|
|
|
|
I just learned about a court case where two 13-year-olds from WA state have been charged as adults for the brutal slaying of another 13-year-old. Actually, they were just 12 when the crime alledgedly took place.
The reason? Listen to this:
'"Their actions, I think, speak very clearly that their personalities were formed to the point where rehabilitation generally is not going to be possible," said John Knodell (search), Grant County district attorney.'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114294,00.html
OMG, is this guy FOR REAL? If you commit murder after the age of 11, you're irredeemable for the rest of your LIFE?????
At least it seems the state doesn't allow executing children (meaning, other states do I guess? WTF!), so they'd "only" be locked up for 25 years, and MAN, will they be wonderful people by the time they're released, having had no normal adolescence or interaction with any 'normal' people or anything like that. Just think about it, to have your life put on pause, growing up and living in a PRISON from age 13 until you're 38! If you're not ruined for life when you go in, you're almost certainly by the time you come OUT. It's not exactly going to be boy scouts they'd be lodging together with, that's for sure.
Now, I don't know if the kids actually did this terrible crime or not, or what a just punishment would be if they are in fact guilty, but jesus, the US court system is SCARY...
Take care everyone.
-L - officially feeling queasy right now.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I cannot see how one can have a set of laws that say a child is a child, and then opt to try children as adults. It seems that the brutality allows the age to be accelerated.
We have not done this in the UK, even when two children kidnapped and killed a small child "for fun".
Kids are brutal. Any school survivor will tell you that. But some penal systems seem more bent on revenge than on rehumanising.
Now, extrapolate this to "Age of sexual consent". Presumably one shoudl assess the mental development of a child to decide if they really could have given consent? And thus sex with some minors would be legal and not with others? "If that minor's personality had been formed to a point........"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
Please consider the viciousness of this terrible crime, Please read the entire story.According to the news report,the victim was listed as learning disabled.Boys are cruel and sometimes vicious.Perhaps picking up on the idea that this kid would be easy prey,The two murderous bastards killed the weaker boy.While this kind of event is rare,kid homicide happens all too often in America..What astonishes me is that I am unclear as to the direction of anger that our poster takes.Is he mad at the sentence or is he angry at the perps that murdered the defenseless boy.And lastly I am surprised at timmys reaction.In America,vicious,gorey and depraved vidio games are cranked out by the hundreds of millions glorifying murder and violence.The strong smashing the weaker.What is ironic is the fact that organized religion is so busy gay bashing that these slime have not the time to protest this other violence. Enough preaching. s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
A child is a child.
If a child is prtiected legalloy then that child is protected legally. One cannot have a set of standards "until something happens". One must have a set of standards.
So, if a child is deemed legally to be beneath the age of criminal respinsibility for one crime it cannto be presumed to be respinsible as an adult for another crime.
It matters not at all that the crime is horrific. The child is legally in a protected status and in a fair or decent society would be tried as such.
Linking this to video games and gay bashing is a side issue. The sole issue here is that c child is legally presumed to be a child until someone decides that this particular 12 year old is an adult. The usual reason for this is a media driven feeding frenzy on the pornography of violence.
The crime was allegedly committed by two young children. Trying them as adults is a travesty of justice.
Now, I seem to recall that US judges are elected. Is this an election ploy to be re-elected as a judge because of popular outcry?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
Sorry to disagree Timmy,but at this hour and even in corrupt America,Several million parents are asking themselves,what if this had been my kid so savagely murdered?Sorry to be so rough Timmy what if it was your son,defenseless,that had been so savagely murdered? I must apologise if my words offend and that is not my intention at all.I must ask just how would these boys be treated if they lived in the UK. s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I have already told you how these boys would be treated in the UK. We know how they would be treated because we have laws that we obey in order to treat them as children. And we treat such offenders as children
What the US is dealing in is lynch law. Check the crim out for the moral reaction to it and then hang, draw and quarter the perpetrators without regard to the laws that protect them.
