Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

'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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Torture them themselves. You soft touch people saying they deserve a second chance, when I was 10 a crystal clear idea of right and wrong. This is why the prison sentences are so pathetic. Where else do our hard earned wages be taken from us to subsidise the chav common scum?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Best case scenario: They carry out their sentence, are released after being "rehabilitated", don't re-offend, and are left on the dole for the rest of their lives living off our tax money because nobody will employ them.
    Worst case scenario: They carry out their sentence, are released after being "rehabilitated", three weeks later they torture and kill two elderly citizens, and we're back to square one.

    Both sound pretty ****** to me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    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.
    That's why I said the law should be changed to accomodate large sentences for minors.
    I meant it wouldn't be an exception if this was the law, I must have worded it badly, sorry.

    Also, I haven't really got an answer for this for anyone on the other side of the argument, but I was wondering what you would think about them if the attackers were 25 years old and did this, what sentence would you like to see them get then?

    Bear in mind, this hypothetical situation still has the attackers coming from a disgusting, vile and 'toxic' - as the Judge on this case put it - background. At which point do you think the Judge should say 'Their background no longer affects them as they have moved out therefore they get life sentences' (Obviously this is if you believe they should even get different sentences to what they have now)

    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.
    If they could have gotten away with it they would have done quite willingly. As far as I can see, they're 'gaining' world class education and training. I agree, however, that they need professional help lest they be a threat to other inmates for the rest of their lives/jail term.

    But youre right, and this is what I've said throughout the thread; this is the law and I doubt it's going to change. Personally, I don't like the idea that these 'people' could be out of prison before they're twenty, and maybe even pass me in the street, or have contact with my friends or family. No amount of rehabilitation or 'professional help' will change my opinion on that.

    As Ive said before in this thread, that's like saying that, if Hitler had survived WW2, rather than a life in jail or simple execution lovely people like you would have had him 'rehabilitated' and put make into society.

    Anyways, this thread is now completely redundant, they've got their 'sentence'.
    When they come out of jail, however, why don't you meet up over coffee, make a couple of new friends?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    That's why I said the law should be changed to accomodate large sentences for minors.
    I meant it wouldn't be an exception if this was the law, I must have worded it badly, sorry.

    Also, I haven't really got an answer for this for anyone on the other side of the argument, but I was wondering what you would think about them if the attackers were 25 years old and did this, what sentence would you like to see them get then?

    Bear in mind, this hypothetical situation still has the attackers coming from a disgusting, vile and 'toxic' - as the Judge on this case put it - background. At which point do you think the Judge should say 'Their background no longer affects them as they have moved out therefore they get life sentences' (Obviously this is if you believe they should even get different sentences to what they have now)



    If they could have gotten away with it they would have done quite willingly. As far as I can see, they're 'gaining' world class education and training. I agree, however, that they need professional help lest they be a threat to other inmates for the rest of their lives/jail term.

    But youre right, and this is what I've said throughout the thread; this is the law and I doubt it's going to change. Personally, I don't like the idea that these 'people' could be out of prison before they're twenty, and maybe even pass me in the street, or have contact with my friends or family. No amount of rehabilitation or 'professional help' will change my opinion on that.

    As Ive said before in this thread, that's like saying that, if Hitler had survived WW2, rather than a life in jail or simple execution lovely people like you would have had him 'rehabilitated' and put make into society.

    Anyways, this thread is now completely redundant, they've got their 'sentence'.
    When they come out of jail, however, why don't you meet up over coffee, make a couple of new friends?
    Then I would say life imprisonment with a whole life tarrif applied as I believe for this act of violence they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
    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.
    It is true. Why should we pay them? They committed a crime, they should suffer. They should not be allowed back in society.
    We truly have a broken society in this country, and something got to be done.
    Sadly, we have not learnt anything from the Jamie Bulger case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    Then I would say life imprisonment with a whole life tarrif applied as I believe for this act of violence they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
    So even though the 25 years olds had a very traumatic upbringing and may not entirely know the difference between right and wrong like we do?
    What's the cut-off point? When do you say, 'Nope, they're too old for their upbringing to still be affecting them like this

    I know the minimum age for knowing right and wrong is 14 according to the law (at least, I think), but these guys got tried in an adult court because of the severity of their crimes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the first page of posts amused me to no end.

    lets punish the kids? is it really their fault? they were brought up like that.

