English Justice? - Or lack of it?

[cyberia]

Better than worse is not necessarily good.

Justice for all falls through the cracks when it fails the victims.

When a person unquestionably guilty of a heinous crime can be freed due to a technicality, or by a provision set aside for age, then justice is trumped by law.

True, the defendants in this case were 13 and the law is designed to protect them.

However, the victim was three. He will never be four. And those responsible have not only not been sufficiently punished, but rather rewarded with the return of their lives.

Justice is indeed blind, and at times such as this impedient as well.

[Jim O]

Who said the system is good? It is what it is. Show me a better one. "Unquestionably guilty" has sent many an innocent man to the gallows. Who is to decide? Again, it's the rule of law versus the rule of man. I'll take the former with its imperfections.

The perpetrators were 10 at the time of the crime, not 13. If they were 6 or 8 would you still want to hang them? Where is the cut off? I don't have an answer to that question, but I couldn't be the hangman for a child of 10. And I have serious misgivings about anyone who could be.

There is never justice for the victims. No amount of punishment brings back the dead. I don't think that these two should have their freedom, but if that is the law of a civilized nation then that is the law. Depriving anyone of their rights under existing law is the first step to tyranny.

[cyberia]

No, I could never pass ruling to hang a child. Then again I could neither see myself clear of allowing them their freedom after such actions.

Questioning imperfect laws is a necessity in any civilisation if it and its people are to grow with changing times.

At one time, the law stated a person could be burned at the stake as a witch based on nothing more than absurd accusations.

Well, that has changed.

At one time it was thought a child, age 10 or 13, who plotted and committed a murder was not responsible for their actions due to his or her age.

Well, times have changed.

Children committing murder is no longer the earth shaking oddity is once was. In fact, reports of child on child violence is on the rise and these do on occassion result in death.

Circumstances may differ in each case, but the law remains the same in all. Blanket absolution upon turning legal age.

As stated in Aussie Dave's story, these two boys tried to hide their actions. They knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they continued.

And they are now back in society.

If one or both kill again, should we console the parents of the next victims by assuring them that at least those responsible had maintained their rights?

The laws of God are indisputable.

The laws of man should always be subject to review.

[Jim O]

Again, my issue is not so much with this case. As a man I have no sympathy for the "rights" of these two now young men. As a father I am outraged by their crime. In fact "outrage" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel. I can find no argument for anything that you say.

My problem lies in the practical aspects of law that arise from a case like this. Trying to be dispassionate about the issues, which is not easy given the emotions involved, the question still arises as to how do we, as a society, create laws that deal with circumstances such as this without trampling the potential of some juvenile offenders to reform themselves. I know that I would not want to be hounded today for my childhood actions, some of which might have risen to the level of criminal were I an adult at the time and had I been caught. It's a safe bet that there are many "upstanding citizens" who would similarly not want to be judged by childhood indiscretions. So therefore laws are created to allow minors to get a "second chance". Many youthful offenders do offend again, but many do not. Some go on to be doctors and lawyers and maybe even lawmakers.

Separate is the practical issue of holding one accountable for his or her actions. Most civilized nations recognize the concept of "diminished capacity" in one form or another. In the US, for instance, where capital punishment is alive and well, the Supreme Court has found it to be unconstitutional to execute criminals who are mentally retarded (Atkins v. Virginia - 2002) and also those who were under the age of 18 at the time that the crime was committed (Roper v. Simmons - 2005). Despite that, such criminals can receive the maximum prison sentences allowed by law, and so mentally retarded inmates and those under 18 can receive a life sentence without the possibility of parole (LWOP). Even then, I do not believe that there is any state in our punishment driven society where a 10 year old can be treated as an adult. What I conclude from this is that most lawmakers and judges believe that a child under a certain age clearly suffers from "diminished capacity" (not to mention lack of impulse control) and needs to be dealt with differently. That a few really evil children will slip through the cracks and commit more heinous crimes in the future is the price that society has chosen to pay so that those with more potential to reform themselves are allowed to do just that.

The alternative is a criminal justice system like that of Iran where two boys were hanged in 2005 for allegedly committing homosexual acts. Under the Iranian penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be hanged.

[cyberia]

The point of contention here is not if all juvenile murders should be punished as adults to the fullest extent of the law, but should all adolescent murders be granted the same blanket absolution upon reaching the legal age?

I agree that a degree of stupidity and recklessness accompanies the adolescent thought process. And I'm sure many of us here have some incident from our younger days we both regret and are thankful does not haunt our adult records.

