[Kibalchich]

(Original post by James82)
Yes. A 10 year old knows the difference between right and wrong, they know that you shouldn't kill people and they know the consequence of killing someone is that you go to prison.

Do you know how a moral sense develops? How empathy develops? Theory of mind, stuff like that?

[James82]

(Original post by Rascacielos)
They might well have known what they were doing, but that doesn't mean they didn't appreciate the seriousness of it or the consequences. If you're brought up as an [impressionable] kid in a violent home where you regularly view films of a violent nature, then you might well start to believe that violence and killing is the norm.

It's worth noting that the brain continues to develop until 25 years old.

So does that mean you believe we should be lenient on all convicted murders under 25, or maybe we shouldn't even bother taking them to court and just give the little rascals a rap on the knuckles and let them know it wasn't their fault?

[James82]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Do you know how a moral sense develops? How empathy develops? Theory of mind, stuff like that?

Do you? Do scientists?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by James82)
Do you? Do scientists?

Generally, yes. It's quite well accepted now that disruption to attachment can have consequences for brain development, leading to diminished capacity for empathy, inability to control impulses and regulate emotion. I think I posted a link earlier in the thread about it.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/iss...n_development/

[James82]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Generally, yes. It's quite well accepted now that disruption to attachment can have consequences for brain development, leading to diminished capacity for empathy, inability to control impulses and regulate emotion. I think I posted a link earlier in the thread about it.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/iss...n_development/

To start with nearly ever single sentence in that report contains the word 'may', so I would hardly say the author is convinced, let alone the wider scientific community. You will have to point me to the part where it says children may become violent murderers, because all I can see is that it concludes children may become withdrawn, depressed, stressed, suffer memory loss and a lot of other things, but not one mention of becoming violent or that they might believe murdering somebody is normal.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by James82)
To start with nearly ever single sentence in that report contains the word 'may', so I would hardly say the author is convinced, let alone the wider scientific community. You will have to point me to the part where it says children may become violent murderers, because all I can see is that it concludes children may become withdrawn, depressed, stressed, suffer memory loss and a lot of other things, but not one mention of becoming violent or that they might believe murdering somebody is normal.

Yes, it says "may" because these things are not direct causal links, nothing to do with human behaviour ever is. Its always about multiple causal factors and influences.

Anyway, on the violence issue, you clearly didn't read very carefully

Hyperarousal. When children are exposed to chronic, traumatic stress, their brains sensitize the pathways for the fear response and create memories that automatically trigger that response without conscious thought. This is called hyperarousal. These children have an altered baseline for arousal, and they tend to overreact to triggers that other children find nonthreatening (Child Trauma Academy, n.d.). These children may be highly sensitive to nonverbal cues, such as eye contact or a touch on the arm, and they may read these actions as threats. Consumed with a need to monitor nonverbal cues for threats, their brains are less able to interpret and respond to verbal cues, even when they are in a supposedly nonthreatening environment, like a classroom. While these children are often labeled as learning disabled, the reality is that their brains have developed so that they are constantly alert and are unable to achieve the relative calm necessary for learning (Child Trauma Academy, n.d.).

They may also be displaying unusual and/or difficult coping behaviors. For example, abused or neglected children may:

Be unable to control their emotions and have frequent outbursts
Be quiet and submissive
Have difficulties learning in school
Have difficulties getting along with siblings or classmates
Have unusual eating or sleeping behaviors
Attempt to provoke fights or solicit sexual experiences
Be socially or emotionally inappropriate for their age
Be unresponsive to affection

There's also been loads of studies linking violent offenders with violent upbringings. Have a Google, its a fascinating subject.

[Kibalchich]

I found an abstract of an article here
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00002

he relationship between childhood victimization and violent offending is examined using a prospective cohorts design. Official criminal histories for a large sample of substantiated and validated cases of physical and sexual abuse and neglect (N = 908) from the years 1967 through 1971 were compared to those of a matched control group (N = 667) of individuals with no official record of abuse or neglect. Sex-specific and race-specific effects of childhood victimization and other characteristics of violent offending (chronicity, age of onset, temporal patterns, and continuity) are assessed. Childhood victimization increased overall risk for violent offending and particularly increased risk for males and blacks. In comparison to controls, abused and neglected children began delinquent careers earlier. Temporal patterns of violent offending were examined and childhood victims did not differ in age of arrest for first violent offense, nor were they more likely to continue offending. The findings and their limitations are discussed, as well as directions for future research.

here's one linking birth problems with future violent offending

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...077.x/abstract

There's loads more

this is not controversial stuff

[James82]

No, it's not controversial that people from violent homes go on to be more violent themselves, but does that mean you should make allowances for them and let them roam the streets while anybody from a stable home committing a violent crime gets locked up? Does it also mean that they don't know what they are doing is wrong?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by James82)
No, it's not controversial that people from violent homes go on to be more violent themselves, but does that mean you should make allowances for them and let them roam the streets while anybody from a stable home committing a violent crime gets locked up?