As for "how would you react if it had ben your son" and "Millions of Americans...." these are not relevant. The politics of revenge is not justice. Justice is never administered in a venegeful or frightened environment. If it were my son I would be aghast and vengeful. Of course I would. That is precisely why I would be incompetent to administer justice.
Justice is not founded on hysteria.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
http://www.bigissueinthenorth.com/Magazine/bulger.html shows how we treated an apparentlyu even more horrific murder. The perpetrators were tried and sentenced as children.
Thsi is because they were children.
Children do dreadful things. It's amazing how rarely they are fatal.
As a child I clubbed a friend over the head with a deeply unpleasant toy "To see what happened". I'd seen cowboy films, you see. If I'd killed him you would have had me tried as an adult
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terrible crime or not - as far as I can tell, the trial hasn't finished yet, so it's not been proven (in the sense the law uses the word, which isn't infallible as we all know) they did in fact do this, but in any case... IF they in fact did this awful thing, what would be GAINED by locking them up for 25 years in prison?
They're just CHILDREN for crissakes. At least one of the alledged perps is mentally underdeveloped (not retarded) as well, he's in fourth grade but only reads about as well as a first-grader, yet the court seems to think he is mature enough to be tried as an ADULT despite not reaching legal age for another half-decade! I just don't understand how anyone could reason like that!
Surely society's first goal should be to try and salvage THESE two kids so that we don't suffer three casualties instead of just one, don't you agree? How can justice be served by punishing children with quarter-century prison sentences? It's just horrible and incomprehensible. It's nothing but taking revenge on the weak, an eye for an eye.
I believe the level of civilization a society has is reflected in the way it treats its children, and when the US sentences minors to these horrible and inhumane punishments (sometimes even death penalties it seems), it shows we in the west aren't nearly as civilized as we want to believe.
Then, as for the videogame nonsense you bring forth:
There are hundreds of millions of people that play video games these days, some more violent than others. Surely, if they were so harmful as some people seem to believe, we would see kids and adults alike murdering each other on a scale that's never been seen before.
The much more likely truth of the matter is that people that commit videogame-inspired murders are already mentally unbalanced, and if they hadn't found inspiration in a videogame for their deed (which is NOT the case of these two boys I might add), it would have been from somewhere else: a violent TV show or movie perhaps, or failing that, a book, a painting, a conversation they had or their own twisted mind or from somewhere else.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry if I come on harshly in this or my other response, it's just that I feel bad when a great, horrible wrong is committed to try and rectify some other great, horrible wrong.
There's no winners here, only losers. "Millions of Americans" is sheer, undisguised populism and scaremongering. Does taking revenge on these two kids - if they are guilty - bring the dead boy back? No, of course not. Will it stop other children from being murdered in the future, possibly by their own peers? NO OF COURSE NOT!
This boy, if he was killed by the other two, probably died because these two kids couldn't predict the consequences of their actions. It's unlikely they're horribly sick and twisted little Dr. Mengeles who did it as some kind of science experiment or in gleeful joy. Things likely went WRONG, fear, and/or panic set in, and the boy died a bloody painful death. What can change that? Nothing.
Perhaps however the two who survived CAN be made into good people again, if they're given the chance. God knows however, twenty-five years in prison isn't what will do that for them. Likely they'll come out as wrecks more or less, angry at society as a whole and themselves. They'd likely end right back in prison before too long since that's all they'll know by then. 25 years is a long LONG time when you're just 13, almost twice your current age in fact.
So with what I've said in mind, be not so quick to either judge or condemn, nor throw the first stone. One travesty has already taken place, we shouldn't add a second to it.