I know I do.

However, I'm sure we can both agree that the murder of another human being transcends most other youthful offences.

Adults are tried for homicide by degree.

Should a child who steals a father's gun and then on impulse shoots and kills a playmate without malice be punished to the same degree as one who carefully plots and carries out a revenge or thrill murder?

In my opinion no.

Nor should both be granted full automatic clemency for two decisively different motives simply because the calender turns.

Children who commit murder do so as individuals. The crimes they commit and to what degree need to be judged on an individual, case by case basis.

Hanging teenagers for the "crime" of homosexuality is one end of the extreme.

Releasing someone capable of calculated murder back into society for no other reason than he or she has reached what some consider the magical age of reason is the other.

[Geek44]

Originally Posted by cyberia

Australia or England, they were still released and that amazes me.

I'm sure the same could happen here as well.

What disturbs me most about this story is how, or why, two children age 10 would even consider such and act, let alone carry it out.

Because they themselves suffered abuse at the hands of their parents.
I received the post Dave made above as an email from an old friend. My son was the same age as Jamie was and I cried for a week over it. Silly I know because when it actually happened, it was drowned out by all the other 'man's inhumanity to man' in the news and I hardly gave it a thought. Bad people aren't 'born', they're made. The concept of 'evil' is way too esoteric for a ten year old to understand...strikes me as odd that we never hestitate to judge these kids as 'too young to give consent' when it comes to them being the victims of adult sexual predators, but they always 'knew exactly what they were doing' when they are the perpetrators. Kids see a lot of TV and movies...even the advertising on TV contains images of the 'violence as entertainment' in ads for shows after their bed times. Children are sexualised and desensitised and shown that vioence does indeed solve our problems...couple all of this with an abusive home life and these two kids are the result. What they did to Jamie Bulger was extreme and abhorrent and shocks me to think about. But before we start braying for blood I think we need to take some responsibility or at least aknowledge their environment and circumstances. There but for the grace of God go we.
Peace.

[Miss Saigon]

We talk a lot about living in nations of laws, but these laws are made by us, or should be. Yes, the rules should be followed. It is the only way to protect against tyranny. To have published and known rules of governance. But we also have a responsibility to make appropriate rules and adjust them when they begin to fail us.

It seems to me that has we have become more prosperous as societies we have grown to accept more excuses for shameful behavior, no matter how dubious, and more away from the concept of personal responsibility for our actions. Even with Children, how can we expect them to grow up to become proper and productive citizens if there are not appropriate consequences for their bahvior.

It iis sad when poor parenting and various negative influences create evil and unbalanced children through no fault of their own, but this doesn't mean or response should bejust to turn them lose on society to create more victims just because there is a good reason why they became proper evil.

We need to stop being hip, fashionable, and trendy with psycho justice and start actually protecting ourselves again.

No matter how tragic the lives of these two boys were, nothing justifies turning them loose to create more tragedy for others.

[Geek44]

Indeed Miss Saigon. I agreed with everything you said, especially the part about 'personal responsibility'.
Nowhere in my post will you find anything that seeks to absolve these two young boys of what they did. I merely point out some fairly glaring double standards and also the fact the revenge doesn't equal justice.
Peace.

[Wolster]

Nick,
Whilst I think I know what you are getting at on the whole, I don't understand this statement? I'm sure young victims of abuse are absolutely aware that what is happening to them is wrong in some way, consent given or not. Sorry mate, which ever way I read this I don't understand what you are getting at.

Originally Posted by Geek44

..strikes me as odd that we never hestitate to judge these kids as 'too young to give consent' when it comes to them being the victims of adult sexual predators, but they always 'knew exactly what they were doing' when they are the perpetrators.

[Geek44]

Fair enough Wolster...I wasn't very clear.
There's been an art exhibition closed here in the last fortnight and some photos have been seized. Apparently they depict naked girls of around twelve and thirteen in strictly non-sexual contexts. They're portraits.
The hoo-ha has centred around the girls' alleged inability to give consent to the photographer because 'they are too young to appreciate the full ramifications of their actions'. My statement above was pointing to the 'inability' of these 'victims' but at the same time, the 'perpetrators' who killed Jamie Bulger, who were younger than the photographed girls are supposedly fully aware and able to grasp the enormity of what they were doing.
Again I say nothing can excuse the crime, but I see a double standard. Not in you specifically, just in us as a society.