No. Did anyone suggest this?

(Original post by James82)
Does it also mean that they don't know what they are doing is wrong?

Depends. Some will, some won't. Psychopaths don't, for example.

[James82]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
No. Did anyone suggest this?

In which case it's irrelevant, if you don't think allowances should be made due to people's backgrounds then why did you bring it up?

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Depends. Some will, some won't. Psychopaths don't, for example.

Was Thomson or Venables a Psychopath?

[Rascacielos]

(Original post by James82)
So does that mean you believe we should be lenient on all convicted murders under 25, or maybe we shouldn't even bother taking them to court and just give the little rascals a rap on the knuckles and let them know it wasn't their fault?

Yes, because I'm really that lenient on people and think no one should be punished because scientifically their brain isn't fully developed.

Don't be stupid.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by JDC)
Simply because modern day pretentiousness.

Political Correctness dictates that rehabilitation is more humane than "life meaning life" with custodial sentences. They must been seen to give these people a second chance (even though it's their third or fourth now - even more in some cases.).

It's ridiculous but our legal system wants to satisfy the minority.

WHat has 'political correctness' got to do with prison scentencing? talk about dimwitted DM logic taken to the extreme


Re OP, sadly the vast majority of abused kids grow up to be abusers themselves -as in the case of these two - in theory there is a logic to keeping them locked up permantly to keep away a high risk pair from doing something similar in their adulthood, seeing as both fit the typical profile. Howver the cost implication is alway there, seeing as it costs nearly 70k a year now to house a prisoner.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by Genocidal)
This. Remember they were only 10 and most likely had no idea of the long lasting effects that their actions would have caused. Nobody that age can truly understand.

I think it's more like they should be indefinitely locked up because if they did what they did at 10 years old, imagine what they'd be capable of as adults. That to me seems more important than whether they fully grasped how bad a thing they did.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by James82)
In which case it's irrelevant, if you don't think allowances should be made due to people's backgrounds then why did you bring it up?

Why did I bring what up? I was responding to your assertion that 10 year olds are as emotionally mature as adults and that a 10 year old always knows right from wrong. I also agreed with you about the problems of a youth court trying this kind of case and suggested an overhaul of youth courts.

From this, you extrapolate that I think Venables and Thompson should be free to "roam the streets". Most strange.

(Original post by James82)
Was Thomson or Venables a Psychopath?

I've no idea. Have you?

[James82]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
Why did I bring what up? I was responding to your assertion that 10 year olds are as emotionally mature as adults and that a 10 year old always knows right from wrong. I also agreed with you about the problems of a youth court trying this kind of case and suggested an overhaul of youth courts.

From this, you extrapolate that I think Venables and Thompson should be free to "roam the streets". Most strange.

At least we both agree they should still be in prison. But, I don't understand why you are showing me reports about people from violent backgrounds when you are trying to argue whether a 10 year old is emotionally mature enough to be tried as an adult.

(Original post by Kibalchich)
I've no idea. Have you?

No, but again it is something you brought up, why state that psychopaths don't know right from wrong when you have no idea whether Thomson and/or Venables is/are/was/were psychotic?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by James82)
At least we both agree they should still be in prison. But, I don't understand why you are showing me reports about people from violent backgrounds when you are trying to argue whether a 10 year old is emotionally mature enough to be tried as an adult.

Because clearly their background is relevant if we are trying to understand why they did what they did and their capacity to understand right from wrong.

(Original post by James82)
No, but again it is something you brought up, why state that psychopaths don't know right from wrong when you have no idea whether Thomson and/or Venables is/are/was/were psychotic?

Why don't you go back and follow the argument and read it context. All should become clear.

[hippy272]

(Original post by Mick Travis)
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.

The only reason they did what they did was what was motivated by the film 'Chucky' and copied a particular scene. That was how they got the idea and were easily brainwashed into trying it for themselves, the parents of course should have done more to prevent such content from them. In answer to your question i think for their own safety they should not have been released, you just don't know who could hunt them down and do the same because their crimes were so serious at that time.