Warning: Issue! UK Bulger case
Kayleigh19
agonizing death here, I thought I'd give it all another whack.
There is currently a fracas in the UK over the release of two boys, who, at ten
years old, tortured and killed a two year old boy, James Bulger, in 1993. As
if this wasn't bad enough, authorities are planning on changing their
identities, and give them new lives. It's also been made illegal to show
current photos of the killers on TV or in print. It seems that not only do the
killers get off after only serving eight years, but they get accorded the
special favor of getting to blend back into society.
Now, I'm all for if you serve your time, you should be allowed to have a normal
life, but I guess I'm a hypocrite where murder is concerned. These two ten
year olds abducted a two year old, tortured him, sexually and otherwise, bashed
his head in, and left his broken body on a railway line so that, maybe, a train
would cover up their crime. That, to me, says premeditation, and for these two
to get to go back to cushy lives, with no one the wiser, disgusts me.
Anyone else want to weigh in?
Discuss? Ignore?
Kayleigh
Bolander3
>That, to me, says premeditation, and for these two
>to get to go back to cushy lives, with no one the wiser, disgusts me.
>
>Anyone else want to weigh in?
Thanks for posting about this, Kayleigh. I hadn't heard about these little
bastards getting new identities, and it sickens me. Yes, they committed their
crimes as minors, but that doesn't discount the crimes they committed.
The fact that these "boys" are free now is bad enough, but their protection by
the government seems to be nothing but an insult to the family of the child
that they murdered. The killers don't need to walk around with scarlet letters
on their chests, but to make it illegal to show current photos on television or
in newspapers is asinine. I certainly wouldn't want to live next door to one
of these guys, and I think it's doing a real disservice to the people of the UK
to make it illegal to print pictures of them.
Anyway. That's my eleven for now. I hope you don't mind that I took it out
for a spin without asking.
Jess
Todd
>Kayleigh wrote, among other things:
>
>>That, to me, says premeditation, and for these two
>>to get to go back to cushy lives, with no one the wiser, disgusts me.
>>
>>Anyone else want to weigh in?
>
>Thanks for posting about this, Kayleigh. I hadn't heard about these little
>bastards getting new identities, and it sickens me. Yes, they committed their
>crimes as minors, but that doesn't discount the crimes they committed.
They didn't just commit their crimes as minors, they committed them as
10-year-old minors. There is a big difference between a 10-yr.-old
and a 15-year-old, just as there is a big difference between a
15-yr.-old and a 25-year-old. When I say difference, I mean a
difference in the way they process events and the extent of their
experience. I'd easily believe that a 10-year-old might see Wiley
Coyote get up time and time again from being hit with boulders and
think the same was true of a person. Their experience with death is
limited at that age as is their ability to really know right from
wrong, especially in the case of larger moral questions. I'm not
excusing the crime, but the stupid fuckers who insist on trying
children as adults--and giving them the death penalty in some cases!--
do not understand this basic fact about human development.
>The fact that these "boys" are free now is bad enough, but their protection by
>the government seems to be nothing but an insult to the family of the child
>that they murdered. The killers don't need to walk around with scarlet letters
>on their chests, but to make it illegal to show current photos on television or
>in newspapers is asinine. I certainly wouldn't want to live next door to one
>of these guys, and I think it's doing a real disservice to the people of the UK
>to make it illegal to print pictures of them.
The extraordinary measures taken by the government are way beyond the
pale, I agree. The boys are adults now. They should have to roll the
dice themselves. They might have found it easier to stay in jail.
Todd
Bolander3
> I'm not
>excusing the crime, but the stupid fuckers who insist on trying
>children as adults--and giving them the death penalty in some cases!--
>do not understand this basic fact about human development.
I agree to some extent, but the fact remains that these kids took a life. From
what Kayleigh said, they tortured and sexually abused this child before they
killed him. There's a big difference between that and, say, the kid who tried
wrestling moves on a little girl and killed her. I'll buy that that boy didn't
know what he was doing, but you can't make me believe the same about these two
kids.
Jess
Pete B.
> Okay, since the death penalty thread and the race thread recently have
died an
> agonizing death here, I thought I'd give it all another whack.
>
> There is currently a fracas in the UK over the release of two boys, who,
at ten
> years old, tortured and killed a two year old boy, James Bulger, in 1993.
As
> if this wasn't bad enough, authorities are planning on changing their
> identities, and give them new lives. It's also been made illegal to show
> current photos of the killers on TV or in print.
This is such a tough call for juvenile judges - I know, my sister is one and
angsts over stuff like this all the time. They never want to admit that a
child of ten or even older is a lost soul. And there's a lot of evidence to
indicate that these types of kids aren't thinking with their own brains but
with the thoughts of their usually worthless parents. I'm torn, too, by the
outcome here because I must admit that I believe in Maxwell Anderson's "Bad
Seed" theory. There are some humans born without souls just as some are
born without arms, or brains or other organs. How can we tell whether these
kids are truly soulless? The gravity of their horrible deeds seems to make
it cut-and-dried for most people but those who work with juvenile offenders
appear to always hope to reclaim whatever part of these lost kids they can.
If these kids are identified they have no hope of reintegration within
society. What do you think happens then? They'll probably kill again. I'd
say if we don't have the stones to kill them or lock them up for life this
is the really the only other alternative that can help protect society in
the long run as wrong as it may seem in the short haul.
Petey - who would probably be the first to play piñata with these kid's
skulls if they had killed *his* son.
Kayleigh19
>Thanks for posting about this, Kayleigh. I hadn't heard about these little
>bastards getting new identities, and it sickens me. Yes, they committed
>their
>crimes as minors, but that doesn't discount the crimes they committed.
The poor parents of that child.....they never get to hold their child again...
he never gets to grow up, but these two get to go on with life as if it never
happened?
>Anyway. That's my eleven for now. I hope you don't mind that I took it out
>for a spin without asking.
>
>Jess
>
I'll make an exception for you, my dearest. Especially since you shined them
before you returned them.
Kayleigh
La Reina
>The killers don't need to walk around with scarlet
>letters
>on their chests, but to make it illegal to show current photos on television
>or
>in newspapers is asinine.
Hey, snarks (our own British legal eagle), you up to speed on this story?
Would the law prevent someone from publishing or broadcasting one of those
computer projections of what the kids *might* look like at a certain age?
Reina De Paréntesis
Kayleigh19
>This is such a tough call for juvenile judges - I know, my sister is one and
>angsts over stuff like this all the time. They never want to admit that a
>child of ten or even older is a lost soul. And there's a lot of evidence to
>indicate that these types of kids aren't thinking with their own brains but
>with the thoughts of their usually worthless parents.
True. I'm all for giving a con a second chance, but this giving them new
identities seems like killing that child all over again. His rights didn't
matter when they left him on a train track to be sliced in two, and they don't
matter anymore now that he's dead. It's sad to think that these two get
special treatment, and this boy gets an early grave.
I'm torn, too, by the
>outcome here because I must admit that I believe in Maxwell Anderson's "Bad
>Seed" theory. There are some humans born without souls just as some are
>born without arms, or brains or other organs. How can we tell whether these
>kids are truly soulless? The gravity of their horrible deeds seems to make
>it cut-and-dried for most people but those who work with juvenile offenders
>appear to always hope to reclaim whatever part of these lost kids they can.
I feel for the people who have to deal with these dilemmas all day long, day in
and out. I don't fancy being the one to make the sentences, but to give these
two new identites, just so that they can avoid any further "unpleasantness" in
their lives? Why make it easy on them? Se offenders don't get that chance.
They have to register with their municipalities, and with the nation as a sex
offender. why should these two get special treatment?
>If these kids are identified they have no hope of reintegration within
>society. What do you think happens then? They'll probably kill again. I'd
>say if we don't have the stones to kill them or lock them up for life this
>is the really the only other alternative that can help protect society in
>the long run as wrong as it may seem in the short haul.
I would rather know who, and where they are, rather than having them melt into
society, free and clear.
>Petey - who would probably be the first to play piñata with these kid's
>skulls if they had killed *his* son.
I can't guess as to the depth of my feelings, but I definitely take the side of
the mother on this one -- she's protesting it for all she's worth, and I don't
blame her one iota.
Kayleigh
Pete B.
> The poor parents of that child . . .
. . . somehow let him out of their sight long enough to get abducted by the
two kids. How did that happen? Suppose he had wandered off and fallen in
front of a train? It's too dangerous a world to let a two-year-old out of
your sight for a second. No matter how badly I feel for them I also feel
that they f'ed up big time letting that young a child walk around alone.
