I didn't mean to kill the debate with something personal and sensitive LOL

And ah, I mistook you for those who did, sorry :p

Utterly ridiculous to impose that kind of sentence on a child that young. Shows a total lack of humanity.

If anybody can be rehabilitated its a young child. He could potentially go on to be a positive force in society with proper guidance and education. Why waste two lives when one can be salvaged?

And I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. If guilty he should serve a lengthy sentence. But forever is one hell of a long time and I see no need for it. A very bad child can make a very good adult.

well, having gone through something like this on the victims side it's good to hear your feelings on it, I'm only guessing how I may or may not feel in that situation

Firstly lets get rid of the sentimental twaddle about him being young, poor thing to young to realize and so and so.....Utter twaddle...

11 years old......Indeed old enough to know what he was doing

An adult crime deserves an adult sentence. Just what this crime riddled drugs mania country needs.

Those that mutter on about rehabilitation. Why oh why should society spend any more money on a cold blooded killer when other more deserving parts of society are crying out for money....

Society should not even wast public money on long jail sentences.....There are deserving people who need services to be spent on them instead of being wasted on trash......

right wing BS

and ignorant. adult sentence? potentially 90 years. Yep thats adult alright!

Yes! Let's not bother wasting money on trials either! We can just execute anyone suspected of a crime. They probably did it anyway right? Kill them all I say, that'll definitely work.

Have some post been deleted in this thread?

Execution costs the state far more than life imprisonment. I believe you have been told this multiple times before by various members whom you have choosen to ignore.

Maybe you stopped developing at 11 but the rest of us didn't.

I think 11 is a reasonable age to know what you're doing, some people are going on like he was 5 at the time or something. Has it said if he has shown remorse or anything? But I don't think if you are a definite danger to society you should not be let out, no matter what age you commited the crime. And this is no ordinary crime

Of course he knew what he was doing. Why do I get the feeling I will be explaining this ad nauseam for the rest of my life?

An eleven year old might know they are killing someone. But that's just the physical action and simplistic, child like, presumably angry mindset that led to it. A conscious, reflective understanding and contemplation of the crime though would be vastly different.

A human brain has not even begun maturing at eleven. I don't care what anybody says and I don't need to explain that. That said I will stress again that I am talking in general terms here. Maybe he is a psychopath who will never show remorse.

Then again ... maybe between now and his eighteenth birthday things could change quite drastically and we could make him understand instead of just keeping him gaga and throwing away the key. I'm personally very interested in the could and believe it is worth a shot. It's not as if he will be released anyway at eighteen or whatever age if the rehabilitation is a dismal faliure. But it's worth trying. It's this baseless, Daily Mailized eye for an eye attitude people apply to every title they read without even thinking about it that irks me senseless.

Responses by certain folk may include such phrases as 'oh please!', 'bleeding heart!' 'spare me the ____!' or in light of me getting their first 'your a smart, smug shit aren't you?'.

Yeah, I also meant to say they should monitor his time in prison and that as well. See how he is and if he improves or whatever. I'm not the whip em and hang em type lol

I'm with this, and I'll be the first to admit I have a pretty 'blinkered' view on this type of crime and will not be swayed by the old 'rehabilitation' crap.

The victims never got a chance at life first time around - so why the hell should those responsible get a second chance.

forgiving? No, I'm not. Very harsh view? Yes. Am I wrong to have this view? No, because it is my view and I'm at liberty to have it - whilst respecting other's opinions on the rehab slant, it's not a view I share.

So you dont believe it's worth putting time and effort to possibly make these people better and members of society again?

If you want me to be brutally honest? At 11 years of age, the child is old enough to know right from wrong. They may not be fully appreciative of the consequences and ramfications of their actions, but they certainly know right from wrong as far as treatment to another human being is concerned. So the short answer is No, I don't believe it's worth putting time, effort and money into something that will never be a sure an absolutely certainty.

I do agree on the basis that he showed no remorse and could do it again if he was let out.

The latest figures I can dig out at a quick glance show rescidivism at 40% in the UK. Four out of every ten prisoners take what the State will give them while they're inside and come out and offend again. Until there is proof that rehabilitation is working FAR more comprehensively than this, no, this child should not be released to potentially kill again. (I know he's in the US but I think the UK rescidivism stats are more relevant for this discussion.) I'm just wondering if those who are on the liberal side of the argument believe that any individual is ever inherently bad, wired wrong and incurable? I do. Firmly. And I think that they should never, ever be left loose on the public again. I'm not in favour of the death penalty but I think that life should mean life and, in the case of adults, murder - intentional, pre-meditated killing - should ALWAYS result in life without parole. The problem is identifying those who are just wrong 'uns. Someone said ^^^^ that no-one's born evil. I don't agree. I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, but I certainly believe that there are aberrations completely devoid of empathy and desensitised. And I think that, while this is often the result of circumstance or trauma, sometimes its innate. So we have to be cold and removed when we look at this and we HAVE to decide that these people should be kept away from the rest of us - permanently. I think that case where the 17 year old girl stamped on a guys head and neck while he lay unconscious and bleeding to death is another example of someone who should never see the light of day again. She was 'ha ha'ing about it on Facebook. Throw away the key; bury it. I do think that, often, becoming a parent is the deciding factor in how you see this kind of thing. I'm a parent and I guarantee you that if anyone harmed one of my children the ONLY thing that would stop me from killing them would be the fact that I would sacrifice my liberty and be unable to look after the rest. And I used to be quite liberal when I was younger.

