Turn on thread page Beta

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

  • 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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know how they didn't get charged with attempted murder. They told the younger boy to kill himself or they'd do it for him, and he had to then play dead. When they were leaving they through a brick at the older one's head. I know the words exchanged are only from the accounts of the victims, but with all the injuries sustained and the fact the medical consultant said that the older one would have died if they had got their any later would have been enough for it to at least reach court.

    5 years is a joke. Then they'll be given new identities and will have the opportunity to slither unchecked into unsuspecting society, and have kids of their own.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    those stupid ******* should have got life, cant believe they only got 5 years, 5 ******* years! they will still have the rest of their childhood when they are released

    its ******* disgusting and the little psycho ***** should have got life
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    This is what's wrong with Britain's justice system. There is no justice for the victim.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Thank goodness your view isn't the one which prevails then. Unfortunately you do need a psychology degree when evaluating criminals progress with regards to rehabilitation. That's the way things are.


    To me, no crime is unforgiveable and all transgressions can be forgiven if you have the moral fibre and adequate principles. This is one example of many where the family of victims of the IRA have forgiven their murderers. At the end of the day it is about having the courage to look the victim in the eye and tell them "what you did was awful, but you can do your time and I will forgive you". Turning the other cheek is far from futile, it is the hallmark of a civilised society. By killing criminals, or even allowing them to kill themselves, society is lowering itself to the depraved levels of the criminals themselves. If society does allow this to happen, it is saying that barbarism is acceptable, and in doing so becomes no better than the criminals themselves. Society has to take a prinicipled stance on crime and a balance of punishment and rehabilitation (in every case) is the way to achieve this.
    No, there is absolutely no point in rehabilitating people who are rotten to the core. These boys have proven such. They are trash, a lost cause. I believe rehabilitating them will be a waste of time and money, but we'll see. Instead, society should move on and instead we should detect and avert such psychopathy in the first place.

    Perhaps their social class and lack of intelligence counts heavily against them, for I might be willing to forgive smarter and classier children who were driven towards such psychopathy, who turned into beautiful monsters. Yet these boys are nothing but ugly, thick, gutter scum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inspired14)
    no, the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for them. Its wrong that we should have to pay for criminals like these. But if the tiniest bit out my tax goes towards keeping them off the streets and away from society, I would say its a small price to pay. It is not the taxpayers losing out here, it is, unfortunately, the two young victims and their families.
    I say we send them to Saudis. They know how to discipline criminals.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I remember when I first heard this story. It was the most distressing thing I've ever heard. It's so horrible that you don't even know whether the children were better off surviving the attack or not.

    I know the attackers grew up in a horrible environment, but a lot of children do grow up in households filled with abuse and do not enact such awful cruelty. If you were a determinist you could say that no one is responsible for any of their actions as it's all determined by their upbringing, but that doesn't mean strict punishments shouldn't be put in place. The way the attackers premeditated the whole thing and then denied it after...

    (Original post by Carl)
    Might not? So because there is a chance that a criminal cannot be rehabilitated we should not try? What utter twaddle. Never mind that it is cheaper to rehabilitate a proportion of criminals and reintroduce them into society than it is to keep all of them locked up indefinitely. Never mind that rehabilitation does work in most cases. Lets forget that an intrinsic part of criminal justice is giving the criminal a chance to redeem themselves for their actions (and that's what jail-time boils down to - redemption to society and to the victims). Just because you think that they cannot change. What is your insight on the case? Where are your psychology qualifications?

    Your definition of justice is the lowest form, a way of redressing the wrong-done in the simplest form: revenge. Justice is about more than that; it is about redemption on the part of the sinner and forgiveness on the part of the sinned. The justice system is not a primal tool for redressing the emotional grievances of the victim, but has a larger purpose in society; that is why sentences are determined by judges and not by the family of the aggrieved party.
    The proportion of reoffenders is pretty darn high. That doesn't suggest rehabilitation occurring in most cases? I don't know where you got that from. Prison is renowned for its ineffectiveness at rehabilitating.