Yet I know how easily it happens; it happened to me when I baby sat my
little nephew and he ran out into the street when I turned my back for two
seconds. Still, those kids seized an opportunity they should never have had.
Anyone could have taken that little boy away and done worse and sadly, every
day in this world, someone does. If I've come to any understanding of
tragedy in this world it's that several things have to break down all at
once for a really big disaster like this one to evolve.
> he never gets to grow up, but these two get to go on with life as if it
never
> happened?
They have been incarcerated for half their childhood. That's hardly "as if
it never happened" and all those who know them personally probably despise
them. In this case I don't think it's so horribly wrong to try to salvage
what's left of their lives. The Brits sometimes show remarkable civility in
dealing with such horrific social problems. After all, they were the ones
to first decide that madmen should not be held accountable for their crimes
(the McNaughton rule) if they cannot understand the concept of right and
wrong. We'll reach that level of enlightenment in America some day, I hope,
but it will be a tough row to hoe because in many ways we're really an Old
Testament society.
For whatever reasons God chooses that some of us are born broken. Sadly,
those of us who are born whole often cannot comprehend the weight of such a
cursed birth. My best guess is that God does it to teach us compassion for
those who carry unseen burdens that are often so terrible we can scarce
imagine them.
Petey
Alina Holgate
I'm sure if we're patient snarks will come by. In the meantime, I
would think it would be a bloody brave editor who would try
something like that. We've got the same British law based media
restrictions in Australia. If a judge orders that it can't be published
- that's it, occasionally the newspapers appeal this sort of thing
arguing that public knowledge is in the public's interest but they
rarely win. The level of media secrecy surrounding a trial under
the British system would seem truly astonishing to yanks but when
we see O.J. jurors being harassed by reporters and O.J. attorneys
making puffed up statements during the trial we go "huh?!". Don't
forget that the judge in the Bulger case actually took an
unprecedented step in publicly disclosing the names of the
defendants. In the British system it is illegal to publish ANY
identifying details of cases involving minors so ordinarily the public
wouldn't even know the names of the boys if it hadn't been for the
decision of the trial judge. The judge apparently felt that the only
way to address the level of rumour mongering in the local community
was to hold a public trial.
Alina Holgate
> There is currently a fracas in the UK over the release of two boys, who, at ten
> years old, tortured and killed a two year old boy, James Bulger, in 1993. As
> if this wasn't bad enough, authorities are planning on changing their
> identities, and give them new lives. It's also been made illegal to show
> current photos of the killers on TV or in print. It seems that not only do the
> killers get off after only serving eight years, but they get accorded the
> special favor of getting to blend back into society.
> Now, I'm all for if you serve your time, you should be allowed to have a normal
> life, but I guess I'm a hypocrite where murder is concerned. These two ten
> year olds abducted a two year old, tortured him, sexually and otherwise, bashed
> his head in, and left his broken body on a railway line so that, maybe, a train
> would cover up their crime. That, to me, says premeditation, and for these two
> to get to go back to cushy lives, with no one the wiser, disgusts me.
One thing that probably informed a great deal of their decision-making
was the case of Mary Bell, a 10 year old girl who murdered (along with
a retarded accomplice) two little boys by strangling them. She originally
went to a juvenile detention centre and then when she was sixteen was
transferred to a high security women's prison. She waged a long campaign
before finally being released at about the age of 27. Similar orders have
been made to protect her identity though mainly to protect her daughter.
Mary Bell had suffered appalling abuse as a child (not that this is an
excuse, but it is possibly an explanation) and many felt that it was
inappropriate for her to be sent to a hard-yards prison rather than be
rehabilitated. Gitta Sereny wrote a book Cries Unheard about the case
and the book certainly did make me feel that Mary Bell had genuinely
rehabilitated and that the whole question of what to do with juvenile
offenders of this sort was really complex.
As for the Bulger case, from what I've read, one of the boys (the
dumber one whose name I can't recall) did not seem to understand
that the "babby" couldn't be fixed and seemed genuinely to not
understand the nature of what they'd done. He behaved like a kid
throughout the whole thing, e.g. told the truth when told to by his
parents, etc. The other boy (Jon Venables, I think) did seem like a
bad seed. He was very clever and cautious in his responses to police.
(I've got a book on the case but I lent it to someone).
I guess I agree that it seems unjust that they have served a relatively
light sentence given the enormity of what they did. However I don't
think it would necessarily be appropriate simply to transfer them to
Wormwood Scrubs as soon as they turn 18. I don't think they'd have
much chance of rehabilitation if they spent the next 10 years in an
adult male prison. I think it would be appropriate for them to serve a
longer sentence "somewhere" but I also think that it's not appropriate
to just give up on the notion that, given their age at the time of the
crime, every effort should be made to ensure that when they do get
out they are properly rehabilitated, e.g. that they'll be able to lead
productive lives and they won't offend again. I think that given their
notoriety the anonymity probably just has to come with that - if anyone
found out who they were, either now or 10 years from now, they'd
probably be lynched by an angry mob and I don't think that that would
do much good for anybody.
Yes, I will certainly concede that if they had killed my child my
views on the matter would likely be very different.
quixote
You may not realise quite what a big deal the Bulger case was and has
continued to be in the British (tabloid) press.
If pictures, or any identifying details of the case were revealed, some
publicity-hungry or adreniline-fuelled idiot would take the law into their
own hands and murder them. There's just no question about it. It would be a
de-facto death penalty imposed by the newspapers. That's why their
identities are to be shielded...to prevent *further* crime.
.
> Kayleigh
Pete B.
> I feel for the people who have to deal with these dilemmas all day long,
day in
> and out. I don't fancy being the one to make the sentences, but to give
these
> two new identites, just so that they can avoid any further
"unpleasantness" in
> their lives?
Because that's not the real reason to protect them. It's to try to reclaim
them as citizens and to prevent them from being lynched. We hope that
during the time they've been in the system someone has been trying to to
recover whatever humanity these kids have left in them. Put yourself in the
place of one of the killer's parents, especially of the slightly dull boy
who was just doing what his apparently far more malevolent friend suggested.
Wouldn't you want your son to get a real chance to make up for that one
horrible moment and build a new future? Especially if he was not really
bright enough to comprehend the gravity of the crime.
My sister once tried a 7-yaer-old for armed robbery with a .45 automatic.
The 7-11 clerk said he had been robbed a dozen times but this was by far the
scariest because he knew that the little kid had no appreciation for the
consequences of pulling the trigger. It was just something the boy had seen
dozens of times on TV. It wasn't "real" to him just (as I suppose) the
killing of baby Bulger was not "real" to the two pre-teen killers. It might
be good to remember that neither Judaism nor Catholicism considers
ten-year-olds as responsible for their acts before God. I'm not willing to
override that belief. Not yet.
> They have to register with their municipalities, and with the nation as a
sex
> offender. why should these two get special treatment?
Because they were so young when this happened. That's really what this is
all about, the notion that a crime committed so young is not neccesarily
evidence of career criminality but of bad upbringing. The latter may be
salvageable and any but a savage society should make the effort to do so.
It definitely rubs the wrong way, I agree, but aside from a bullet to the
backs of their heads what real choices are there? Revealing who they are to
even the normally laid-back and "civilised" Brits is going to get those kids
killed. Society has a great stake in maintaining the rule of law rather
than giving in to the rule of the mob. I think that's what they are hoping
to achieve by the court order.
> I would rather know who, and where they are, rather than having them melt
into
> society, free and clear.
I think the local constables know who they are and when a child skins a knee
within a dozen miles of them they both get hauled in for questioning.
> I can't guess as to the depth of my feelings, but I definitely take the
side of
> the mother on this one -- she's protesting it for all she's worth, and I
don't
> blame her one iota.
As I said, think of the mothers of the killers, too. If one of these poor
kids was as gullible as it's been made out it's easy for me to see how, at
ten years old, the made a very bad choice. Is spending your childhood in
jail a cakewalk? Think of all the things you did and experienced from age
10 to age 18 and then mentally subtract them from your life. Eight years of
childhood could easily be worth 30 years of adulthood, maybe even more.
They paid a price. I'll bet we all would be shocked to find out how many
kids in our system have done worse and have been punished less. Remember OJ
Simpson? If these kids had good lawyers they might never have been
incarcerated at all!
Petey
Pete B.
> we see O.J. jurors being harassed by reporters and O.J. attorneys
> making puffed up statements during the trial we go "huh?!".
