h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I would like people opinions on the james bulger case.

In my opinion the two boys who toecherd and then murderd him should not be relesed yet. That is not to say they should never be relesead just not yet. I mean at ten I am shure I knew that you did not take a two year old boy from his perants in a shoping center and make him eat batterys (if you are not familer with the case that was about the nicest thing they did to him) I dont really know what should be done with them. we should not kill them. That would make us as bad as them and that is what will happen if they are relcead.Jmases mum said that she was pleased with the 15 year sentance now we should at least give them a sentance that she would be pleased with. another thing about this case that I think is stupid is the medie ban on telling us anything about the two boys. espechally when you can buy a scottish or Irish (southern harlf anyway) news paper and they can have it printed in. If they are given a new identaty would they have to tell people that they become romanticly involved with? I mean would you really want your daughter marrieing on of them?

Hmm, have had many heated debates about this with my mother, who is also of the mind that they should be imprisoned for longer. So here's my opinion for what it's worth.

One of the reasons for releasing them early is, I gathered, to prevent them being transferred to 'real grown-ups' prison. The thinking being that two boys who have spent nearly half their lives behind bars are never gonna be capable of living on the outside if they shunt from one institution to the next. Which is then negated by peole saying that they don't deserve to live outside...etc. But as life doesn't mean life, they're gonna have to come out one day and prison would most likely be a negative influence on them now.

As for if it's right or not, I don't know. I know that at 18 years of age the things I had done at 10 were so far removed from the person I was, that it could well have been another person. I appreciate that I didn't kill anyone at 10 but I would imagine it must now be a similar senario for the two of them. I really can't imagine that they haven't felt remorse even if the actual crime seems distant now. And that is, surely, the point of the penal system is to make you realise what it is you've done wrong and deter you from doing it again. In which case sending them to a place which may/will lead them to break the law when they are released, will only defeat what's hopefully been achieved in the last eight years.

I know it is an emotive issue but you can't have two sets of rules - one for the high profile cases and one for the cases no one bothers to cover. They've served over half of the original sentence, have behaved well and therefore are candidiates for release. And if you want a system of blind justice, that's the criteria you have to judge it by.

As for the new identities; It probably won't do them much good. If you want to find someone bad enough, you can. I think it says more about the tabloid media baying for blood in an attempt to curry favour with the public and sell more, than anything else. Mary Bell managed to live a relatively normal life after she was realeased, until the other year. It is an indication of how much press coverage has changed that they are only safe if they leave the country.

Am positive that LOTS of peopell will disagree with me very strongly but that's a rough idea of the conclusions I've come to. (And please don't assume for one moment that I'm trying to be-little what was a horrible crime.)

I dont...one thing that I had forgot to add though is that one of them (acording to the paper any way and there is a law sute over it so I gess it is true) tried to strangel another boy with a flex off a tv I think. This is suposed to be about 18 months agao so he at least in my opinion is not exactly stable

To me, it boils down to one basic question:

Have they been successfully rehabilitated?

If they know that what they did was wrong, if they are remorseful, and if the authorites are convinced that they will never do anyhting like it again, then I have no problems whatsoever with them being released.
Jailing people should not be about punishment. It should be about protecting society as a whole from people who are a danger to it, and about educating them and rehabilitating them so that they can rejoin society. If they can't be rehabilitated, lock them away forever. If they are rehabiliated, let them out.

(Of course, deciding who makes that judgement opens up a whole new can of worms).

So I gess you would agree that f what the papper said was true that one of them tried to strangle someone they should stay inside but the other assuming he has done nothing like that could be releced?