    However, you are right that the primary aim of punishment is not revenge. The aims of punishment generally fall under "public protection", "deterrence", "retribution" and "rehabilitation", and they're all equally important, which means that retribution is still a top priority. The victim's family still deserve the comfort of knowing that the attackers have gotten a tough sentence. Hypothetically, a murderer could have been completely rehabilitated after only a year in jail, but if he was to be let out after a year, even though his rehabilitation was complete, that would mean the objectives of "deterrence" and "retribution" would have been failed instead.

    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    No, there is absolutely no point in rehabilitating people who are rotten to the core. These boys have proven such. They are trash, a lost cause. I believe rehabilitating them will be a waste of time and money, but we'll see. Instead, society should move on and instead we should detect and avert such psychopathy in the first place.

    Perhaps their social class and lack of intelligence counts heavily against them, for I might be willing to forgive smarter and classier children who were driven towards such psychopathy, who turned into beautiful monsters. Yet these boys are nothing but ugly, thick, gutter scum.
    It's a worth a shot trying to rehabilitate them. Better than having them rot in jail forever. How awful was it that they showed no remorse? Part of their rehabilitation would involve that remorse finally setting in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4G_dollars)
    I say we send them to Saudis. They know how to discipline criminals.
    That is true. If only are government didn't have such warped views when it comes to 'human rights', they might actually agree aswell.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    What exception to the law?
    If I had my way everyone who did something like this, ie, tortured a fellow human being, wold be given life in jail.
    The slight matter of you suggesting capital punishment which was officialy aboished here in 1998 seems a slight exception in my eyes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    The slight matter of you suggesting capital punishment which was officialy aboished here in 1998 seems a slight exception in my eyes.
    As I have said multiple times in the thread I said that because I was angry at the time.
    I'd rather them be sent to prison for the rest of their filthy, sub-human lives.
    I don't think I could justify state-sanctioned killing of children, yet I also can't justify letting these monsters out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inspired14)
    That is true. If only are government didn't have such warped views when it comes to 'human rights', they might actually agree aswell.
    They don't deserve to live. These dicks aren't human. I find it shocking, and disgusting, it does make you question what kind of society we have?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I thought i'd write something short about this, simply because I think it highlights so many different problems with our society and the political makeup of the country.

    At the time of the attack, the two boys who carried this out were 10 and 11. From the articles written in various newspapers; we learn few facts. Most telling is that it doesn't take a genius to see the link between these boys' home life and the motivation for the attack; from an early age they were surrounded by domestic violence, and a lack of discipline or effective parenting from anyone. They took drugs and watched porn from an early age- clearly living an inappropriate lifestyle. Their took their cues from the role models became the people they saw on screen and the violence they suffered at home.

    For this reason it is hardly surprising that at this age they decided to torture two other boys. It's not as if they took a break from their lifestyle in order to injure others; it simply seemed the norm. As one of the boys said; "there was nowt to do". This is a clear case of two boys who were a product of their environment. This is even more clearly shown when you consider that their older brother has already been detained for a different offence. This is merely stating the facts of the inquiry so far.

    It therefore worries me that the media, by and large, are seeking to turn the case of these two boys into a witch hunt. The articles point directly to a retributive stance, suggesting that incarcerating the offenders will guarantee their victims with a better quality of life. Clearly, these boys needed a stable family environment in order to understand the value of society and morality, and we shouldn't forget that they still do. If they have grown up in a warped environment they don't need years of removal from society to teach them how society works.

    Now i'm not suggesting that they should be simply released without charge. This isn't to do with deterrence nor retribution, which i'll answer quickly. People who commit more serious crimes don't work in the mindset of the vast majority of people. Punishment isn't a factor seriously considered in the act of committing the most 'immoral' acts- those that inevitably carry the highest degree of punishment. Retribution is one of the saddest ideas of humanity; that doing what is done to you is just. If I kill someone that kills my friend, that doesn't cancel it out, it merely doubles the death count. So this should be for criminal proceedings; it merely destroys more lives if people are put in prison for a disproportionate amount of time. The proper solution is surely to help people driven to criminal acts to gain an understanding of the morals and values of society. Therefore re-offending decreases and less people are affected. As i've already said, the idea of locking someone up in prison without proper treatment often leads people to become more radicalised.