Some of us Yanks go "huh?" too. It was a travesty and we have them ever few
decades to remember our Romanesque heritage of bread and circuses. (-:
> Don't forget that the judge in the Bulger case actually took an
> unprecedented step in publicly disclosing the names of the
> defendants. In the British system it is illegal to publish ANY
> identifying details of cases involving minors so ordinarily the public
> wouldn't even know the names of the boys if it hadn't been for the
> decision of the trial judge. The judge apparently felt that the only
> way to address the level of rumour mongering in the local community
> was to hold a public trial.
That's a very good point to remember. This case was difficult in so many
dimensions.
Petey
Pete B.
> Mary Bell had suffered appalling abuse as a child (not that this is an
> excuse, but it is possibly an explanation
But to me it *is* an excuse, at least for 10-year-old kids and even dogs.
Chain a dog, whip it, starve it and mistreat it and what do you think the
outcome will be? The same as if you do it to a child. Monsters beget
monstrosity.
> As for the Bulger case, from what I've read, one of the boys (the
> dumber one whose name I can't recall) did not seem to understand
> that the "babby" couldn't be fixed and seemed genuinely to not
> understand the nature of what they'd done. He behaved like a kid
> throughout the whole thing, e.g. told the truth when told to by his
> parents, etc.
Good point. He behaved like a kid because he IS a kid, and as such, can't
really be treated as an adult as much as our outrage demands it.
> productive lives and they won't offend again. I think that given their
> notoriety the anonymity probably just has to come with that - if anyone
> found out who they were, either now or 10 years from now, they'd
> probably be lynched by an angry mob and I don't think that that would
> do much good for anybody.
That's why we have judges and courts - to ensure that society is best served
and not just the primitive lust of revenge. If you don't kill them then you
have to try to reclaim them. And I believe that if there's any group that
can be reclaimed it's young children.
> Yes, I will certainly concede that if they had killed my child my
> views on the matter would likely be very different.
That's why we has dispassionate jurists deciding these cases and not the
aggrieved parents. It's really a good thing in the long run although it
seems so unfair to baby Bulger's memory at the moment.
Petey
snarkygirl
>Okay, since the death penalty thread and the race thread recently have died an
>agonizing death here, I thought I'd give it all another whack.
>
>There is currently a fracas in the UK over the release of two boys, who, at ten
>years old, tortured and killed a two year old boy, James Bulger, in 1993. As
>if this wasn't bad enough, authorities are planning on changing their
>identities, and give them new lives. It's also been made illegal to show
>current photos of the killers on TV or in print. It seems that not only do the
>killers get off after only serving eight years, but they get accorded the
>special favor of getting to blend back into society.
>Now, I'm all for if you serve your time, you should be allowed to have a normal
>life, but I guess I'm a hypocrite where murder is concerned. These two ten
>year olds abducted a two year old, tortured him, sexually
His penis and foreskin were "manipulated" but the UK press made big
mention of the fact that batteries had been found close to his body
suggesting he had been violated in some way with them. The post mortem
showed otherwise. One of a number if inaccuracies in the then
reporting that took on a life all of its own.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
>Jess opined:
>
>
>>The killers don't need to walk around with scarlet
>>letters
>>on their chests, but to make it illegal to show current photos on television
>>or
>>in newspapers is asinine.
Why? Did you see the footage of grown men and women banging on the
police van as the two boys were taken to court everyday? The same
adults standing outside the police station shouting and screamming
promising to murder the "evil bastards" if they got their hands on
them? Or hear the father of the victim promising to hunt them down and
kill them?
As much as I was repulsed by the crime, the disgraceful bloodthirsty
behaviour of these people is just as shocking.
>Hey, snarks (our own British legal eagle), you up to speed on this story?
>
>Would the law prevent someone from publishing or broadcasting one of those
>computer projections of what the kids *might* look like at a certain age?
Computer projections, who knows? I think the concern is over recent
photographs that will identify them (Members of the "Justice for
James" organisation as reportedly wandering around Liverpool
brandishing a recent photograph (taken by security cameras in a
shopping mall where one of the boys was on a supervised visiting -
presumably one of the staff at the secure home tipped them off) and
have shown that photograph to one media organisation already (they
declined to publish)
The injunction now in place prevents the publication of recent
photographs or details of the whereabouts of the boys in the English
and Welsh media. The Scottish media (we have different legal systems)
have agreed to abide by this injunction. The Attorney General is today
deciding whether to take action against the Manchester Evening News
for violating this injunction (unwittingly according to them).
Of occurs these injunctions are pretty useless. When a Cabinet
minister's son was arrested for drug dealing, despite a similar
injunction I typed cabinet, minister and drugs into Google and got a
French newspaper to tell me it was Jack Straw's son.
snarkygirl
Alina Holgate
> "Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> > Mary Bell had suffered appalling abuse as a child (not that this is an
> > excuse, but it is possibly an explanation
>
> But to me it *is* an excuse, at least for 10-year-old kids and even dogs.
> Chain a dog, whip it, starve it and mistreat it and what do you think the
> outcome will be? The same as if you do it to a child. Monsters beget
> monstrosity.
Oh for god's sake, now you're just gratutiously forcing me into an
interesting debate. Abuse possibly is an excuse for a child because
I believe, as you point out, that you can hardly expect a child to behave
any differently to what they've been taught - those who have been
taught that the strong prey on the weak will seek strength in preying
on the weak themselves. Children don't have the impulse control or
developmental capacity to fully comprehend the result of their actions,
etc. However three points bother me:
The least controversial is the question of excuse vs. explanation. The
fact that someone has done wrong through no necessary fault of their
own doesn't necessarily mean that they should be "excused" from the
consequences of their actions. The fact that a child has been abused
may well "explain" their abuse of others but I don't think that this should
excuse them from the consequences of their abuse. They still need to
be taught that abuse of others is wrong and that this behaviour will be
punished. In the case of a young abuse offender this is obviously a
delicate line where wrongness of the abuse they have suffered should
be acknowledged but the wrongness of the ultimate crime that they have
committed in murder should also be brought home to them. I think it's
appropriate that they be locked up and intensively treated with a view
to healing the abuse but, probably most importantly, ensuring that they
never offend again.
The second thing that perplexes me in all this is the question of
developmental change. Many 30 year old murderers can claim
histories of horrible childhood abuse, but while we accept that as
some sort of explanation for their actions we don't accept it as any
kind of excuse. We expect that an adult has a better comprehension
of the consequences of their actions and the capacity for impulse control.
But when you look at brain-damage and drug-use among adult murderers
I wonder whether the distinction between adult and child offenders can
actually be drawn very clearly. It seems to me that a lot of adults are
functioning at a developmentally child-like level yet we find it easier to
condemn adults for their actions than children. At what point in the
Bulger case would you hold the boys criminally responsible - 12 years,
17 years, 30 years? Why should the impact of abuse be any less in a
30 year old as a 12 year old?
The third issue, that I reckon is the real conundrum of the matter, is
that, sadly, literally millions of children have been horrendously abused.
No doubt many girls have been as abused as Mary Bell but it was only
Mary Bell, out of all those girls, who killed two little boys. (Interestingly
Mary Bell doesn't claim her abuse as an excuse). I don't think we know
the full story of the boys in the Bulger case but I don't doubt that currently
in Britain there would be thousands of boys who have similar backgrounds.
But we only have one Bulger case. It is clear that abuse it not sufficient
to explain the actions of child murderers or else they would not be as rare
as they are. Given that, all you are left with is the conclusion that there is
something about these individuals, apart from the abuse, that made them
behave in the way they did. And given that, they probably deserve to
be watched very closely as an example of a rare species.
Pete B.
> The least controversial is the question of excuse vs. explanation. The
> fact that someone has done wrong through no necessary fault of their
> own doesn't necessarily mean that they should be "excused" from the
> consequences of their actions.
But these kids weren't excused. They were incarcerated and in the US they
might have even walked after a stint in a mental ward.
> committed in murder should also be brought home to them. I think it's
> appropriate that they be locked up and intensively treated with a view
> to healing the abuse but, probably most importantly, ensuring that they
> never offend again.
I believe that's happened, at least to some extent.
> I wonder whether the distinction between adult and child offenders can
> actually be drawn very clearly.
We've drawn it religiously and legally for years. The rapid rate of change
in society seems to be pushing us towards setting the age of responsibility
even lower but at some point children are children and not adults and they
both deserve and require different treatment than adults.
> It seems to me that a lot of adults are
> functioning at a developmentally child-like level yet we find it easier to
> condemn adults for their actions than children. At what point in the
> Bulger case would you hold the boys criminally responsible - 12 years,
> 17 years, 30 years? Why should the impact of abuse be any less in a
> 30 year old as a 12 year old?
Because 30 year olds can feed, clothe and care for themselves. Ten year
olds, for the most part, cannot. That alone indicates a substantial
societal difference.