-L
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what I've read about the subject (i've tried reading in deeper) it does seem a little odd, but we should wait till the ruling has been made. here's some more information - though bit brutal - http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2003-05-08/local/142762.shtml . To state my opinion. I'm not really sure what should be done for the fact of the matter. From what's said in that article, it's just absolutely GORY and atrocious what was done to that innocent boy. and I can see understandably why the prosecutors went this direction because of the brutality of the crime. However, I'm not sure by sending them to jail for such a long period will really help them. It may just make them bitter and resentful IF they ever get out (assuming they're guilty). What i do think is they need help more than anything. People need to figure out WHAT went on in their minds if they did this, what drove them to do this (if they did this). And after they find that out, they should find ways to help these kids. they're far too young to maybe comprehend the severity of their crimes, but they are old enough to know killing is wrong. The one thing that makes me weary is the excuse that is being used, which does not corroborate with the wounds. Oh well. Anyways i guess my splurge relies on the fact whether they're found guilty or not, and we shouldn't automatically presume guilt from just articles, since they may not know both sides... Anyways should they be tried in adult court? Not really sure. I understand the thinking, but is it really going to help these youths if they're guilty? I doubt it.. Okay. i should stop, i'm getting a little emotional... :-[ :-[ anyways i gotta go..
bye,
Al
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The issue here is before they are found guilty or innocent. The issue, however gory the crime, is in trying a child as an adult.
A child is a child. The crime is the crime. But a child is not an adult and should not be tried as one. Try the child as a child for the crime. Otherwise the presumption of innocence is already eroded.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
I must apologise for sounding so strong opinioned on this topic.I suppose every one is entitled to personal opinions on these matters.There is one over-riding factor in all this though,that is America is a violent nation.Quick to anger,quick to enforce what we call *frontier justice*.Sad to say this may be the case.Again I apologise if I stepped on some toes.My heart goes out to both sets of parents. s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
America sets itself up as the moral guardian of the world. If it is to have any credibility in this role then there is no place for "Frontier justice", another term for "Lynch Law".
I am terrified of the concept of the most powerful nation in the world being so cavalier in its own internal justice.
That it is a violent nation is indisputable. That does not make it all right to try children as adults. "Hey, it's ok, we're violent, so we can do what we like" does not sit well with me.
These children, if found guilty, did wrong. The crime was awful. But the principles behind civilised justice are to follow the law and natural justice in all things. Trying a child as an adult is not natural justice.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I guess a consensus has been reached and I'd just like to echo all the thoughts with my own. Children, while classed as children have to be tried as children. If, as Timmy kind of said, the age of adulthood were to be lower (hence making age of consents, voting age, drinking age, etc lower) then society is saying they acknowledge increased maturity in children and hence consider their children more responsible. Unless they are willing to do that, then they need to keep their children where they belong, in children's court.
At this time my heart goes out to the family of the victims, I hope that not only they will feel comforted but that they will somehow be able to forgive or at least be compassionate towards the boys that did this. No one kills without a reason, the boys must have had some pretty serious problems to do that. I know that forgiveness can lift and awful weight off your shoulders too.
My heart also goes out to the parents of the boys, I hope that they can understand places where they may have erred in teaching, but that they won't blame themselves for what occurred. They will bare the brunt of the public assault, no doubt, I hope they can be strong enough to deal with it.
My heart goes out to the boys, that they will come to a sense of accountability, that they won't hate themselves for what they did, merely that they will be able to come to understand their actions and feel such great remorse that they will never do it again, very few people are serial murderers, though, but I hope they can make a change in their life that helps them get back to where they need to be, despite all the difficulties they will face.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
First of all, the state is not violating any of its laws by trying these juveniles as adults. Nearly all states have laws that allow juveniles to be tried as adults in specific circumstances. Generally this is when the crime committed is very heinous or has taken on the characteristics of crimes committed in an "adult" fashion. It usually done to protect the general pubic.
If these boys were tried as juveniles, the law would mandate that they be released at age 21 regardless of whether they have been rehabilitated or not. They would also have their records sealed and be permitted to say they have no criminal record. This is fine for most juveniles in most instances.
