NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you remember February 1993 when a young 3 yr. old was taken from a Shopping mall in Liverpool, NY by two 10-year-old boys? Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson. They took Jamie on a walk for over 2a nd a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed batteries up his ass. It was actually worse than this...What these two boys did was so horrendous that Jamie's mother was FORBIDDEN to identify his body.They then left his beaten small body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created. These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Slosshas awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities. We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to a University. They are getting away with their crime.They disgustingly and violently took Jamie's life away- in return they get a new life.

I thought that these lads had already been released.My question is at what age should someone be able to recieve a life sentence?Not a death sentence but life??

I thought that these lads had already been released.My question is at what age should someone be able to recieve a life sentence?Not a death sentence but life??
Brainwash Kamp sounds rightup there ally.

I thought that these lads had already been released.My question is at what age should someone be able to recieve a life sentence?Not a death sentence but life??

A lifetime sentence? 16 I'd say, by then you know full well the repercussions of your crimes.

Assuming, of course, the trial and sentencing was fair and lawful.

Depends on the individual case. In this case, the boys knew what they were doing, and horrendously did it. I'd say life(and possibly the possibility of parole at 18, depending on behavior) is less than enough for them. If a child willing commits an act of murder, and knows the ramifications of their actions, then life should be a possibility. "He's just a child" is no defense- they knew very well what they were doing.

Also, as a side note, people like this need to be kept under VERY close watch. Such acts are rarely isolated, and it is likely they will do something similar again.

Brainwash Kamp sounds rightup there ally.

That may have the reverse result, actually. Such people can be rather convincing as to their "reform", and may appear "reformed", but instead spend the entire time brooding, and could commit ever more heinous acts.

I thought that these lads had already been released.My question is at what age should someone be able to recieve a life sentence?Not a death sentence but life??18, depending on if they can be considered mature enough, otherwise 21.

Brainwash Kamp sounds rightup there ally.
I had thought about posting it in that form but decided against.I belive that at least they should have served out their sentence.I also belive that they should have been given harsher sentences but unfortunetly current laws didnt allow this.But should they the laws be amended so that if anything like this happens again that the offender could be given a life sentence?

I had tought about posting it in that form but decided against.I belive that at least they should have served out their sentence.I also belive that they should have been given harsher sentences but unfortunatly current laws didnt allow this.But should they the laws be amended so that if anything like this happens again that the offender could be given a life sentence?

Yes. Yes it should. These kids knew exactly what they were doing, and thus should have been tried as adults.

Yes. Yes it should. These kids knew exactly what they were doing, and thus should have been tried as adults.
Maybe not tried as adults per se but should a harsher set of laws be put in place for children who commit such crimes?

Maybe not tried as adults per se but should a harsher set of laws be put in place for children who commit such crimes?


The use of "children" makes me cautious, I believe those 16 and older are sufficiently independent of parental supervision and of sound mind to be held respondsible for their actions.

However, I do not want the State locking up some 9 year old because he nipped something when his parent or guardian wasn't looking, or indeed, for any crime.

The use of "children" makes me cautious, I believe those 16 and older are sufficiently independent of parental supervision and of sound mind to be held respondsible for their actions.

However, I do not want the State locking up some 9 year old because he nipped something when his parent or guardian wasn't looking, or indeed, for any crime.
I'd prehaps like to see it droped to maybe 14 given the maturity of kids now days.Or make a parent somewhat responsable for their kids actions.

For a serious post, what the fuck where Jon Venables' and Robert Thompson's parents up to when there kids did this?

For a serious post, what the fuck where Jon Venables' and Robert Thompson's parents up to when there kids did this?
The mindset of these two kids was quite disturbing.What was in their background to place the idea for this "little experiment" in their minds?

The mindset of these two kids was quite disturbing.What was in their background to place the idea for this "little experiment" in their minds?
See what happens when you let kids play Grand Theft Auto?


That's right they jam batteries up eachother's asses and leave them to die infront of a train, just like in the game. I am such an ass.

That must be an optional mission. :D

See what happens when you let kids play Grand Theft Auto?
..


That's right they jam batteries up eachother's asses and leave them to die infront of a train, just like in the game. I am such an ass.
1993!the most they could have being playing was super mario or maybe a very early mortal kombat

That's all I remember playing back in 1993. I wasn't much older than the poor soul those idiots killed.

1993!the most they could have being playing was super mario or maybe a very early mortal kombat
Show me one 10 year old who couldn't have gotten ahold of GTA: San Andreas in 1993. I bet you cannot find one, even in the third world nations!

Or make a parent somewhat responsable for their kids actions.


I agree, if you could substantially prove a Parent's actions influenced a 16-18 year old in commiting a crime, then by all means they should be held accountable.

18, depending on if they can be considered mature enough, otherwise 21.

Seconded.
Any fair legal system would concede that in order to be held fully responsible for your actios you have to be regarded as an adult. If that weren't the case, if we held kids and teenagers fully responsible, we would have grant them the full rights of an adult as well.