> But we only have one Bulger case. It is clear that abuse it not
sufficient
> to explain the actions of child murderers or else they would not be as
rare
> as they are. Given that, all you are left with is the conclusion that
there is
> something about these individuals, apart from the abuse, that made them
> behave in the way they did. And given that, they probably deserve to
> be watched very closely as an example of a rare species.
I agree - and they have been closely watched, at least IMHO. As I said
before it often takes multiple failures to cause profound tragedy and in
this case it may be abuse coupled with dim-wittedness coupled with
opportunity coupled with "bad genes" coupled with some demented TV show that
the kids watched that gave them the idea to do something horrific. A long
time ago when a TV movie in the states showed a brutal schoolyard
broomhandle rape guess what happened the next day all over the country?
Copycats. We are a species that learns by imitation and how many little
kids do you suppose get to watch a show like "Oz" without parental guidance?
Even one is too many. Our ultra-violent society bears some of the blame for
the fruit of the seeds we've sown.
Petey
snarkygirl
I know very little about the wrestling boy case but I know that his
mother is police officer so she's a presumably decent responsible
adult. There's no indication that she was anything other than a loving
parent. The parents of these two boys were either absent, drunk or
mentally unbalanced during those first 10 very important years of
their lives.
Todd made a good point about how age is important in how people
process events - important to their understanding of their actions and
the consequences but guidance is important too. As a ten year old I
knew not to steal because my parents had told me not to steal, had
erroneously told me that I would go to prison for stealing, that I
would bring shame on the family etc. Result - I didn't steal. These
children weren't raised in that kind of environment, they weren't
raised at all. It's no excuse because millions of people with crappy
lives turn out "fine" or at least don't turn their anger on others but
it has to figure in how we see them and what they did.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
>I'm sure if we're patient snarks will come by. In the meantime, I
>would think it would be a bloody brave editor who would try
>something like that. We've got the same British law based media
>restrictions in Australia. If a judge orders that it can't be published
>- that's it, occasionally the newspapers appeal this sort of thing
>arguing that public knowledge is in the public's interest but they
>rarely win.
Four tabloids appealed and lost.
>The level of media secrecy surrounding a trial under
>the British system would seem truly astonishing to yanks but when
>we see O.J. jurors being harassed by reporters and O.J. attorneys
>making puffed up statements during the trial we go "huh?!".
There's no such thing as a celebrity lawyer here. We have well known
lawyers but then again maybe they're only well known in particular
circles. Your average Joe Bloggs here could probably name OJ's lawyers
but not Amnesty's lawyer in the Pinochet case (Geoffrey Robertson QC -
one of the most well known lawyers in this country (and an Aussie
too)).
>Don't
>forget that the judge in the Bulger case actually took an
>unprecedented step in publicly disclosing the names of the
>defendants. In the British system it is illegal to publish ANY
>identifying details of cases involving minors so ordinarily the public
>wouldn't even know the names of the boys if it hadn't been for the
>decision of the trial judge. The judge apparently felt that the only
>way to address the level of rumour mongering in the local community
>was to hold a public trial.
IIRC they weren't named until after the trial but referred throughout
as Child A and Child B.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
>One thing that probably informed a great deal of their decision-making
>was the case of Mary Bell, a 10 year old girl who murdered (along with
>a retarded accomplice) two little boys by strangling them. She originally
>went to a juvenile detention centre and then when she was sixteen was
>transferred to a high security women's prison. She waged a long campaign
>before finally being released at about the age of 27. Similar orders have
>been made to protect her identity though mainly to protect her daughter.
And even then the British press broke the injunction protecting the
child. They were up in arms about the fact that Bell had been paid for
her co-operation by Sereny and sought her out. At that point her 14
year old daughter had no idea about her mother's past and apparently
only became aware of it when the police descended on their home to
take them to a safe house as the media were on their way.
>Mary Bell had suffered appalling abuse as a child (not that this is an
>excuse, but it is possibly an explanation) and many felt that it was
>inappropriate for her to be sent to a hard-yards prison rather than be
>rehabilitated. Gitta Sereny wrote a book Cries Unheard about the case
>and the book certainly did make me feel that Mary Bell had genuinely
>rehabilitated and that the whole question of what to do with juvenile
>offenders of this sort was really complex.
I haven't read Cries Unheard but I did read Sereny's first book on
Bell, which was extremely interesting and not a pleasant read at all.
>As for the Bulger case, from what I've read, one of the boys (the
>dumber one whose name I can't recall) did not seem to understand
>that the "babby" couldn't be fixed and seemed genuinely to not
>understand the nature of what they'd done. He behaved like a kid
>throughout the whole thing, e.g. told the truth when told to by his
>parents, etc. The other boy (Jon Venables, I think) did seem like a
>bad seed. He was very clever and cautious in his responses to police.
>(I've got a book on the case but I lent it to someone).
IIRC it was the other way around. Robert Thompson was the one
portrayed in the press as the more evil of the two whilst Venables was
supposed to be more of a follower.
>I guess I agree that it seems unjust that they have served a relatively
>light sentence given the enormity of what they did. However I don't
>think it would necessarily be appropriate simply to transfer them to
>Wormwood Scrubs as soon as they turn 18. I don't think they'd have
>much chance of rehabilitation if they spent the next 10 years in an
>adult male prison. I think it would be appropriate for them to serve a
>longer sentence "somewhere"
As Bell herself has said, the work done at the special school she was
initially incarcerated in was undone the moment she was transferred to
an adult prison because she had to be like the rest of them there to
survive.
Whilst I have a different opinion on this subject to the supposed
popular opinion in this country, I do agree that a longer sentence,
possibly an extended stay in the secure home, may have been more
appropriate.
The trial judge recommended an eight-year minimum, which was increased
to 10 years and was then increased in a flagrant breach of his powers
by the then Home Secretary to 15 years in response to "public
reaction. This was eventually overruled and instead the sentence
reverted to the trial judge's original minimum and they were to be
reviewed at the age of 18 when they would "graduate" to an adult
prison. The country's most senior judge, the boy's psychiatrists,
parole officers, other such experts etc. are now of the view that
after eight years the young men are rehabilitated and that keeping
them incarcerated any longer is of no benefit to anyone.
(The trial itself was criticised by the European Court of Human Rights
- 10 year olds are considered criminally responsible in the UK but
rather than trying them in a juvenile court they were tried in an
adult court - on a number of points.)
I think another issue for some people was that although they were
deprived of their liberty (and eight years may not seem a long time
but as a ten year old when my mother told me it was three days until
such an event, it felt like a bloody eternity to me) they were held in
secure units where they got was eight years of intensive attention,
the kind of education they would never have had had they remained at
home and the favourite refrain, "Playstations in their bedrooms". Many
people feel rightly or wrongly that this was not punishment at all,
let alone punishment enough.
I guess we should look more closely at what it is we expect from
imprisoning them. Do we want to punish them or seek some sort of
revenge or should it be about making them understand what they did and
then trying to rehabilitate them.
> but I also think that it's not appropriate
>to just give up on the notion that, given their age at the time of the
>crime, every effort should be made to ensure that when they do get
>out they are properly rehabilitated, e.g. that they'll be able to lead
>productive lives and they won't offend again.
I think that maybe some people are born evil but others are simply
damaged by life. As young as they were, maybe they stand a better
chance of being rehabilitated.
> I think that given their
>notoriety the anonymity probably just has to come with that - if anyone
>found out who they were, either now or 10 years from now, they'd
>probably be lynched by an angry mob and I don't think that that would
>do much good for anybody.
As Jason commented the Bulger murder was an enormous deal in this
country as bar Mary Bell, we have little modern history of children
killing children. What occurred was horrific and more so because it
was children who committed the crime. I don't know what Jason's
opinion of it is but I remember feeling rather strangely that the
whole country took this crime personally. Whenever you read of a dead
child in the papers it's horrifying but I think this was different and
I personally felt that part of the anger directed at the killers came
from the knowledge that it was children who had killed and we just
couldn't figure out why or at least we didn't want to face the reasons
why.
Had it been an adult male who had done it, the reaction would have
been different. But it was two kids and children aren't supposed to
kill. (Similarly women who kill - Myra Hindly, the Moors murderer
being a perfect example - are demonised far more than male killers
because they are women and it goes against the "nature" of what women
are.) My first instinct after reading about these boys was that *we*
had failed them in some way and I wonder if the anger is in some way
about that. We're all guilty of looking away when we see people
living in poverty or when we see people failing and unable to cope.
Certain sections of society are marginalised until they don't exist as
people but as figureheads for politicians and the media to blame all
of society's ills on because we can't be bothered to tackle the actual
cause of the problems.