But it is not fine in all instances. There are times when the safety of the general public must come first. If tried as juveniles, the law would demand that they be released when they are 21 whether they have been rehabilitated or not. Many juveniles who have been sent to rehab simply bide their time. They refuse to participate in treatment, fail to take advantage of counseling, etc. they simply wait until the law demands they be released and are no better off than when they went in.
Juveniles who are tried as adults are NOT sent to adults prisons. They are sent to juvenile facilities. the same ones they'd be sent to had they been tried as juveniles. They are placed into the same rehab programs, offered the same treatment, etc. However, there is one BIG difference. They aren't simply going to be released when they turn 21. It is then that they are transferred to adult prisons, though these boys may be eligible for parole by that time.
A 25 year sentence in the US generally means the person will become eligible for parole halfway through. Since they are 13 now, it is likely they will be offered parole when they are 26, IF they can show they are rehabilitated. This provides an incentive to participate in therapy that wouldn't otherwise be there and helps to protect the general public from them if they don't.
I don't often agree with trying juveniles as adults, but if you've got twelve year olds who are already committing premeditated murder, you'd better ensure that they are rehabilitated before you turn them loose.
Trying these two as adults will mean that at least someone will have the ability to make an evaluation before they are put back into society.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It also means a trial which is inherently unfair since the children have already been prejudged as guilty. We are simply deciding the sentence. It means that the child is not protected in court as he woudl be as a child.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sparks
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
This assertion that these monsters be treated as innocent babes does cause my blood to boil.Though the child crime situation in America often leads to criticism from some *enlightened* lands.With tongue in cheek and some sense of twisted humor I suggest that these so-called *enlightened* lands offer to recieve these little darlings with open arms.Rest assured that should these *enlightened* governments so be willing,there are plenty of people here that will scour the land of these little monsters and deliver same,free of charge,to these same liberial lands.Hell,we will even throw into the mix the parents of these delightful creatures. s;-D ;-D ;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's being set aside here is the statutes dealing with the age at which a child can be presumed to have an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, consequences for actions, etc. Every nation (and in the US, the many States) all have laws stating when the age of criminal responsibility has been reached.
In the state where this happened, the age of criminal responsibility is 16. The United Nations is pushing for all countries to agree on at least the age of 14. I participated in a legal and parliamentary study in Hong Kong to raise their statute from age 7 to age 12.
e is correct when he says that any judicial system can reserve the right to set aside these statutes if they choose.
But I have to agree with Timmy that to do so, even in cases like this, means that punishment and vengence is the issue. The grandparents of the murdered child are sponsoring a new law that would mandate even more setting aside of this statute. The article that was linked by Al says that lately, three times the number of trials than previously are going in this direction now.
In a time when many nations are revising their ages of criminal responsibility laws UPWARDS, it seems barbaric that the US would be heading in the opposite direction!
Just another sign of an increasingly reactionary and conservative environment, I guess. After all, the religious fanatics preach religions that are based almost entirely on fear and eternal punishment for wrong-doing. The societies around them will find it difficult to teach tolerance, true justice not based on vengence, and education and treatment rather than punishing children for what they have not been sufficiently taught by their elders.
None of this means that I am against protecting society from truly psychopathic people of whatever age. Determining who these people are will always be very difficult to do.
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" seems to have vanished from your vocabulary.
Just because someone is charged with a crime, even if they confess to a crime, there is no resunmption of guilt until the verdict.
Thus (a) they are currently innocent, and (b) they are children. So they should be tried as children who are presumed innocent. Period.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 February 1993: At 3.39pm, a surveillance camera in the Bootle Strand shopping centre on Merseyside filmed Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, both aged 10, taking James Bulger, 2, by the hand from outside a butcher shop. With James in tow the pair left the Strand filmed by the CCTV cameras. They then walked two and a half miles to a railway line where they tortured and then killed James and left his body.
November 1993: Thompson and Venables went on trial in an adult court. In a tabloid frenzy the two were compared to Saddam Hussein, and the people who saw the boys take James away but failed to act were dubbed the "Liverpool 38". The parents of Thompson and Venables were eventually forced to move to other parts of the country and change their names.