Excellent contribution Patsy. I have to agree.

A few years back ('a few' being around ten!) - I worked at Carstairs - in a senior positon and part of Board Meetings with full access to case records / medical records of all of the patients (as they are classed patients rather than inmates).

I can categorically say here and now, that a high majority of those incarcerated there, were viewed by the Medical Directors as being likely to reoffend - so much so, that it was often extremely difficult to have them moved on from the State Hospital and for the most part, the hospital was full to capacity - because very few other prisons were adequately equipped or had trained staff to deal with these type of people, and any psychiatric hospitals that they could have been introduced into, were not of the opinion that they were safe enough to be transferred to mainstream psych units.

Regardless of the PR - facts like that speak for themselves. Are some people inherrantly evil with little remorse iwth a willingess to continue to reoffend? Yes. As you state, stats do show that prisons house a very high percentage of reoffenders, than first offenders - that shows that rehabilitation means very little, and has very very limited success.

To me, the success rate is too low to take further chances with those who have shown that they are able to kill /murder or be part of manslaughter.

I don't think people are born 'Evil' but some are born without a Conscience, and they will have the missing factors a normal person has, empathy and all that. But their background and intelligence will determine what they go on to do in life. No doubt it will still be no good though! Some are just better at getting their away with it and bluffing their way out.

You post and the wording immediately reminded me of this man... Dr Robert Hare, expert in his field, and amongst other books, wrote one entitled, "Without conscience".

http://www.hare.org/welcome/bio.html

Yeah I've read his book :tongue:

I had a sneaky wee feeling you might have done! I'm sure it was nothing more than coincedence, but it was the way the word Conscience was capitalised that 'stuck out' and made me think immediately of his book. (the old 'sub-conscious at work !! ).

:)

Personally I dont think people are born good or bad no. I tend to believe that nurture is stronger than nature and it is peoples experiences which shape their lives and the way they act. Take the case you mentioned of the girl just been found guilty of the homophobic killing; she had had a series of traumas in her life with her father being abusive and him being sentenced for manslaughter for stabbing a man when she was younger. Does it justify it? Of course not, and obviously she isnt the only one who has had a hard life but people cope in different ways and some are better at it than others and she resorted to alcohol.

I'd also say that noone is completely "good" or completely "bad". They're just words really, and peoples perception of what is wrong and what is right, what is moral and immoral, is all relative and subjective.

this

I know from personal experience how you can become a totally different person as an adult from when you were a child. It's called growing up and seeing things on a deeper level...with consequences.

I was a criminal not much older than this kid. Spent time in homes and detention centres. Missed years of school.

But now I look back and can't even remember what the hell I was thinking..how I even had the balls to do the stuff I did. Could never do it now and it wouldn't even enter my head to do so. Because Ive grown and Ive learned from my mistakes. My mindset has vastly changed and I care more about how my actions affects others. Young children are often not capable of that...especially if theyre damaged and unloved.

So I say BS to anybody who thinks this boys behaviour is somehow set in stone. NO IT IS NOT. He can still go on to be a good productive member of society. Indeed, many people working in victim support and rehabilitation were once criminals who served time. Now they are giving back in a way thats truly beneficial to society.

Not saying this kid will become an angel. But I think a civilised society should keep all options open and at least give him a chance to redeem himself at some point. His victim aint coming back whatever happens so unless youre all about revenge there's no need to destroy another life here.

But as Ive said, he should still serve a lengthy sentence. I think the killers of Jamie Bulger should have served a much longer sentence too. At that age they can afford to lose at least 15 years of freedom and still have a chance to build a life.

However, some people are born psychopaths. That's a known criminal and medical fact. They have no empathy and are devoid of fellow feeling. Now I'm not saying either the 11 year old boy or the 17 year old girl fall into that category - I don't know - but there are definitely people who are wired differently to the rest of us and act accordingly. Sadly, there are far too many well documented cases of people who are absolutely and completely 'bad' if that's what you want to call it. It's reassuring to think that there aren't - but there are. Ask anyone who works with the criminally insane.

I agree with almost all of the post, apart from the bit in bold. I think there are individuals who are irredeemable and it's a gross error to assume that EVERYONE is 'fixable'. They're not. What happens if we keep trying to fix them and, every time we think the job's done, they go out and kill someone else? A civilised society SHOULDN'T take risks with the safety of the general public because of liberal intentions - however good those intentions may be. We cannot know for certain either way in relation to this boy and it's a matter for psychiatric experts to decide. Particularly in relation to children, we're probably a long way from satisfactory methods of assessment; the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this.