    This is mainly due to the effect of time. In this case, the sentence is, as reported "maybe only 5 years". 5 years is a long amount of time for anyone. In the case of young boys, it's a life-changing amount of time, where you start to figure out who you are and who you want to become. It's certainly not a brief period for them to maintain their ideas.

    I'd support the idea that they are kept under close surveillance for an indefinite amount of time. At their age, it's impossible to tell how they are going to mature and develop as people. For this, there needs to be a team committed to getting alongside them, rather than getting at them, as has so often happened already.

    For the rest of us, it's not time to sit and gawp at this situation. These boys will surely be treated as they need to be, and we had not read of the traumatic experiences it would simply not be our business. We don't need to know what their names are or anything more of their identities; judgment isn't in our hands, and rightfully so. We are all overwhelmingly ignorant of the situation, and i'm ashamed that the reaction of so many seems to be out-of-hand condemnation. To my mind, these boys have suffered enough already not to warrant a public outlash.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amiparanoid)
    I thought i'd write something short about this, simply because I think it highlights so many different problems with our society and the political makeup of the country.

    At the time of the attack, the two boys who carried this out were 10 and 11. From the articles written in various newspapers; we learn few facts. Most telling is that it doesn't take a genius to see the link between these boys' home life and the motivation for the attack; from an early age they were surrounded by domestic violence, and a lack of discipline or effective parenting from anyone. They took drugs and watched porn from an early age- clearly living an inappropriate lifestyle. Their took their cues from the role models became the people they saw on screen and the violence they suffered at home.

    For this reason it is hardly surprising that at this age they decided to torture two other boys. It's not as if they took a break from their lifestyle in order to injure others; it simply seemed the norm. As one of the boys said; "there was nowt to do". This is a clear case of two boys who were a product of their environment. This is even more clearly shown when you consider that their older brother has already been detained for a different offence. This is merely stating the facts of the inquiry so far.

    It therefore worries me that the media, by and large, are seeking to turn the case of these two boys into a witch hunt. The articles point directly to a retributive stance, suggesting that incarcerating the offenders will guarantee their victims with a better quality of life. Clearly, these boys needed a stable family environment in order to understand the value of society and morality, and we shouldn't forget that they still do. If they have grown up in a warped environment they don't need years of removal from society to teach them how society works.

    Now i'm not suggesting that they should be simply released without charge. This isn't to do with deterrence nor retribution, which i'll answer quickly. People who commit more serious crimes don't work in the mindset of the vast majority of people. Punishment isn't a factor seriously considered in the act of committing the most 'immoral' acts- those that inevitably carry the highest degree of punishment. Retribution is one of the saddest ideas of humanity; that doing what is done to you is just. If I kill someone that kills my friend, that doesn't cancel it out, it merely doubles the death count. So this should be for criminal proceedings; it merely destroys more lives if people are put in prison for a disproportionate amount of time. The proper solution is surely to help people driven to criminal acts to gain an understanding of the morals and values of society. Therefore re-offending decreases and less people are affected. As i've already said, the idea of locking someone up in prison without proper treatment often leads people to become more radicalised.

    This is mainly due to the effect of time. In this case, the sentence is, as reported "maybe only 5 years". 5 years is a long amount of time for anyone. In the case of young boys, it's a life-changing amount of time, where you start to figure out who you are and who you want to become. It's certainly not a brief period for them to maintain their ideas.

    I'd support the idea that they are kept under close surveillance for an indefinite amount of time. At their age, it's impossible to tell how they are going to mature and develop as people. For this, there needs to be a team committed to getting alongside them, rather than getting at them, as has so often happened already.