While it is probable these boys will be released, it is likely that if they re-offend either alone or jointly, he or they will never again see the light of day.
as for their identity, if they are granted anonymity, which this writer thinks they should not ( after all who else ever got it ), it will be revealed one way or another, let's not forget how this all came into the public eye in the first place.

but if they arnt given anonimaty they will be killed. it is an unfortunit fact of life. although they will never be able to keep it quiet they have got to be seen to try

Prison isn't just about rehabilitation it is about punishment. There isn't a punishment severe enough for what those boys did. And nobody can tell me that a 10 year old confronted with a 2 year old crying for his mum (I'm filling up again) and then hurting him some more is normal. Sorry but they're not by any stretch of the imagination normal. Worse (!) crimes have been committed. But this one is right up there. The sentence should have reflected the fact that James Bulger was probably (statistically speaking) deprived of 68 (count 'em) years of life. A family, etc etc. What do you think this did to his family? What do you think it did to their families (if that was my son, God help me, I probably would have helped the mob to find him)
Those two have had time in prison, one on one tutoring etc etc. They will be given a new start in life. Probably in a new country (I'm betting on Canada or Australia - although I have to stress this is my own personal idea and has no basis in facts that I have seen/heard elsewhere). Many law abiding children who struggle because of their poor, deprived and/or abused backgrounds never ever receive such help. There is no justice. That is a fact of life.
As for sending them to an adult prison: well, they should have to take it, stand up and be counted. They would have to be guarded day and night and go on rule 43. Tough. This is the deterrent to other kids out there who might be thinking of doing the same thing, and that is one of the purposes of locking up criminals: justice, punishment and the deterrent effect.
Since we're letting these two out, why not go the whole hog and let out all the others at the same time. I'm not mentioning names, but some of them have been locked up for well over 30 years.
There is another side to this. Those boys if they really are rehabilitated will be confronted with the media reports of their actions for ever. Probably they don't sleep properly. Maybe they feel suicidal. They have to live with it and I hope it tortures their souls forever.
Finally, because I have gone on way too long here, I have 2 daughters who are (thankfully) way too young to be involved with anyone romantically. But what if I had older teenage girls? How could I be sure that the nice-seeming boyfriend she brings home isn't one of these two? Where does the right to anonymity end and the rights of other individuals come in?
In case anyone is interested, I did one of those tests about political leanings. I'm a wishy washy liberal, apparently.
Sho

Sometimes there is a fine line between justice and revenge. Which is wanted in the case of these boys??? If it is revenge then why have a justice system at all and just a system based on vigilantism.

Also why is the murder of a child considered more of a crime than the killing of an adult, a life is a life, and don't bring up the innocence bit cause it is a cop out argument. What these kids did was very wrong but it is up to the justice system to deal with them and surely the people who work with the boys on a daily basis know more about they're state of mind than the revenge filled general public who just want a public hanging or something to that effect.

I also wanted to add that this whole thing is also being fuelled by the papers who are stirring up the situation to the public herd not because they are taking a moral stance but so they can sell more papers. Nothing sells better than a shocking headline!!!

Actually, Niz, I do tend to agree with you. The problem here is the question of right and wrong. The defence appeal case rests solely on the fact that these two boys were tried as adults. My argument in favour of this is that they _absolutely must_ have known that what they did was wrong. It is a very emotive case, and as the mother of two young children I am completely and utterly affected by it. Out of all rational proportion I must say, but right now I'm in a bit of a fragile emotional state. Nevertheless...

One thing which never ever has been answered to my satisfaction, however, is how James came to be away from his mum at that time. And the lack of intervention by the public. After all, this was a supposedly unpremeditated action, if ONE person had made the effort to find out what was going on........ it's all academic now anyway.

There is a difference between punishment, justice and revenge. And sometimes it is a very fine line. And I certainly do not agree with hanging and revenge attacks. And as far as I am aware nobody has suggested that (here anyway) the taking of any life is more or less evil depending on the age of the victim. Shocking headlines do sell papers, but let us not forget that newspapers do have their place, and a knee-jerk reaction to anything the press has or hasn't done is irrelevant to the case (until one of them breaks the law and gives away the big secret as to names and locations)

The simple fact is that in the UK the sentencing of serious crime is not hard enough, and the sentencing of petty crime is disproportionately hard. This case highlights the fact that the perpetrators and not the victims and victims' relatives are the ones who benefit.

End of rant. Thanks for getting this far.