Got this in my email box this morning.

Pretty shocking.

When 10-yr olds are capable of such a crime, they must have been mentally very sick. Are they now cured?

For his Memory

Do you remember February 1993 in England , when a young boy of 3 was taken from a Liverpool shopping centre by two 10-year-old boys? Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only a second, 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 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint in his eyes, pushed batteries up his anus and cut his fingers off with scissors. Other mutilations were inflicted but not reported in the press.

N.B. :- Remember, a 3year old cannot possibly defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of 2 them.

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 railway 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-Sloss has awarded the two boys ( now men ), anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities. They will also leave custody early only serving just over half of their sentence. They are being relocated to Australia to live out the rest of their lives. They disgustingly and violently took Jamie's life away and in return they each get a new life!

Please.... . If you feel as strongly as we do, (and if you haven't already signed this petition) that this is a grave Miscarriage of justice - Hit the forward button and add your name at the end, and send it to everyone you can !

If you are the 700th person to sign, please forward this e-mail to: cust.ser.cs @ gtnet.gov.uk and mark it for the attention to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss.

Then continue on until it hits 1400, before you email her the list again.

There is power in numbers & these petitions do help. Maybe it'll prevent another child from a violent death & maybe it'll get greater, more appropriate convictions for these criminals.whatever their age.

Please take a few seconds to forward it to your mail list & don't forget to add your name to the list.

There was a strong rumour (since denied) that one of these killers had already been sent to Perth and had committed another horrific child murder.

hoax

I can tell you from living in Liverpool that emotions are running high on this one! And who would blame them?

Wow....I guess Oz is still a penal colony!

Looking at this a little more realistically:

I'm not a professional psychologist, so I can't say that the choice to release the boys from custody is wrong. Do we want to punish people for all their lives for any kind of murder? That doesn't seem to be the decision we make as a society, whatever our individual feelings, and since the perpetrators were children they have much more left of their lives to be punished.

If they have been healed of their problems, living with the memory of what they have done will always be there to punish them. Just think about the risk they run the rest of their lives of being 'found out' - also, how can they level with new friends, family, lovers about their pasts?

Assuming that they have paid their debt to society and been healed, there is no reason not to give them a chance to start over- and that certainly wouldn't happen if they were in an environment where they could be recognised.

Of course, if they had any further history of violence there should be very draconian measures taken- and I would say they should remain under surveillance by discreet authorities for some time to come.

Sadly in most Western countries the ability for quiet surveillance has been removed from the arsenal. I think you will find it will be against their " rights" to carry out this function.

As for paying their debts to soceity, sorry they have not. On the streets of their home town and many others like it around the world, ten year olds no exactly what they are doing and many take an active part in crime. At the trail they could not stop sniggering together and their attempts at covering thier tracks, tend to suggest a degree of guilty knowledge, which should keep them away from soceity for a good deal longer.

As representatives of " soceity " perhaps the parents of the murdered child should be allowed to comment ? Or perhaps a poll of teachers and parents of their pupil's, in the area the justice system intends to give them their new life could be conducted, on how best that " soceity " can help them get over their feeling of guilt ?

The problem is that if you ONLY poll those who knew the victims/criminals, you are not selecting representative society- that's why politics and laws are necessary- they generalise (imperfectly, no doubt) the will of the people. If we wanted to be harsher as a society, we should pass a harsher law. So I don't think it's particularly helpful to agitate against any SPECIFIC perpetrators on behalf of any SPECIFIC victims. If you find this to be an unfair result, use it to promote stricter or harsher laws for regulation or punishment of such crimes. I don't think the two perpetrators in this case- horrific though their crimes were- should be treated any more harshly than the law allows for, because otherwise we are calling for justice based on emotional rather than practical considerations, and that's mob justice.

Agreed.

The current laws are perfectly adequate, if they would be applied. There may be a remote chance that these two have " seen the light ", but remote it is. I believe their crime to be so hedious that " life" should be that. I for one am not prepared to accept that the chance ( however small it may be ) that they will do the same or similar, does not exist, as sadly statistically it does.

Realistically put, the great and good Bedders posters are left in an unattended sweety shop. 99% of them would not steal ( I hope ). The 1% that do, if caught should be sent to prison, they are thieves. When they come out they have paid their debt to soceity, but would the owner of the shop leave them again unattended.................

Teach has suggested they be watched. Good idea, but not now accepted in polite soceity. Let them out and trust to their good nature, surely no.

Whether or not they should be released is probably best decided by the Justice system with a very healthy amount of imput from psychologists and other professionals concerning the likelihood of reoffending. I don't, however, believe it is anyone's interest to send them to a distant country, far away from the laws and mores of where they grew up. There are commonalities between the two countries, but they are still different. They will have no support system or other mechanisms in place which help to keep us as functioning parts of a society.

We see this all the time right here in Thailand. People who functioned only marginally well in their home country (known environment), seldom function better here and usually much worse.

They cut a three year old child's fingers off with scissors. The chances of them becoming sane after that are very low.