    punish the parents severely, send the kids somewhere to get sorted out - the psychiatric hospital or something i dont know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    So even though the 25 years olds had a very traumatic upbringing and may not entirely know the difference between right and wrong like we do?
    What's the cut-off point? When do you say, 'Nope, they're too old for their upbringing to still be affecting them like this

    I know the minimum age for knowing right and wrong is 14 according to the law (at least, I think), but these guys got tried in an adult court because of the severity of their crimes.
    They may have had a toxic upbringing as the judge said but at the age of 25 one would think that they'd know taking two people and dropping parts of a sink on their heads was a tad wrong, even so I believe the whole 'traumatic upbringing' is a bit of a get out of jail free card these days, in that case sentence them to life but with a minimum sentence they must serve with psychiatric help administered and if after the minimum term of the sentence say 10 - 15 years they have shown significant improvements with their attitudes to right and wrong allow them to be released on suspended sentence. To not sentence them because of their upbringing is a terrible idea as it means that after a few years they roam free with no help or anything to disuade them from there old ways.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    oh i cant be assed with the enitre 21 pages

    (Original post by Ronar)
    Little idiots

    But still, they are still children. mentally ill children they need a hospital not a prison
    yes of course - they must be mentally ill - becasue no sane human would do anything evil!!!!!! Get a grip this self denial attitude that human beings are nicey nice and that only sick people do cruel acts is one of the reasons why so many people view our justice system as a bloody joke

    maybe the two little gits were simply sadistic little horrors who got a real kick out of what they did to those kids

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I'm just as disgusted at the responses on this thread. Whatever they did, they're still children, and the product of their environment. What chance did they ever have? It isn't right that they should suffer for the rest of their lives for what they did at the age of ten and eleven. There's no point in ruining more lives.
    and at what age should we teach them the consequence of thier actions dont even try and defend the little scrotes saying "they are to young" Bull. They knew what they were doing.

    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    The murders in the Bulger case both passed their GCSEs and A-Levels, and one of them wanted to go to university.
    good for them - they'd last all of thirty seconds once someone figured out who they were
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Life in prison. Starting as soon as their trial is over.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BillV3)
    They may have had a toxic upbringing as the judge said but at the age of 25 one would think that they'd know taking two people and dropping parts of a sink on their heads was a tad wrong, even so I believe the whole 'traumatic upbringing' is a bit of a get out of jail free card these days, in that case sentence them to life but with a minimum sentence they must serve with psychiatric help administered and if after the minimum term of the sentence say 10 - 15 years they have shown significant improvements with their attitudes to right and wrong allow them to be released on suspended sentence. To not sentence them because of their upbringing is a terrible idea as it means that after a few years they roam free with no help or anything to disuade them from there old ways.
    I think they knew damn well that dropping parts of a sink on someones head was damn wrong when they actually did it, and yet they still did it.
    The full force of the law shold be used and get them a life sentence, no chance of parole, no release.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    oh i cant be assed with the enitre 21 pages



    yes of course - they must be mentally ill - becasue no sane human would do anything evil!!!!!! Get a grip this self denial attitude that human beings are nicey nice and that only sick people do cruel acts is one of the reasons why so many people view our justice system as a bloody joke

    maybe the two little gits were simply sadistic little horrors who got a real kick out of what they did to those kids



    and at what age should we teach them the consequence of thier actions dont even try and defend the little scrotes saying "they are to young" Bull. They knew what they were doing.



    good for them - they'd last all of thirty seconds once someone figured out who they were
    Yeah, but no normal kids that even with that upbringing do that . It's basic psychology to know that people aren't born evil and don't do sick acts like that unless they are seriously screwed in the head

    I want them to goto jail too, after a stint in a psychiatric ward
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think their parents should be punished too.
    Obviously the boys carried out these acts but at that age they must be greatly influenced by their parents and what is around them.

    x
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    don't HURT THEM!!!!

    Name them, give their location, that's all that needs doing,

    Pfft torture em, you people are crazy! Do the above, and the problem will sort itself out, rather quickly I'd think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexio)
    I think they knew damn well that dropping parts of a sink on someones head was damn wrong when they actually did it, and yet they still did it.
    The full force of the law shold be used and get them a life sentence, no chance of parole, no release.
    They are below the age of 21 however so what you're suggesting is above and beyond the full force of the law for there circumstances.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    put them on big brother
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.