The suspects were found guilty and the trial judge, Mr Justice Morland, sentenced them to life imprisonment, recommending that they serve a minimum of eight years. This was increased to 10 years by the lord chief justice Lord Taylor, and then to 15 years by then home secretary (now Leader of the Conservative Party) Michael Howard. The law lords later ruled that Mr Howard had acted unlawfully when he raised the boys' tariff.
They were to spend most of their sentence living in local authority secure accommodation in a secret location.
15 March 1999: The European commission of human rights concluded that the trial of James Bulger's killers had been held in a "highly charged" atmosphere which led to an unfair judgment. The commission ruled by 14 votes to five that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the European convention on human rights regarding the fairness of the trial of Venables and Thompson.
November 1999: A juror from the 1993 trial said that instead of being found guilty of murder, the boys should have been found "guilty as frightened and largely unaware children who made a terrible mistake and who are now in urgent need of psychiatric and social help".
Earlier the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, prompted an outcry by saying Venables and Thompson should be released soon after their 18th birthdays. Sir David ended up "apologising unreservedly" to home secretary Jack Straw for speaking out on a subject outside his remit.
16 December 1999: The European court of human rights echoed the commission conclusion, ruling that the killers of smith Bulger had not received a fair trial. Following the ruling, Jack Straw agreed to set a new minimum tariff (the minimum period they must spend in custody) for Venables and Thompson.
October 2000: Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, effectively ended the boys' minimum tariff. He ruled that it would not benefit the boys to spend time in what he dubbed the "corrosive atmosphere" of young offenders' institutions.
January 2001: Judge Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss ruled that the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, now 18, will be kept secret and their anonymity protected, after they leave custody because of their "almost unique circumstances" which put them at serious risk of attack.
June 2001: Venables and Thompson went before the parole board in separate hearings in secret locations. The board heard representations from their solicitors and also questioned the two killers. Psychiatric and other reports from the trial were considered, together with up-to-date reports from doctors and criminologists. It also reviewed the killers' school records and considered any further offending that may have taken place during their detention.
The board concluded that Venables and Thompson were no longer a danger to the public and should be freed.
The pair have been granted an open-ended High Court injunction protecting their anonymity with new identities. They will be "on licence" for life. Probation officers will be in constant touch to ensure they are adjusting to life outside and remaining mentally stable.
Source: The Guardian / BBC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I was in error. I genuinely believed they had been tried in a juvenile court. I accuse the UK of the same sensationalism and venbgeance as the USA.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was an adult courtroom, and an adult trial, despite the hours being shortened to school hours and the dock being raised by three inches so that the boys could see over the rail. The lawyers felt uncomfortable about this, but the law gave them no room to manoeuvre. The turning-point came on the first day, with the jury still out of the room, when the defence argued that the publicity surrounding the case had been so prejudicial that the boys couldn't receive a fair trial. The defence had assembled 247 press cuttings, including comparisons between the boys and Saddam Hussein, and a pixelated photo from the Sun of them sucking lollipops on the courtroom steps, "without a care in the world". The submission was persuasive, but it failed.
The trial went ahead, as it had to. The outcome was never in doubt. The logic was contradictory: that two boys without the maturity to instruct their lawyers were mature enough knowingly to commit murder; that two academically under-achieving primary school kids understood the irrevocability of death. Sitting in the panelled courtroom was like being trapped in a maze. The defence, which called no witnesses, had no instructions from its child-clients but to plead "Not guilty" and hope for the best. The teachers and psychiatrists, who had informed and revealing insights into the boys, weren't allowed to express them: that would be inadmissible evidence; all they could address was the matter of the boys' intellectual maturity - would they have understood what they were doing on February 12 1993?
