James Bulger's killers - Should they be protected?

And how would you know that? As so often in debates like this, I'm shocked at some of the opinions flying around.

Yeah but they are also likely to be case-hardened, and less sympathetic? And further to this, having it in an adult court meant that there was no anonymity or protection from the press, so at 11 they had a country full of people who wanted to kill them (hence the need for such heavy protection now).

Just to explain this point, because how you have said it is midleading, the ECJ made that ruling because the initial trial was unfair (due to the boys being tried as adults), and then the home secretary raised the sentence on the basis of the views of the sun readers, which was said to be an irrelevant consideration. So he acted undemocratically, and beyond his powers, which is why the ECJ ruling went the way it did.

first time i read about it i was young and i remmeber crying.

grr.

They were protected so the death-wishing was of little consequence. What was important was that the case was heard in open-court to ensure a fair-trial (naturally) and to ensure that the public interest in the case was given what it deserved- the facts.

As for the judges, I don't know about them being case-hardened. This would certainly be the first case of its kind for them. Also, as judges, they will be great believers in the criminal justice system- including rehabilitation.

Yeah I could've worded that better. However, their punishment, in my opinion, is still not proportionate to the offence. They now, presumbly, live and work and play whilst everyone around them remains oblivious. James Bulger's mother is now too afraid to let her other younger sons play in the street alone. Justice my arse.

I see your point, but do you not think that this could have had the opposite effect, and resulted in the case being looked upon with less sympathy because of public opinion rather than just the facts? That is, after all, why the home sec raised the sentence by 5 years after the 10yr sentence was issued..If the case wasn't so highly publicised, the trial could have been fairer, arguably..

They should be named and shamed for the disastrous crime they committed. Why should they be allowed to live a relatively normal life when James Bulger's mother has to endure the pain of loosing her child every single day of her life?
It's inhumane to even think that they should be allowed out of prison - they should have been locked up for life and NEVER been released.

I believe in the ability to reform, particularly from a crime you committed when you were a child. I'm sure a parole hearing would be best placed to judge whether indeed they have.

Of course I believe they should be protected, for the obvious reason that if they were not, some scumbag idiots would come along and try to do harm to them, thinking they were somehow morally justified.

The Home Sec succumbed to public pressure because he is elected and needs to care what the public think. That's why we need an independent judiciary (which we have, and which the ECJ made sure we had). The judges won't take into account what the layman thinks. After all, they're in a much better position to judge than the layman, and don't need to be popular. The only way that media really influences the courts is by prejudicing the verdict via influencing the jury. This was an open and shut case in that regard.

I think it's debatable whether or not the judiciary are completely closed off to public opinion. In theory they should be, yes, but I'm not sure that they always are....But it's a moot point, and not really relevant. I respect your opinion wholly, I'm just looking at the other possibilities..

I think they should have been hung, period. A sane ten-year old has all the responsibility in the world, if he tortures and murders an infant.

An organism excretes its waste; and evil filth such as those two needs to be excreted from the social organism.

If a society cannot punish animals such as them properly, then it begins to be the case that the society and its laws are of no value to the good and moral citizens, and it deserves to be torn down and replaced.

It's a good debate- I just place a lot of faith in "the system". Especially our judges, honestly, they are so fecking intelligent. *is in awe*

This thread wasn't really about whether capital punishment is right or wrong, it was about whether or not they should be protected.

A lot of sentences could be said to be unfair - but that isn't the fault of the boys here - it is a flaw in the criminal justice system. Should the fact that the COURT didn't give them a high enough sentence mean that they are not allowed protection, and put into a society where they are likely to be killed?

And naturally she is going to feel like that - the impact that this must have had on her life isn't imaginable.. but isn't that the same for any victim of crime? Just because this case was highly publicised doesn't mean that it should be treated any differently.