>Yes, I will certainly concede that if they had killed my child my
>views on the matter would likely be very different.
I was told yesterday that as someone who doesn't have children I have
no right to an opinion on this matter.
Whilst I have every sympathy for the family of James Bulger I keep
coming back to the fact that they were children and children with
damaged lives. Neither boy had a stable background or the kind of
guidance that children need to develop their moral bearings. If *your*
life has no worth, it's hard to understand that *any* life has worth.
For anyone interested there are a whole host of background articles
at:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,479,00.html
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/bulger/0,2759,192515,00.html
snarkygirl
quixote
snarkygirl wrote:
<plenty of snippage because I agree with all that you've said>
>
> > I think that given their
> >notoriety the anonymity probably just has to come with that - if anyone
> >found out who they were, either now or 10 years from now, they'd
> >probably be lynched by an angry mob and I don't think that that would
> >do much good for anybody.
>
> As Jason commented the Bulger murder was an enormous deal in this
> country as bar Mary Bell, we have little modern history of children
> killing children. What occurred was horrific and more so because it
> was children who committed the crime. I don't know what Jason's
> opinion of it is but I remember feeling rather strangely that the
> whole country took this crime personally. Whenever you read of a dead
> child in the papers it's horrifying but I think this was different and
> I personally felt that part of the anger directed at the killers came
> from the knowledge that it was children who had killed and we just
> couldn't figure out why or at least we didn't want to face the reasons
> why.
>
It did seem to be one of those big stories that unifies a nation. Or tabliod
editors pretend unify a nation (viz. Diana). Either way, I don't think it's
necessary for the country to take the crime personally in order for there to
be pockets of hysteria and dangers of reprisals. When the News Of The World
(illegally) printed the names and photographs of fifty released, registered
paedophiles (adult males all) the vigilante reaction was such that there
were occasions of innocent people with similar names being firebombed from
their homes. It's no wonder that Venables and Thompson require the
protection of new identities.
> Had it been an adult male who had done it, the reaction would have
> been different. But it was two kids and children aren't supposed to
> kill. (Similarly women who kill - Myra Hindly, the Moors murderer
> being a perfect example - are demonised far more than male killers
> because they are women and it goes against the "nature" of what women
> are.)
Not sure about that (see point above, and also Hindley was no more demonised
than her accomplice, Ian Brady).
My first instinct after reading about these boys was that *we*
> had failed them in some way and I wonder if the anger is in some way
> about that. We're all guilty of looking away when we see people
> living in poverty or when we see people failing and unable to cope.
> Certain sections of society are marginalised until they don't exist as
> people but as figureheads for politicians and the media to blame all
> of society's ills on because we can't be bothered to tackle the actual
> cause of the problems.
>
> >Yes, I will certainly concede that if they had killed my child my
> >views on the matter would likely be very different.
>
> I was told yesterday that as someone who doesn't have children I have
> no right to an opinion on this matter.
>
> Whilst I have every sympathy for the family of James Bulger I keep
> coming back to the fact that they were children and children with
> damaged lives. Neither boy had a stable background or the kind of
> guidance that children need to develop their moral bearings. If *your*
> life has no worth, it's hard to understand that *any* life has worth.
>
> For anyone interested there are a whole host of background articles
> at:
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,479,00.html
> http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/bulger/0,2759,192515,00.html
>
And anyone *really* interested in the Bulger case, and the questions of
crime, punishment, childhood and "normalcy" that surround it, should check
out Blake Morrison's "As If", which is available at Amazon.
Jason.
>
Pete B.
> >I guess I agree that it seems unjust that they have served a relatively
> >light sentence given the enormity of what they did.
Half your chldhood isn't necessarily what I would call light. Plenty of
adult murderers in the US and elsewhere serve less time and as we know,
some, like OJ, serve almost no time at all. It's important to remember that
much of the fury has been whipped up by the press.
> As Bell herself has said, the work done at the special school she was
> initially incarcerated in was undone the moment she was transferred to
> an adult prison because she had to be like the rest of them there to
> survive.
I agree with that - and that's why I don't think it's so horrific if these
boys don't go to adult jail. It is well-known it doesn't rehabilitate - it
trains young criminals in the ways of more experienced ones.
> prison. The country's most senior judge, the boy's psychiatrists,
> parole officers, other such experts etc. are now of the view that
> after eight years the young men are rehabilitated and that keeping
> them incarcerated any longer is of no benefit to anyone.
We put in place a system of experts in the subject matter and then override
them out of blood lust. Who are the real savages I sometimes wonder?
> I think another issue for some people was that although they were
> deprived of their liberty (and eight years may not seem a long time
> but as a ten year old when my mother told me it was three days until
> such an event, it felt like a bloody eternity to me)
We agree on that - they lost their freedom during a time when most of us
were well-cared for by our parents.
> secure units where they got was eight years of intensive attention,
> the kind of education they would never have had had they remained at
> home and the favourite refrain, "Playstations in their bedrooms". Many
> people feel rightly or wrongly that this was not punishment at all,
> let alone punishment enough.
It was society compensating for the failure of their parents who should have
been fined, jailed and beaten to a pulp, reconstituted from the pulp and
beaten again.
> I guess we should look more closely at what it is we expect from
> imprisoning them. Do we want to punish them or seek some sort of
> revenge or should it be about making them understand what they did and
> then trying to rehabilitate them.
Answer this question and you will have bested some of the world's leading
criminologists. They mostly agree that imprisonment serves multiple goals
which are often called the three R's - revenge, removal from society and
rehab. But they all admit that rehab is the least likely to be accomplished
out of all of them. But if rehab's possible then I feel that it's most
probably going to happen with young children who have been raised without
proper guidance.
> I was told yesterday that as someone who doesn't have children I have
> no right to an opinion on this matter.
Told this by an idiot, now doubt.
> Whilst I have every sympathy for the family of James Bulger I keep
> coming back to the fact that they were children and children with
> damaged lives. Neither boy had a stable background or the kind of
> guidance that children need to develop their moral bearings. If *your*
> life has no worth, it's hard to understand that *any* life has worth.
Well put.
Petey
Pete B.
> It did seem to be one of those big stories that unifies a nation. Or
tabliod
> editors pretend unify a nation (viz. Diana).
I vote for the latter - it sold papers and the more they touted it the more
they sold. It then became the typical, overblown media feeding frenzy.
> (illegally) printed the names and photographs of fifty released,
registered
> paedophiles (adult males all) the vigilante reaction was such that there
> were occasions of innocent people with similar names being firebombed from
> their homes. It's no wonder that Venables and Thompson require the
> protection of new identities.
An excellent point. Vigilantism and the harming of innocents in my mind is
almost as bad as the crime that precipitated it all. As for pedophiles I
become somewhat more conservative and say: Castrate for first offense,
decapitate for second.
Petey
snarkygirl
>"Kayleigh19" <kayle...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> I would rather know who, and where they are, rather than having them melt
>into
>> society, free and clear.
>
>I think the local constables know who they are and when a child skins a knee
>within a dozen miles of them they both get hauled in for questioning.
Their new identities have been flagged on national police computer
systems. Should they be stopped for a speeding offence the Assistant
Chief Constable in charge of the operation (only a handful of senior
police and probation officers are aware of their new identities) will
be informed. They are out on licence so can be recalled if their
parole officers have *any* concern about their behaviour.
snarkygirl
Kayleigh19
>"Kayleigh19" <kayle...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> The poor parents of that child . . .
>
>. . . somehow let him out of their sight long enough to get abducted by the
>two kids. How did that happen? Suppose he had wandered off and fallen in
>front of a train? It's too dangerous a world to let a two-year-old out of
>your sight for a second. No matter how badly I feel for them I also feel
>that they f'ed up big time letting that young a child walk around alone.
I agree. I'm not saying that I think the child who was murdered was a perfect
angel, or that it's a world colored rosy. I'm just saying that it took the
forethought and planning of the two offenders to say --"Hm. There's a kid, and
he's alone. Let's take him". And then, they did, and once having committed
the crime, they *knew* it was wrong, and attempted to cover it up and conceal
their involvement.
Alina added:
<<As for the Bulger case, from what I've read, one of the boys (the
dumber one whose name I can't recall) did not seem to understand
that the "babby" couldn't be fixed and seemed genuinely to not
understand the nature of what they'd done. He behaved like a kid
throughout the whole thing, e.g. told the truth when told to by his
parents, etc. The other boy (Jon Venables, I think) did seem like a
bad seed. He was very clever and cautious in his responses to police.
