step too far, life imprisonment and I mean life, may be the best option in certain cases. Firstly, it isn't just about the harm caused to the victim. Notice how Bulger's parents divorced shortly after the murder. What about siblings, grandparents? You aren't just destroying one person's life, it's the lives of an entire family. Secondly I have to wonder what sort of murderer can ever come out of prison and live a normal life anyway. I mean could Bulger's killers really live a normal life after what they did? And if they could I'd actually find that rather disturbing. I mean how could you after what they did?

It may be cruel to lock someone up for life with them having no hope of ever being released, but I think it may sometimes be necessary. I'd also ask why murderers who show no remorse are released from prison? I don't think simply serving a sentence is enough. If they can't show remorse for what they have done then I would keep them inside indefinitely.

Because they were tried in an adult court. Try reading it in context.

There is no limit, they were detained at her majesty's pleasure, her representative in government determined that they should serve a minimum of 15 years, but there was no upper limit.

I'm guessing the reason is more to do with the fact they abducted a 2 year old child, sexually assaulted and tortured him, before smashing his head in with an iron bar and leaving him dead, tied to a railway track for him to be decapitated by a passing train.

The brutality of it makes people get emotional, but at the end of the day they were still 10 so you can't exactly compare their mentality to one of adults. The fact that 1 of them hasn't committed any offences since shows that what you've done when young/immature doesn't necessarily shape who you are in the future.

When I was 10 I knew not to go around abducting, torturing, sexually assaulting and murdering 2 year old boys, this wasn't even a spur of the moment thing, they had planned it and tried to abduct another boy before.

You have to thinmk why they planned, their parents didn't bring them up properly & let them see horror movies which they reenacted at such a young age. Do u think the law should base everything on maturity instead of age?

I honestly believe they thought it wasn't wrong as they got abuse by their parents & watched horror movies. This would result in them thinking this type of behaviour was acceptable, I still think 10 is quite young to know the full consequences of ones actions though. Say if they were born in a loving family & were exposed to every1 being nice & friendly with each other then I'm adamant this never would of happened.

I suspect there are many millions of children who have had as bad an upbringing as them, yet they didn't go out and murder someone.

Let's say for a minute your scenario is correct and they were just doing what their parents had done to them, but it went too far, I could buy it right up to the point where they caved his head with an iron bar, tied his body to a railway track and waited for a train to slice him to bits.

But then when does that excuse run out? Somebody who is 20 or 30 could blame their upbringing for their crimes. Do you honestly believe that they thought what they were doing was right or normal?