The boys were present throughout, one tearful, the other fidgeting, but might as well have been elsewhere. The lawyers weren't specialist child-lawyers. The journalists were mostly hardened court reporters, who filed their copy then repaired to be toughly humorous at the hotel bar. Sample joke. Jon Venables had been due to take the school gerbil home for half term on the Friday of the murder. Because he truanted that day, the gerbil remained at school. Reporter: "Lucky escape for the gerbil."
As that suggests, most reporters regarded the boys as a pair of psychopaths, and despite the counter-evidence of the psychiatrists, made much of Robert Thompson's "mad, staring eyes". The headline-writers back in London added to the frenzy and demonisation. The politicians, too. Sympathy for Ralph and Denise Bulger seemed to demand it. Yet for most of the trial, the public gallery remained half-empty, and those who sat there weren't ghouls or voyeurs but law students and foreign journalists. The foreign journalists - the French, in particular - were incredulous that the trial was taking place. We Brits explained our laws: when children commit rape or murder, they are tried in public, not in juvenile courts. Barbaric, they said. But, we asked, didn't the French once put animals on trial? Yes, but that was in the middle ages.
The family backgrounds of Venables and Thompson exhibited classic "risk factors" - dysfunction, poverty, alcoholism, marital breakdown, neglect and bullying. Both boys had been held down a year at school, a humiliation which made them team up. Both resented their siblings, and may have punished James for it. Most important, having bunked off school and walked the toddler the two miles back to their school and homes in Walton, they were terrified of getting into trouble with their mothers - and scrambled up on the railway line, where they killed him, to avoid it.
Now they are 20, and out of prison, the likelihood of us ever knowing what made them kill is remote. Even if they knew, they would not be able to tell: the long tabloid witch-hunt, and subsequent embargo on all reporting of their new identities and whereabouts, have seen to that. Many commentators criticised their early release and the "leniency" of an eight-year-sentence. But reports of sentences passed at the same time as theirs make instructive reading. "Man who inflicted 23 fractures on a baby sent on anger-management course", for instance. Or "Father aged 44 jailed for seven years for killing his 15-month-old son". Is a middle-aged man who kills his own baby less culpable than a boy of 10 who kills someone else's baby? It seems we think so.
In hindsight, the lesson of the Bulger case is almost the opposite of what it was taken to be at the time - not that children had grown big and dangerous, but that adult society had lost sight of their smallness and vulnerability. The 38 witnesses who claimed to see two boys kicking and beating a smaller boy but who didn't intervene; the failure of teachers and others to halt Robert Thompson's extraordinary level of truanting or notice Jon Venables' sense of neglect; the barbarism of a legal system which demanded that 10-year-olds be tried as adults in a public courtroom: all these point to a failure to protect children, or act in their interests. Amid the hysteria in 1993, Thompson and Venables lost the right to be seen as children, or even as human. The kids who had killed the kid had to be killed, or at any rate locked up for life. The word used about them stopped all arguments. They were evil.
Adapted from an article by Blake Morrison, whose book on the Bulger case, "As If" is avaialble from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862070458/qid=1079868390/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_11_2/026-3571951-1101253
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
The protection against being "prejudged" is much better in adult court than in juvenile. Their trial will be public and they will have the right to a jury. In juvenile courts the trials are closed and held in secret. there is no jury, only a judge. Whatever happens in a juvenile court is not open to public scrutiny. The secrecy is said to protect the child's future, but prosecutors have a much higher rate of conviction in juvenile courts than they do in adult courts. Juvenile probation departments generally have already prepared a report containing sentencing recommendations which are presented at these hearings even before a verdict has been reached. I worked within this system. The only real advantages to being tried as a juvenile are the sentences received if found guilty. Fewer juveniles are sentenced to locked facilities and sentences end upon reaching the age of majority (there are a few exceptions to this).
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I could not find any one definitive article about the crime itself. But I did find several that included varying pieces of the puzzle. It would seem that there is little doubt that these two boys committed the crime of which they are accused. The evidence is overwhelming. The evidence also suggests that the two boys knew what they were doing and that it was wrong.