One reason why I am not willing to second-guess the people in contact with the case is that they *have* the information, and I know that *I* don't have it. For example, the boys in question could have been relentlessly abused in similar fashion for years (though less extreme, and in their youth they had no idea of limits) and were simply acting out what they had been taught by their own parents. So who's responsible then? It's way too complex for an uninformed armchair jury to decide, which is why I am glad there are psychological police units and special circumstances considered.

They cut a three year old child's fingers off with scissors. The chances of them becoming sane after that are very low.

Not true.

Facts established at trial show that, at this location, one of the boys threw blue modelling paint on Bulger's face. They kicked him and hit him with bricks, stones and a 22 lb (10 kg) iron bar. They then placed batteries in his mouth. False reports claiming the batteries were pushed up his anus were spread by a chain letter[4]. The letter also claimed that Bulger's fingers were cut off using scissors; this is also untrue. James suffered skull fractures as a result of the iron bar striking his head; this wound is believed to have caused his death. Extreme violence was used on the little boy; his mother, at her own request, has never been made aware of the full extent of the injuries he suffered. Wiki.

The injuries the child received were severe enough without the exaggeration they got in the press and widely circulated chain letters.

They brutally beat a three year old child over a long period of time with bricks, stones and a 22 lb (10 kg) iron bar while he screamed and cried and tried to get away. Something is seriously wrong with them even if they did not happen to cut off his his fingers.

One reason why I am not willing to second-guess the people in contact with the case is that they *have* the information, and I know that *I* don't have it. For example, the boys in question could have been relentlessly abused in similar fashion for years (though less extreme, and in their youth they had no idea of limits) and were simply acting out what they had been taught by their own parents. So who's responsible then?

Whoever actually hurt the child is responsible. If these little sickoes were mistreated by their parents, it is very sad, but they are still damaged goods and responsible for their own actions. That is how society works.

I am restraining myself from posting an emotional response to this topic.

I just hope one or both of them, don't go and commit again. Because there would be no way on earth anyone could justify their release to a grieving family member.

One reason why I am not willing to second-guess the people in contact with the case is that they *have* the information, and I know that *I* don't have it. For example, the boys in question could have been relentlessly abused in similar fashion for years (though less extreme, and in their youth they had no idea of limits) and were simply acting out what they had been taught by their own parents. So who's responsible then?

Whoever actually hurt the child is responsible. If these little sickoes were mistreated by their parents, it is very sad, but they are still damaged goods and responsible for their own actions. That is how society works.

Yup, we make laws and abide by them. So *at the moment* the majority of the represented population favours a more rehabilitative approach to the horrific violence committed by children- i.e., when it comes to children, Hammurabi is not quite hitting the target. I happen to agree, and am glad the majority still think the way I do. I also still like the idea that parents are at least civilly responsible for the destructive actions of their children (kinda gives them at least a minimal, protective interest in parenting).

Fortunately, the U.S. has proven that our style of penal system is effective at 'reducing' crime- or at least in criminalising a higher percentage of our population than in almost any other country. Maybe UG is right and we should get on with it and criminalise children, too.

How many children kidnap, torture and murder smaller children for absolutely no reason at all? Perhaps, these are special cases that deserve a special law?

Since you don't know what reason they might have had- because you don't have access to their case files or to the long years of psychological work done with them- your argument is without premise.

One reason why I am not willing to second-guess the people in contact with the case is that they *have* the information, and I know that *I* don't have it. For example, the boys in question could have been relentlessly abused in similar fashion for years (though less extreme, and in their youth they had no idea of limits) and were simply acting out what they had been taught by their own parents. So who's responsible then?

Whoever actually hurt the child is responsible. If these little sickoes were mistreated by their parents, it is very sad, but they are still damaged goods and responsible for their own actions. That is how society works.

Sadly you are spot on UG especially when you replace "hurt" with "killed".

I am restraining myself from posting an emotional response to this topic.

I just hope one or both of them, don't go and commit again. Because there would be no way on earth anyone could justify their release to a grieving family member.

Now THAT is the scenario that should be at the forefront of any decision made about the future for these boys.

Likewise, I probably should have restrained from posting and I am holding back from a full-blown rant, I am a father and imagining myself in the shoes of that murdered child's parents brings out the zero tolerance usually relegated to the footnotes of my personal moral guidebook!

How many children kidnap, torture and murder smaller children for absolutely no reason at all? Perhaps, these are special cases that deserve a special law?

Spot on again.

Since you don't know what reason they might have had- because you don't have access to their case files or to the long years of psychological work done with them- your argument is without premise.

I understand where you are coming from Ijustwannateach but I believe you are wrong; looking for a reason for the torture and murder of a three year old child is misguided. Protecting society should be the priority, not the punishment of the attackers necessarily but protection of society from these "damaged goods" as UG so descriptively wrote.

There cannot be a happy ending but a repeat of this horror story can be prevented.

JxP

Is it better to prevent the repetition by these individual two boys by locking them up or otherwise effectively ending their contact with the outside world, based on no understanding of what happened to them, or to work on understanding what made them that way, helping to heal them, and then trying to apply this knowledge to the many other broken families that may be producing very similar boys?