    For the rest of us, it's not time to sit and gawp at this situation. These boys will surely be treated as they need to be, and we had not read of the traumatic experiences it would simply not be our business. We don't need to know what their names are or anything more of their identities; judgment isn't in our hands, and rightfully so. We are all overwhelmingly ignorant of the situation, and i'm ashamed that the reaction of so many seems to be out-of-hand condemnation. To my mind, these boys have suffered enough already not to warrant a public outlash.
    Locking them up for their entire life, ie, until they die, makes damn sure they won't re-offend, without wasting time and effort on rehab that could be spent on people who commit less serious crimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    Locking them up for their entire life, ie, until they die, makes damn sure they won't re-offend, without wasting time and effort on rehab that could be spent on people who commit less serious crimes.
    I don't see the difference in locking someone up until they die and killing someone. Following the same logic, I don't see how that would be morally better than what they did. Simply doing something because "they did a similar thing first" is no way to live life, or to enforce the rule of law.

    I'd go even further and suggest that your opinion is one formed because you are so removed from the situation. It's very easy to sit back in an armchair and tell someone that they should be "locked up for their entire life". It's very different to consider the amount of suffering you're causing them by punishing them for the mindset caused by a disruptive home environment. An opinion like this simply increases the suffering involved.

    Any time and effort spent on rehab isn't wasted. It is the most necessary function of our society- helping those who are in the most dire need of assistance to be able to live a 'normal' life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amiparanoid)
    I don't see the difference in locking someone up until they die and killing someone. Following the same logic, I don't see how that would be morally better than what they did. Simply doing something because "they did a similar thing first" is no way to live life, or to enforce the rule of law.

    I'd go even further and suggest that your opinion is one formed because you are so removed from the situation. It's very easy to sit back in an armchair and tell someone that they should be "locked up for their entire life". It's very different to consider the amount of suffering you're causing them by punishing them for the mindset caused by a disruptive home environment. An opinion like this simply increases the suffering involved.

    Any time and effort spent on rehab isn't wasted. It is the most necessary function of our society- helping those who are in the most dire need of assistance to be able to live a 'normal' life.
    So we're saying 'assault someone, torture them, do whatever, and you get a free pass in life'.
    Great.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amiparanoid)
    I don't see the difference in locking someone up until they die and killing someone.
    Killing a criminal is giving them an easy way out. Most who end up in jail would rather die then spend their whole lives in prison. That is exactly why life enprisonment should IMO be chosen over capital punishment. Murderers like these deserve to live a slow and painful death, to live with the thought of their actions for every second of their lives.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Hold them til they're 18 then show them the rope. Slowly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd never condone capital punishment but, man, this disgusting boys are an exception. We don't need people like them in the world. But I guess we can't bring the death penalty back and they need a lot of help. I'm so angry just thinking about it to be honest. How can anyone even think of doing such a thing?! Where the **** did they get their ideas from? I mean, WTF?!? :mad2:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    So we're saying 'assault someone, torture them, do whatever, and you get a free pass in life'.
    Great.
    No.... You're missing a clear point. People don't do things like this because they want to try and get away with it. They don't gain anything from this. Anyone that has a mindset that leads them to considering acts like this needs professional help. That's not a 'free pass', or 'letting them off'. You're failing to understand the key issue here- their motivation. Instead you're looking at this from a perspective of self-interest. Self-interest has no place in seeking to find an objective rule of law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    As I have said multiple times in the thread I said that because I was angry at the time.
    I'd rather them be sent to prison for the rest of their filthy, sub-human lives.
    I don't think I could justify state-sanctioned killing of children, yet I also can't justify letting these monsters out.
    This would also be an exception to the law, while you can apply a whole life tarrif to a life sentence it can not be applied if the offender is below the age of 21.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ines24)
    Killing a criminal is giving them an easy way out. Most who end up in jail would rather die then spend their whole lives in prison. That is exactly why life enprisonment should IMO be chosen over capital punishment. Murderers like these deserve to live a slow and painful death, to live with the thought of their actions for every second of their lives.
    You've almost made my point for me. Law shouldn't be used as recourse to treat others inhumanely. You're failing to read into the circumstances of these boys' lives, and seem to think it's acceptable to treat people in a similar way to the very methods you're protesting against. Bringing about "a slow and painful death" is surely no better than torturing someone in the first place.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.