(I've got a book on the case but I lent it to someone).>>
I understand that these children probably did not lead lives of luxury, but how
do we determine how much of them is salvageable? I know we can't make any
assurances that there will be no chances of recidivisim, but is eight years
enough time for them to be rehabilitated? As you say, Alina, the "slightly
off" boy could honestly have only been going along with the other, more
"violent" boy. But, the abuse excuse should only be one facet of this story.
Are they rehabilitated? Have they demonstrated this? I've not see the wealth
of information that I'm sure that you Brits have. (And you Ozlanders, as
well....)
Snarkygirl said, re Mary Bell:
<<As Bell herself has said, the work done at the special school she was
initially incarcerated in was undone the moment she was transferred to
an adult prison because she had to be like the rest of them there to
survive.>>
Now, *that* I agree with. I don't approve of these boys only serving eight
years (despite the fact that they spent their childhoods in jail, and that they
will never lead a "normal" life.), but I can see where shunting them into an
adult prison with hardened criminals would not make them toe the straight and
narrow.
I'm at a loss to explain *where* exactly they should go, and how long they
should stay there, but I think eight years is a light sentence for murder.
But, as Pete (I think it was) said, look at OJ. He's a double murderer, and
look how little time he did.
Granted, they *did* do their time, and I agree that since the courts have
decreed that they served the allotted time (no matter how little I think it may
be) that was assigned to them at the time of the sentencing, they should be
released. I just think that it's a sad fact that these two will be provided
with new identites. I understand that there is the threat of vigilanteeism,
and while I detest that, it doesn't make it seem any more palatable to me that
they get to go on with their lives under the cover of anonymity.
These two may well have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their
lives. I'm not saying that it's right for them to be dragged from their homes
and be subjected to all kinds of unspeakable tortures, but the average Joe
Bloggs criminal type doesn't get a new identity upon release from prison.
I guess my stance is due to the fact that I come down on the side of Victim's
rights. I empathize with the victims more than I do with the criminals. I'm
sure that the father spoke of his need for retribution out of grief, and he may
well intend to get a slice of his own type of revenge, but don't you think that
the police will make damn sure that he gets not one foot near the offenders?
I can't imagine the depth of despair a mother must face, knowing that she
couldn't protect her son. Either the mother of the victim, or of the
offenders....they all must feel adrift at sea.
How much is known about the childhood of the offenders? I know that it's said
that they were neglected, but how so? Are there any details?
Kayleigh
snarkygirl
>I agree - and they have been closely watched, at least IMHO. As I said
>before it often takes multiple failures to cause profound tragedy and in
>this case it may be abuse coupled with dim-wittedness coupled with
>opportunity coupled with "bad genes" coupled with some demented TV show that
>the kids watched that gave them the idea to do something horrific.
There was some focus during the court case that the two boys had seen
Child's Play 3 (or one of those Child's Play movies) which led to much
film/tv violence causes crime debate but I believe that police sources
found no evidence and thought it an irrelevant avenue for
investigation.
>A long
>time ago when a TV movie in the states showed a brutal schoolyard
>broomhandle rape guess what happened the next day all over the country?
>Copycats. We are a species that learns by imitation and how many little
>kids do you suppose get to watch a show like "Oz" without parental guidance?
>Even one is too many. Our ultra-violent society bears some of the blame for
>the fruit of the seeds we've sown.
I don't know about this. I don't think that violent movies can propel
a "normal" person to acts of violence. There needs to be a propensity
to violence, that seed there in the first place. Did Doom create the
Columbine killers? No, they were angry young men anyway; I guess it
helped with target practice though.
Maybe the violence we see desensitises us to cruelty, makes it easier
for us not to be shocked.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
>"snarkygirl" <snark...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> >I guess I agree that it seems unjust that they have served a relatively
>> >light sentence given the enormity of what they did.
Um I didn't. I believe that was actually Alina but I'm not the
attribution police so I'll let it go this once. <g>
[snip]
>> secure units where they got was eight years of intensive attention,
>> the kind of education they would never have had had they remained at
>> home and the favourite refrain, "Playstations in their bedrooms". Many
>> people feel rightly or wrongly that this was not punishment at all,
>> let alone punishment enough.
>
>It was society compensating for the failure of their parents who should have
>been fined, jailed and beaten to a pulp, reconstituted from the pulp and
>beaten again.
Apparently the parents have cleaned up their acts big time, especially
the mothers. The one who was a drunk has sobered up and both have
moved repeatedly to be near their sons, visited them ever other day
etc. It seems a shame that to ensure their new identities don't leak
out they may have to leave behind these family relationships.
>> I was told yesterday that as someone who doesn't have children I have
>> no right to an opinion on this matter.
>
>Told this by an idiot, now doubt.
But of course.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
>"quixote" <qui...@yadayada.net> wrote in
>
>> It did seem to be one of those big stories that unifies a nation. Or
>tabliod
>> editors pretend unify a nation (viz. Diana).
>
>I vote for the latter - it sold papers and the more they touted it the more
>they sold. It then became the typical, overblown media feeding frenzy.
Another thing I was shouted down about yesterday was when I said that
I thought the co-dependent relationship that had formed between James
Bulger's mother and the press was distasteful. ("How could you her
child is dead, blah blah blah.") I have every sympathy for her but she
has grieved very very publicly. She's sobbed and raged for the papers
everytime the've asked and they've stoked the fires for her. I feel
similarly about some of the relatives of the Moors murder victims. I
realise that if a loved one is taken violently then it can consume
your life but some of her recent remarks have been highly
inflammatory.
>> (illegally) printed the names and photographs of fifty released,
>registered
>> paedophiles (adult males all) the vigilante reaction was such that there
>> were occasions of innocent people with similar names being firebombed from
>> their homes. It's no wonder that Venables and Thompson require the
>> protection of new identities.
One example of the mob rule that resulted - a middle aged (female)
paediatrician was run out of her home because the uneducated idiots
who spray painted pervert on her door couldn't quite figure out that
she was a doctor not a child molester.
snarkygirl
John
> Petey wrote:
>
> >"snarkygirl" <snark...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> >I guess I agree that it seems unjust that they have served a
> >> >relatively light sentence given the enormity of what they did.
>
> Um I didn't. I believe that was actually Alina but I'm not the
> attribution police so I'll let it go this once. <g>
"Actually Alina," did you say? Looks like our resident Stargate chick
has a new nickname!
-John-
(wondering how she'll take to that)
Pete B.
> Another thing I was shouted down about yesterday was when I said that
> I thought the co-dependent relationship that had formed between James
> Bulger's mother and the press was distasteful. ("How could you her
> child is dead, blah blah blah.") I have every sympathy for her but she
> has grieved very very publicly. She's sobbed and raged for the papers
> everytime the've asked and they've stoked the fires for her.
Has she taken money for her story? If so, it could very much become a way
of life for her. Tabloids in the country regular taint justice with large
checks for everyone. It's not inconceivable that paying for crime stories
will eventually cause crimes to be committed for the lure of the big payout.
> One example of the mob rule that resulted - a middle aged (female)
> paediatrician was run out of her home because the uneducated idiots
> who spray painted pervert on her door couldn't quite figure out that
> she was a doctor not a child molester.
Gosh that's scary and a great reason we've got to protect society from mob
rule - they certainly don't have the required smarts for it.
Petey
Pete B.
> >I think the local constables know who they are and when a child skins a
knee
> >within a dozen miles of them they both get hauled in for questioning.
>
> Their new identities have been flagged on national police computer
> systems. Should they be stopped for a speeding offence the Assistant
> Chief Constable in charge of the operation (only a handful of senior
> police and probation officers are aware of their new identities) will
> be informed. They are out on licence so can be recalled if their
> parole officers have *any* concern about their behaviour.
Thanks for confirming my hunch. With this much publicity I couldn't really
imagine otherwise.
Petey - who just read that MSN took ListBot into the fee world and are
planning to do the same with Hotmail -
http://www.msnbc.com/news/591162.asp?0dm=N14PB
"Most notably, the company is hoping that those who use its free Hotmail
e-mail and MSN Messenger instant messaging service will start using a
planned set of paid services called .NET."
Patrick
wrote:
>When the News Of The World
>(illegally) printed the names and photographs of fifty released, registered
>paedophiles (adult males all) the vigilante reaction was such that there
>were occasions of innocent people with similar names being firebombed from
>their homes. It's no wonder that Venables and Thompson require the
>protection of new identities.
I wonder whether keeping the images and the new identities of Thompson
and Venables secret will lead to less rather than more violence
against innocent people (not that I expect the secret to be kept for
long anyway). It seems to me that any young man who might be taken
for eighteen years old would have to think very hard before relocating
to a new town in which he's not already connected. Suspicion will be
everywhere, and potential victims of vigiliantism won't be able to
say, "but I look nothing like either of those blokes" or "but those
blokes live hundreds of miles from here -- don't you read the papers?"