I know it's beyond believe what those kids did to that child, and I would agree that they understood to some extend what they were doing, but I have serious doubts that they really grasped the extend. I'm no psychologist, and I don't know any of the offenders safe from news broadcasts, but if I had to judge them based on what I know, I would have gone for the 10 year sentecne (I think that's what they got), but I would also put in place a prolonged probation period after that (at least another 10 years), along with psychological treatment while in jail and regular consultations afterwards.

Show me one 10 year old who couldn't have gotten ahold of GTA: San Andreas in 1993. I bet you cannot find one, even in the third world nations!

If I remember correctly, that game wasn't even around in 1993

I agree, if you could substantially prove a Parent's actions influenced a 16-18 year old in commiting a crime, then by all means they should be held accountable.

I really don't remember all the facts of that case, but I think I would have held the father of one of the kids responsible as well. He regularly rented horor videos for them, I seem to recall, and one of the kids said they wanted to re-enact what they had seen there.

They should really have served out the sentence though..I still surprised that the tabloid rags haven't tracked them down yet..

If I remember correctly, that game wasn't even around in 1993
It came out 2005, but that is totally irrelevent.

They should really have served out the sentence though..I still surprised that the tabloid rags haven't tracked them down yet..

I don't know much about the UK legal system, but Germany's system works like this : You receive a sentece, you serve part of it (normally half), your case gets reviewed, if the time in prison appears to have had a positive effect on you (like you showing remorse, etc.) and if a good numer of psychologist, the judge and the prosecutor agree, you will be released and the rest of your sentence will be commuted to probation.
If they don't agree, you'll stay in prison, and your case will get another review some time on.
The only way you normally have to do your entire time is if you don't seem to change your attitude.

The system is not built to take revenge on indivduals for any crime, but to punish approriately and to hopefully bring the criminal back as a functioning member of society.

It came out 2005, but that is totally irrelevent.

Not really, if you claimed that every kid could have played it in 1993 :rolleyes:

Not really, if you claimed that every kid could have played it in 1993 :rolleyes:
Sure, attack with logic. When has that done good?

Sure, attack with logic. When has that done good?

Touchee :p

18, depending on if they can be considered mature enough, otherwise 21.
Thirded.
I really don't remember all the facts of that case, but I think I would have held the father of one of the kids responsible as well. He regularly rented horor videos for them, I seem to recall, and one of the kids said they wanted to re-enact what they had seen there.
I seem to recall that it was one of the Chucky-movies that supposedly served as an inspiration.

Of course, some people blamed the game Doom, but I don't remember if the kids had played it or not.

The system is not built to take revenge on indivduals for any crime, but to punish approriately and to hopefully bring the criminal back as a functioning member of society.
Signs of a good system ;)

Touchee :p
See. Sillyness always prevails.

No one should ever get a life sentence, except maybe for crimes against humanity.

Sentencing people to life sentence is breaking their lives without any hope. It's falling as low as the people we are sentencing. Who are we, to decide that someone doesn't deserve any chance to life anymore ? That his life has to be broken utterly (by killing him or sending him in jail until he dies) ? When we accept, as a society, to do that, we become as bad as the ones we want to punish, who, after all, did exactly the same: they broke someone's life.

When we decide that someone cannot be "redeemed", cannot be reabilited, reeducated into a useful member of the society, when we decide that someone cannot change, cannot become better, and that we need to terminate his life (directly, or by putting him in jail forever) it's the core principles of any human civilisation we are negating. People change. People can become better. And that's, in a civilised country, what should be done to criminals: help them to become better, with education, support, and reinsertion into the society. That what's make us better than them, what's allow us to temporary suppress their freedom. The fact that we (the society) can forgive, that we can show compassion, that we refuse to break anyone lives.

Sentencing people to a life sentence or to the death penalty is not justice, it's vengeance. It's not civilisation. "An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind", Mahatma Gandhi.

And all that is even more true for children or teens.

Not everyone can be redeemed. A lot of violent criminals show absolutely no remorse for their actions and couldn't care less about being redeemed. When you murder someone, you are effectively throwing away your life already. If a murderer was released back into normal society, I would be extremely uncomfortable about remaining within a ten kilometer radius no matter how rehabilitated they were.

Not everyone can be redeemed. A lot of violent criminals show absolutely no remorse for their actions and couldn't care less about being redeemed. When you murder someone, you are effectively throwing away your life already. If a murderer was released back into normal society, I would be extremely uncomfortable about remaining within a ten kilometer radius no matter how rehabilitated they were.

You miht start feeling really uncomfortable straight away, because there's a very good chance indeed that there is one within a 10 km radius. Either released or else never convicted.

See what happens when you let kids play Grand Theft Auto?


That's right they jam batteries up eachother's asses and leave them to die infront of a train, just like in the game. I am such an ass.

*sighs*

I really hope you're joking. Ban crap parenting and try harder to teach people what's right and wrong at school, rather than blaming it on games.

You miht start feeling really uncomfortable straight away, because there's a very good chance indeed that there is one within a 10 km radius. Either released or else never convicted.

I live in Australia, if that means anything. But yeah. Worrying, isn't it?

*sighs*

I really hope you're joking. Ban crap parenting and try harder to teach people what's right and wrong at school, rather than blaming it on games.

Jackpot! I totally agree, 100%.