First, the two boys were known to be playing with Craig Sorger, the victim, prior to his "disappearance." The boys admitted to witnessing Craig's death, however they lied about the circumstances. When questioned, they said that Craig died after a fall from a tree. The autopsy revealed that Craig had been severely beaten and stabbed multiple times. He still had the tip of a knife embedded in his skull.
Second, despite knowing of Craig's death, even witnessing his "fall," the two did not report this to anyone nor did they attempt to get any help. Police were alerted by Craig's grandparents who called them when he did not come home.
Third, police found Craig's blood on the clothing the two boys had been wearing. The boys had apparently attempted to wash their clothing in a nearby lake.
Finally, the two maintain they did not commit this crime.
There may be even more, but this is what I could find. I saw no comments from the prosecutor about the arguments used to have the boys tried as adults. the only statement I could find was one in which he said it is his job to protect the public and that there are no systems currently in place in the juvenile system to deal with children committing this kind of crime.
However, I can see some argument that the boys are capable of understanding their crime was wrong. They did not attempt to get any sort of help. They lied about the circumstances of Craig's death. They attempted to cover up their actions.
Is this sufficient to have them tried as adults? It's hard to say. I'd like more information, but it does show an adult-like thought process and some understanding that what they did was wrong and there would be consequences if discovered.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to have the comparison. I'm sad and pissed off to think that the high and mighty US judicial system would never submit itself to more sensible judges, such as the European Union ones written about here...
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can a child possibly be expected to conduct a defence in an adult court?
And if the media is already suggesting that "there is little doubt that these two boys committed the crime" and "the evidence is overwhelming" then how can the boys now expect to receive a fair trial?
And why are the media permitted to disclose the names of the boys? How will the State of Washington protect the boys after the trial if they are found not guilty?
This case leaves me feeling very uneasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
The media isn't the one making those suggestions, that was me based upon the evidence I found in the articles I read. It would seem to leave little room for doubt. Sorry if I was unclear in distinguishing my opinion from the "facts" I found in the media.
The victim's name can be released. There is no law regarding that, at least not that I'm aware of. As for the names of the alleged perpetrators, I don't know. It could be that once the ruling was made to try them as adults, their names could be released. I don't know if they were released prior to that.
As for the child's ability to conduct a defence, that is one of the questions in this case. Do the accused juveniles understand the court system well enough to conduct their defence? It is the argument being used by their attorney to justify keeping the case in juvenile court. However, the judge apparently ruled against them. They do have a right to appeal the decision.
There are guidelines for use in determining whether a juvenile can be tried as an adult, but I haven't found them as yet. They were apparently laid down by the US Supreme Court in a decision a few years ago. I don't know the name of the case and that is making it difficult to get the proper search results. But I did find an interesting article on the history of the juvenile justice system. Here's the link:
http://www.masterplots.com/display.asp?id=348&column=Sample_Article5
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I finally found them, or at least half of them. There are eight factors to be considered. I found an article that mentions four. They are: the seriousness of the offence, the maturity of the juvenile, the previous record of the juvenile, if any, and the liklihood the juvenile will be rehabilitated under the juvenile system. The US Supreme Court also added in a seperate decision that there must be hearings regarding the transfer and other technical procedures including a waiver of jurisdiction by the juvenile court.
One of the arguments that was upheld by the Washington court that ruled in favor of the transfer was that there was no liklihood of rehabilitation under the juvenile system because the juvenile system is not equipped to handle such serious and violent offenders.
The most common criticism I have found in the articles I have read regarding the juvenile justice system is that it was not intended, nor is it equipped, to deal with offenders who commit heinous and violent crimes like the one in question. This seems to be the biggest flaw in the system.
Here's the link to the article I found:
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/42_2/04_TXT.htm
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Egad, this is so horribly wrong... 
Some more on my thoughts... 
Re:Tongue in cheek satyre 
Still lots of unanswered questions 