Jason, Snarkums, Dionne, what do you think about this? What are the
odds that an innocent person will be mistaken for Thompson or Venables
and be beaten or killed under circumstances indicating that the
mistake would not have been made if the vigilantes had been given
current photos of the real killers and told where they lived? What
odds are acceptable? Is there anything about the UK that would make
such an occurrence less likely than in the US? Would it be easier to
reveal the killers' identities and give them police protection than to
try to protect everyone who might be mistaken for the killers if the
images and identities are kept secret?
I also wonder (can anyone tell me?) whether there's any guarantee that
these guys and their secret identities are going to remain in the UK.
--Patrick
who thanks Kayleigh for starting another fascinating thread
Patrick
<mkell...@visidontspamme.commendation> wrote:
>"Actually Alina," did you say? Looks like our resident Stargate chick
>has a new nickname!
Why does this remind me of a bad sitcom?
--Patrick
Pete B.
> >It's too dangerous a world to let a two-year-old out of
> >your sight for a second. No matter how badly I feel for them I also feel
> >that they f'ed up big time letting that young a child walk around alone.
>
> I agree. I'm not saying that I think the child who was murdered was a
perfect
> angel, or that it's a world colored rosy.
There is no blame that can attach to that poor little boy. If there was
ever an innocent victim in the history of the world, he was.
> he's alone. Let's take him". And then, they did, and once having
committed
> the crime, they *knew* it was wrong, and attempted to cover it up and
conceal
> their involvement.
Even a dog knows to run and hide when it does something bad. (-: It's
reflexive.
> I understand that these children probably did not lead lives of luxury,
but how
> do we determine how much of them is salvageable? I know we can't make any
> assurances that there will be no chances of recidivisim, but is eight
years
> enough time for them to be rehabilitated? As you say, Alina, the
"slightly
> off" boy could honestly have only been going along with the other, more
> "violent" boy. But, the abuse excuse should only be one facet of this
story.
> Are they rehabilitated? Have they demonstrated this? I've not see the
wealth
> of information that I'm sure that you Brits have. (And you Ozlanders, as
> well....)
No one can ever say for sure if they are rehabilitated but I think trained
shrinks and social workers can make some educated guesses and have done so.
Will the courts and the public listen or believe them? I doubt it. In this
case the press has whipped up a fury for vengeance.
> These two may well have to look over their shoulders for the rest of their
> lives. I'm not saying that it's right for them to be dragged from their
homes
> and be subjected to all kinds of unspeakable tortures, but the average Joe
> Bloggs criminal type doesn't get a new identity upon release from prison.
If anyone deserves just one more chance it's these kids. I find it odd that
a whole society so enmeshed in the Christian ethic of redemption doesn't
quite get the meaning of turning the other cheek. These weren't career
criminals, they were little boys who hadn't even crossed into puberty.
Murdering little boys to be sure, but little boys nonetheless. I am
reminded of Jane Goodall's shock the first time she witnessed baboons
pulling baby rabbits out of a den to whack them to death just for the fun of
it. We have a barbarous heritage in our genes, it seems, and it neds to be
taught out of us by our parents and society.
> I guess my stance is due to the fact that I come down on the side of
Victim's
> rights. I empathize with the victims more than I do with the criminals.
I'm
> sure that the father spoke of his need for retribution out of grief, and
he may
> well intend to get a slice of his own type of revenge, but don't you think
that
> the police will make damn sure that he gets not one foot near the
offenders?
Maybe, maybe not. In the good ol' American past lynch mobs often found cell
doors unlocked just in case they were too stupid to find the keys.
> I can't imagine the depth of despair a mother must face, knowing that she
> couldn't protect her son. Either the mother of the victim, or of the
> offenders....they all must feel adrift at sea.
We can't imagine the pain and God spare us from ever knowing anything like
it. My good friend's two-year-old daughter drowned a long time ago and those
scars have never and will never heal. Now that her oldest has a daughter
she told me she can't look at her without fighting back the tears and
thinking of her own lost Sarah because they look so much alike.
Petey
Pete B.
> Petey wrote:
>
> >"snarkygirl" <snark...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> >I guess I agree that it seems unjust that they have served a
relatively
> >> >light sentence given the enormity of what they did.
>
> Um I didn't. I believe that was actually Alina but I'm not the
> attribution police so I'll let it go this once. <g>
I thought you knew how to count levels of angle bracket indentation. I
(probably wrongly) assume people read through this stuff in sequence and
remember who said what. I'll be more careful next time (he says, lying
through his teeth)! )-:
Petey - habitual offender
Pete B.
> I don't know about this. I don't think that violent movies can propel
> a "normal" person to acts of violence. There needs to be a propensity
> to violence, that seed there in the first place. Did Doom create the
> Columbine killers? No, they were angry young men anyway; I guess it
> helped with target practice though.
Why water a violent seed with violent movies? I have played enough Doom to
realize that a kid with incipient schizophrenia could easily lose touch with
reality and snap in a very Doom-like fashion. I had terrible nightmares of
being chased by monsters with machine guns after a few days of playing. It
definitely gets into one's brain. If we can identify the nitro and the
glycerin elements in society we really should take care not to let the two
mix . . .
> Maybe the violence we see desensitises us to cruelty, makes it easier
> for us not to be shocked.
There's no doubt about that, at least in my mind.
Petey
Patrick
wrote:
>[ The poor parents of that child] somehow let him out of their sight long enough to get abducted by the
>two kids. How did that happen? Suppose he had wandered off and fallen in
>front of a train? It's too dangerous a world to let a two-year-old out of
>your sight for a second. No matter how badly I feel for them I also feel
>that they f'ed up big time letting that young a child walk around alone.
>Yet I know how easily it happens; it happened to me when I baby sat my
>little nephew and he ran out into the street when I turned my back for two
>seconds. Still, those kids seized an opportunity they should never have had.
>Anyone could have taken that little boy away and done worse and sadly, every
>day in this world, someone does. If I've come to any understanding of
>tragedy in this world it's that several things have to break down all at
>once for a really big disaster like this one to evolve.
It's useful to put on a systems analyst hat and, without purporting to
pass moral judgment, point out how normal safeguards against crime
failed in a particular instance or how additional safeguards might
have prevented a particular crime. I don't take you to be doing
anything more than that. But if you're suggesting that someone's
failure to take a precaution means that he or she shares in the moral
culpability for the crime, or that the moral culpability of the
criminal is diminished when a non-criminal has unwittingly created the
opportunity for the criminal to act, then I couldn't disagree more.
--Patrick
Patrick
wrote:
>"Alina Holgate" <hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote in message
>
>> It seems to me that a lot of adults are
>> functioning at a developmentally child-like level yet we find it easier to
>> condemn adults for their actions than children. At what point in the
>> Bulger case would you hold the boys criminally responsible - 12 years,
>> 17 years, 30 years? Why should the impact of abuse be any less in a
>> 30 year old as a 12 year old?
>
>Because 30 year olds can feed, clothe and care for themselves. Ten year
>olds, for the most part, cannot. That alone indicates a substantial
>societal difference.
I must say I don't get the connection, but the rest of this exchange
is so well reasoned that I suspect the fault is mine. Care to
elaborate?
--Patrick
Patrick
wrote:
>"snarkygirl" <snark...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> I guess we should look more closely at what it is we expect from
>> imprisoning them. Do we want to punish them or seek some sort of
>> revenge or should it be about making them understand what they did and
>> then trying to rehabilitate them.
>
>Answer this question and you will have bested some of the world's leading
>criminologists. They mostly agree that imprisonment serves multiple goals
>which are often called the three R's - revenge, removal from society and
>rehab. But they all admit that rehab is the least likely to be accomplished
>out of all of them. But if rehab's possible then I feel that it's most
>probably going to happen with young children who have been raised without
>proper guidance.
Just for the sake of completeness, let me add to the three Rs* the two
Ds: deterrence of the offender and deterrence of others. Some lump
deterrence of the offender in with rehab, but I see the former as
non-recidivism with negative motivation and the latter as
non-recividism with positive motivation. I agree that child offenders
have (other things being equal) the best prospect for rehabilitation,
and that the "follower" child in the Bulger case seems a possible
candidate for successful rehabilitation. You've mentioned him in
particular on a couple of occasions; what do you think about the other
one?
--Patrick
Pete B.
take your Spam like a MAN!!!!!! Break down those walls!!!!!!
We now continue with our regularly scheduled program . . .
