Turn on thread page Beta

'I'll die here', said tortured boy watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: What sentence do you think the attackers should face?
    Capital Punishment
    89
    23.54%
    Life Imprisonment
    97
    25.66%
    A jail term with psychiatric help - released at some point when theyre 'deemed safe'
    129
    34.13%
    Psychiatric Hospital until 'deemed safe'
    45
    11.90%
    Put back into foster care with more qualified parents and on-hand psychiatric help
    14
    3.70%
    Other... (Speicify in thread)
    4
    1.06%

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Natasha_c)
    The situation should be looked into but if there was not actual abuse then no, having their children taken away from them would be apt anyway. The children are 11, the parents should not be accountble for their actions only their own.
    By law they are responsible for their children up to a certian point depending on the age of the child.
    It is no-body's fault if a baby hits you.
    If it is a 5 year olds fault if they kick someone
    But isn't there an indirect responsibility on the parents to tell them what they've done is wrong if they wish to continue to remain as citizens in this particular liberal society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    They're.

    Do you mean that you know what the concepts of right and wrong are, or that you know which actions are right or wrong?
    I'm presuming you're a realist and cognitivist.
    Both, at least not that far from what an adult should understand


    (Original post by there's too much love)
    By law they are responsible for their children up to a certian point depending on the age of the child.
    It is no-body's fault if a baby hits you.
    If it is a 5 year olds fault if they kick someone
    But isn't there an indirect responsibility on the parents to tell them what they've done is wrong if they wish to continue to remain as citizens in this particular liberal society?
    I agree it's their responsibility to teach their kids right and wrong etc but not to the point where they should be punished by the law for the children’s actions.
    Like I said they should have the children taken away from them in this case (although them being detained would do this anyway), be punished for the actions against the children if there were any etc. But some kids are just horrible, regardless of the parents.

    Sorry about the bad spelling, I will try harder lol.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Natasha_c)
    Both, at least not that far from what an adult should understand




    I agree it's their responsibility to teach their kids right and wrong etc but not to the point where they should be punished by the law for the children’s actions.
    Like I said they should have the children taken away from them in this case (although them being detained would do this anyway), be punished for the actions against the children if there were any etc. But some kids are just horrible, regardless of the parents.

    Sorry about the bad spelling, I will try harder lol.
    No need to apologise for it I just thought you'd like it pointing out. I love my grammar and spelling mistakes being pointed out so I can try to avoid them in the future.

    I agree with you about punishment. I don't think punishment is ever a good thing. My main point is about the assignment of blame. I'd argue that if blame falls at least some in this instance is applicable to the parents.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    Violence is bad... let's let some lads batter the **** out of two others, then give them a short sentence and help them through the rest of their wasted lives in any way we can. Clever.
    So what you're suggesting is:

    It's not the first ever case of something like this happening nor likely the last but this time we'll make an exception to the law.

    Violence is bad, and to teach them and show the public that violence is bad we'll murder two prepubescent children.Clever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    They're young and still impressionable, so I think jail time with psychiatric help might actually do them good.

    If they were a few years older though, I'd be all for giving them life in prison.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    They're young and still impressionable, so I think jail time with psychiatric help might actually do them good.

    If they were a few years older though, I'd be all for giving them life in prison.
    Out of curiosity if whilst in prison they became like buddhist monks (from the perspective of the guards), took vows to do no harm, meditated, so on so forth, would you still think they should remain in prison for life? (the hypothetical kids like these, but a bit older).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Out of curiosity if whilst in prison they became like buddhist monks (from the perspective of the guards), took vows to do no harm, meditated, so on so forth, would you still think they should remain in prison for life? (the hypothetical kids like these, but a bit older).
    Depends on the length of the prison sentence. Do you mean "for life" as in forever, or "for life" as in the minimum 25 year "life sentence" that they actually give people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's quite sad how the majority of people on here would want to see these children either killed or imprisoned at their age. Jail would only make their contempt for their fellow man even worse. They should be rehabilitated, but kept in a secure psychiatric hospital until 'deemed safe'. Even after that they should have regular meets with social workers to make sure they're not a threat to anyone.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Depends on the length of the prison sentence. Do you mean "for life" as in forever, or "for life" as in the minimum 25 year "life sentence" that they actually give people?
    Well as you said life in prison as opposed to the life sentence that you meant the former, is this incorrect? Thinking about it my knowledge of law terminology isn't exactly top notch.
    But we can go for either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well as you said life in prison as opposed to the life sentence that you meant the former, is this incorrect? Thinking about it my knowledge of law terminology isn't exactly top notch.
    But we can go for either.
    I don't know the difference. :confused:

    Anyway, I don't have much opinion on whether or not to let people out of prison on good behavior. If they had actually killed the kids, then I would say no. Now it seems they definitely tried, which is just as bad in my mind so... yeah, I'd say keep them in prison.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    I don't know the difference. :confused:

    Anyway, I don't have much opinion on whether or not to let people out of prison on good behavior. If they had actually killed the kids, then I would say no. Now it seems they definitely tried, which is just as bad in my mind so... yeah, I'd say keep them in prison.
    So if it was until they die in prison you would advocate NEVER letting them out?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Funkymonkey21)
    i cant see how anyone can say that they should just be let off because their human beings. yes they are. they also obviously have severe mental problems and shouldnt be out in society.
    a killer is a killer, no matter if their 11 or 80. people like that dont change. if someone has killed someone, they obviously think thats its ok and its the right thing to do.
    human being or not, this is NOT normal!
    Are you telling me you never did anything at 11 that you now look back on and cringe over, or feel ashamed of? Think about that, and then consider that you obviously had a normal upbringing with parents who loved and supported you, and taught you right from wrong. Consider that perfectly well-balanced, well brought up children do some rather appalling things and then grow up to be model adults, and then remind yourself of the beyond horrendous start in life these children have had. Nobody is trying to justify what they did (their crimes are unspeakably horrible) or is saying that they should be "let off" (absolutely nobody is suggesting that they should be released without further action taken).

    What we are saying is that to simply punish them, by any of the methods suggested by posters here, would be morally shaky and does not make practical sense. It costs a lot to keep somebody in prison (people suggesting they be locked up for life should consider that might be an 80 year jail term to fund), and more to execute them. The best thing to do for society as a whole is to educate them, and allow them to see for themselves why what they have done is so wrong. Teaching them to feel empathy and remorse will provide the most effective punishment of all - having to live with the regret over what they did for the rest of their lives. If one or both of them has been diagnosed with psychiatric problems then they should be treated for what they are - people with mental illness.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So if it was until they die in prison you would advocate NEVER letting them out?
    Yes. If they were older at the time of the crime that is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Violence is bad... let's murder two children to sort it out. Clever.
    :ditto:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Yes. If they were older at the time of the crime that is.
    Do you think that humans are capable of change in such a way that whilst at one stage they may be violent and have intentions to kill that they may at a later time in their life change into a more pacifist based state of thinking?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Do you think that humans are capable of change in such a way that whilst at one stage they may be violent and have intentions to kill that they may at a later time in their life change into a more pacifist based state of thinking?
    Yes, but that won't change what they've already done.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Yes, but that won't change what they've already done.
    Nothing can change the past however why does a perhaps singular act in their past have to dictate their entire future?
    Surely you should base how they get treated on more than 1 act?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Read this article which indicates that both children managed to pass a parole panel. It discusses that they will both go on to lead normal lives.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/ju...ger.paulharris
    For me, that was such a relief to read. It still saddens me that a little innocent boy had to die to give these two boys a chance at a normal life, and it's horrible that the worst had to be brought out of these boys before anyone bothered to ensure the best could be brought out.
    I may be on my own here, but I hope they live good, long lives, become useful functioning members of society and everyone who comes across them is touched in a positive way opposite and greater than the evil that little Jamie had to suffer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Nothing can change the past however why does a perhaps singular act in their past have to dictate their entire future?
    Surely you should base how they get treated on more than 1 act?
    If the singular act is torturing two children, sexually abusing them, and then murdering them, then I think there's really no justification in ever letting them out again. You can't just commit one of the most heinous crimes imaginable and then realize you did a bad thing thinking that it's going to let you off the hook.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    If the singular act is torturing two children, sexually abusing them, and then murdering them, then I think there's really no justification in ever letting them out again. You can't just commit one of the most heinous crimes imaginable and then realize you did a bad thing thinking that it's going to let you off the hook.
    In this instance your mindset seems to be a major problem.
    You seem to think that punishment is intrinsically good, and that it shouldn't be about rehabilitation, automatically damning anyone who changes.
    Punishment itself seems to be about someone deserving something bad to happen to them, would you disagree with that?
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.