I'm not suggesting that if it is found that they cannot be helped they should receive any benefit of the doubt. I am suggesting that it is perhaps because progress has been made that those who have the knowledge and authority to make the call have done as they did. It's really a professional decision and as long as we are willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt psychologically, it's not a vote by those with emotional involvement to make- quite properly.

I can also understand the strong emotional reactions on this thread. But those don't, for me, argue that the law should be changed or that trained psychological opinions should not carry weight; in fact, it is because of the way the mob reaction might go that I find it especially important that we have these processes and protect their privacy.

As a further example, a number of the children inducted into the Ugandan militias over the last few decades have been forced to torture, rape, mutilate, and kill other children- by a program of brainwashing, torture and threat of torture, and basically keeping them scared to death. I saw such a child crying hysterically on film during a BBC documentary on the abuse of children in the African wars. Does such a child deserve the wholesale condemnation that some are making on this thread- is there no hope for her? Should she be summarily executed or locked up forever? She did admit- and describe- how she had tortured and killed other children.

If these boys were put into a similar position by similar processes by their parents, they have a share of my sympathy, too.

No simple answers here from me, though, except that we just don't know- except that some of us, apparently, do.

I'm with you some of the way Ijustwannateach however I do feel that we now live in a society that is not only unwilling to account for blame but is over-confident of the abilities of modern medicine.

There are, as you quite correctly write, no simple answers and nobody on this forum has the full details of the story available to them but we can discuss around the subject all the same.

The point that I am trying to make is that rehabilitation is not always an option but the current way of thinking does not seem to account for this possibility (and in this instance I would be tempted to suggest that it is probable rather than merely possible).

With regard to your African example I would say that, yes, society does need to be protected from such people. I am not condemning them nor am I suggesting their execution but I do believe that they are extremely unlikely to be able to function acceptably within so-called normal society and therefore need to be excluded in some manner.

It is a really interesting debate and I suspect balances on whether one believes in human nature being essentially good or not and additionally how competent contemporary medicine really is. I believe we are generations away from being able to truly mend many of the more seriously broken minds such as those under discussion here.

JxP

^A good, well-rounded, thoughtful reply- thanks, made me think!

No simple answers here from me, though, except that we just don't know- except that some of us, apparently, do.

I don't know all the answers, but I do know that the chances of truly healing such children is practically nil. I am not suggesting that we should stop tryng, but I am suggesting that we protect other children and the rest of society before worrying about any "rights" that they would enjoy simply because of their young age.

One of the bases of a criminal sanction is punishment. Rehabilitation schemes are worthwhile but need to retain an appropriate balance - something with which governments (through both legislation and administration) have had a great deal of difficulty due, at least in part, to the irresistable aroma that such dishes bring to the noses of liberals/SLs.

Just as the majority of adults know right from wrong, especially as to the sanctity of life, so do children of the age involved. Remember back to when you were that age? Despite your mischievousness, playfulness, etc, you clearly knew that which was right and that which was wrong (and you attached value to it). Yes, I leave room for exceptions, but those are not necessarily age-reliant - we are not talking about toddlers.

Neither the law nor its application by the judiciary necessarily reflects the wishes of the majority of the public. To suggest that this can be changed by the power of the vote is simplistic - there are multiple issues that impact a person's voting choice; and plainly wrong - the executive arm of government cannot dictate the actions of the judiciary other than within the confines of legislation. (Governments can apply mandatory sanctions, but are loathe to do so since, trite though it is to observe, there is much force in the fact that they cannot take account of every fact and circumstance in mitigation.) Where governments can afford to make exceptions, they are generally summary matters that do not impact liberty (often involving offences of either absolute liability or strict liability, such as in many areas of motor traffic law) or are considered so abhorrent as to exclude any consideration of mitigation (the latter situation being a rare feature in current western societies).

The judiciary can and often does 'get it wrong'. Witness the proof of its own appellate mechanisms - the State/relevant authority rarely exercises its right to seek appeal, but such of those appeals that are made are successful more often than not. (I apply this fact to my location, which is typical of most of the English speaking world and encompassed within generally universal rules of prosecutorial discretion).

It is extremely difficult to have a member of the bench removed where competence (or partiality of any form) is impugned. How many examples can you recall (you'll know about them because they are headline news when they occur)? The judiciary needs to be made far more accountable, and yes, this is related to the OP (if somewhat obliquely). Those administrative functions of government that can follow on from judicial intervention are also subject to biases and incompetence, and seem to lack an effective measure of accountability as well. In my observation, many agencies of intervention are generously populated by those with minority views opposed to general community standards.

In the final analysis, those who say that we do not know all of the facts of this case and are therefore not qualified to comment are right - and wrong. They are right because it is meaningless to offer a solution to a problem if one does not know all the underlying circumstances, but they are wrong from the perspective that they need to respect the fact that the public has the right, and should be encouraged to exercise that right, to call for absolute accountability and transparency at all relevant levels and ensure that the principle I mentioned in my opening sentence (read 'deterence' if it is more palatable to you) is concomitant with the interests of the public at large and not subordinated to liberal philosophies.

E:T