I'm in two minds about this. I always thought that of course they shouldn't really be - what about Jamie's family; they have to go through pain every day having lost him, but his killers get the protection of the state?
But then i read a book, i think it was called Looking for JJ, that was about something similar - a child killing another child. Obviously the exact situation wasn't the same, but it made me think about the possibility of repentace. What those two boys did was horrible, but it has already resulted in one tragic loss of life. If those two boys have realised how bad what they've done is, and are judged to be safe to go back to the outside world now, what's the point in losing 3 lives? If they weren't protected, they'd have no quality of life. And vigilante justice is not right, no matter how wrong what they did was.
So it's a tough one. On one hand, they deserve to be punished...of course they do. But on the other hand, people can change, and there are probably all sorts of unconsidered factors that made them do what they do.
first time i read about it i was young and i remmeber crying.
They were 10 when they did it, and it's now what? Approaching 20 years later?
They've served their time in prison, and no, that doesn't bring James back. But neither does releasing their identity to the world only to find them 2 days later stabbed 16 times by some chav who thinks he's doing the world a favour.
They're not living a 'life', more of a hollow interpretation of one. Witness protection schemes don't let them have any significant freedom for their own safety, besides think about it; they're not stupid, they know that everyone hates them. If I was them I'd be forever living in fear and paranoia that someone might discover my true identity, and come back with a few of their vigilante friends.
So yes they should be protected, they've been punished enough. Let them be.
Of course they should! Otherwise they'd be killed by Daily Mail-reading mentalists.
Hmm, I'm torn. I'd like to say they shouldn't and I think people should be able to know who they really are, especially people they're close too etc, but at the same time, they where kids when they did it and I feel I should say they didn't know what they where doing, but the whole thing was pretty horrific and when you're 10 I'm pretty sure you'd understand what you're doing. I dunno, I keep going in circles when I think about it, I can see both sides of the argument though.
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.
i dont think they should be protected. i think in cases like this the uk should be like america and bring in the death sentence. its disgusting. at the age of 10, course you're still a child but you know the difference between right and wrong and they must've known that what they were doing was wrong, disgusting and plain psychotic. they dont deserve to even live a **** life where they have to hide their identity and be careful about who they talk to.
one of the boys recently had a child. the woman doesnt know who he really is. that in itself is sick. the woman deserves to know whose child she's bringing into the world.
Didn't they have horrible upbringings with no morals instilled in them? If this is true, and they were failed by their parents or caregivers, then of course they should be protected.