"Patrick" <pjh714F...@bestweb.net> wrote
> >> Bulger case would you hold the boys criminally responsible - 12 years,
> >> 17 years, 30 years? Why should the impact of abuse be any less in a
> >> 30 year old as a 12 year old?
> >
> >Because 30 year olds can feed, clothe and care for themselves. Ten year
> >olds, for the most part, cannot. That alone indicates a substantial
> >societal difference.
>
> I must say I don't get the connection, but the rest of this exchange
> is so well reasoned that I suspect the fault is mine. Care to
> elaborate?
Sorry, I was obliquely answering the first question - "at what age would we
hold them responsible?" We treat kids under say 13 fundamentally
differently from adults because they depend on adults for everything. When
you are 30 you are a different creature and should be dependent upon no one.
When a ten-year-old breaks a window we seek money from his parents. When
he's thirty, we expect it straight from his wallet.
Parenting is something I thought I knew about but really didn't appreciate
until I dated someone with two kids and gained an instant family. I
realized that as an adult, you are their everything - their sun, moon and
stars. They look to you to know how to speak, stand, eat, and think. They
copy you in ways that astound you. Perhaps it's different for someone
raising their own child because they believe it's genetic but a kid that
spends a year with you has, in a profound way, become like you. People
would assume he was my son without question because of how much alike we
were, but it was really how much he had picked up from me in that short a
time. Until then I didn't know what a responsibility parenting is.
Now if Tommy, at age ten, had done something bad I would have considered it
my fault. (I know his mom did! (-:) And despite how smart he was do I
believe that a manipulative older kid could maneuver him into a heap of
trouble? Sadly, yes, but precisely because he was still a ten-year-old and
because emotional maturity lags intellectual development.
Nosey question you can feel free to ignore: Do you have kids?
Petey, who agrees: "When you're in love with someone you're allowed to
completely screw up their life. That's what love is!" - Third Rock
Pete B.
> Just for the sake of completeness, let me add to the three Rs* the two
> Ds: deterrence of the offender and deterrence of others. Some lump
> deterrence of the offender in with rehab,
Yes - that's what I did for dramatic effect. Deterrence has not had a lot
of support since the birth of criminology. My crim. book started that
chapter with this saying: "Pickpockets picked pockets at the hangings of
pickpockets." Criminals are often too stupid to learn from anything, let
alone their mistakes or those of others. I just saw a show about a guy who
killed a prostitute and left his beeper with her dead body. Not the
sharpest nail in the box.
> and that the "follower" child in the Bulger case seems a possible
> candidate for successful rehabilitation. You've mentioned him in
> particular on a couple of occasions; what do you think about the other
> one?
I think they both are candidates solely because of their ages. But it's
only common sense to believe the instigator might have a longer road back.
Others may see it differently - there's a great short sci fi story that
investigates this very subject. It's about two boys in the future who
hotwire a car to defeat the safety controls. The one who knows how to do it
is sent on to security school and the one who only followed is vaporized.
Wish I could remember the title . . .
Petey
quixote
Patrick wrote:
Unlikely, I think. Certainly more unlikely than if they were known to bear a
resemblance to the two. In a country of 55 million people I think even the
most devoted vigilante would play the odds and assume any mysterious new
neighbour *wasn't* Thompson or Venables.
What
> odds are acceptable? Is there anything about the UK that would make
> such an occurrence less likely than in the US?
Nobody carries guns.
>Would it be easier to
> reveal the killers' identities and give them police protection than to
> try to protect everyone who might be mistaken for the killers if the
> images and identities are kept secret?
>
> I also wonder (can anyone tell me?) whether there's any guarantee that
> these guys and their secret identities are going to remain in the UK.
>
Yes they will remain in the UK because they have been released under
license, which means constant attention from the law-enforcement and social
service agencies. There is no precedent for a prisoner released on a life
license being allowed to live abroad.
Jason.
Pete B.
> If you're suggesting that someone's
> failure to take a precaution means that he or she shares in the moral
> culpability for the crime, or that the moral culpability of the
> criminal is diminished when a non-criminal has unwittingly created the
> opportunity for the criminal to act, then I couldn't disagree more.
The child-parent relationship is the most sacred and fundamental pillar of
human society. To survive as a race children must be protected from harm,
and protected vigilantly That child shouldn't have been alone. If you fail
to safeguard your most precious possession you *do* share some
responsibility if something bad happens, whether that child falls prey to
killers or fall under a train. Would you find the parents more culpable if
he got crushed by a train? Hit by a car? Fell in a pool? If so, where
does the difference lie? A parent's primary job is to protect their
children from danger - even Cro-Magnons knew this. In those days it was
wolves. These days it is humans. The underlying principles and
responsibilities are the same.
I know when my friend's daughter drowned her grandparents (who were
babysitting) were devastated beyond belief. They lost track of her and she
got down to the docks and fell in. It took a lot of psychotherapy to fix
them up enough to even go on living with the guilt. So I can't easily see
how the parents of the Bulger baby have no hand in the bad outcome or felt
no guilt. In many places in the US you can be arrested if you don't secure
your children in baby seats. It seems to me that indicates we expect
parents to provide a reasonable level of care and concern for their kids.
Same with letting them ride without bike helmets.
Why was he alone at age two? If it had been a child care service that let
that happen they would have been sued out of business, don't you think? The
parents were spared that moral prosecution because of the grief they already
suffered but I don't think I'm alone in wondering why that two-year-old was
so easily snatched. I know two-year-olds run off but I stand by my claim
that it took two wrongs to make a tragedy. The murderers who killed him and
the parents who let their child fall into their clutches. I quickly admit
the two acts are obviously not of equal weight but it *did* take both events
for this terrible crime to happen.
The mothers of young children that I know are linked to their kids by an
invisible but powerful chain. They know where they are - all the time.
These parents, for whatever reason, let a toddler run off in a very
dangerous place. They cannot be held completely free of blame, at least in
my book. Two-year-olds don't know about the myriad dangers of the real
world and count on their parents to protect and teach them. I'll admit that
I don't know how exactly it happened - can anyone enlighten me as to why the
Bulger baby was so easily snatched with only a camera as a silent witness to
the crime?
Chillingly I am flashing on the scene where Tony Soprano finds the lost
little boy in the mall after gunning down the kid that shot Chris. The
world is full of all sorts of monsters and kids need protection from them.
Where was Baby Bulger's protector?
Petey
Patrick
wrote:
> I was obliquely answering the first question - "at what age would we
>hold them responsible?" We treat kids under say 13 fundamentally
>differently from adults because they depend on adults for everything. When
>you are 30 you are a different creature and should be dependent upon no one.
>When a ten-year-old breaks a window we seek money from his parents. When
>he's thirty, we expect it straight from his wallet.
[snip]
>
>Now if Tommy, at age ten, had done something bad I would have considered it
>my fault. (I know his mom did! (-:) And despite how smart he was do I
>believe that a manipulative older kid could maneuver him into a heap of
>trouble? Sadly, yes, but precisely because he was still a ten-year-old and
>because emotional maturity lags intellectual development.
I agree with the second part about emotional maturity (and with what
Todd said earlier about "a difference in the way they process
events"), but I still don't see the connection with dependency. I
agree that we treat kids under 13 differently, but I think it's
directly to do with their lack of maturity, not because they depend on
us. To put it differently, I'd say that dependency and different
treatment are both results of immaturity, but different treatment is
not a result of dependency.
>
>Nosey question you can feel free to ignore: Do you have kids?
No, I don't. Do you think a parent would have a different take on the
relationship between dependency and different treatment?
--Patrick
Pete B.
> events"), but I still don't see the connection with dependency.
And I can't see them as separate entities - they are dependent because they
are immature and vice-versa in my view of things. We could spent a lot of
time tail chasing on this one . . . (-:
> >Nosey question you can feel free to ignore: Do you have kids?
>
> No, I don't. Do you think a parent would have a different take on the
> relationship between dependency and different treatment?
I think it might - the ramifications of little human beings that were
totally dependent on me was never quite clear until it happened. Since
these kids had been fatherless for quite some time I got to see firsthand
the void that loss had created in their lives and I began to understand how
rudderless kids can drift onto pirate shores.
On the subject of dependence I think a jury, evaluating two otherwise
identical kids, would be harder on the one they perceived to be more
independent such as a latchkey kid. I think they could easily mistake a
child's ability to care for themselves in some simple ways (even to the
extent of just making a PBJ) as a sign that they were somehow older and
wiser and more deserving of punishment. But that's just a gut feeling.
Petey
snarkygirl
> I'll admit that
>I don't know how exactly it happened - can anyone enlighten me as to why the
>Bulger baby was so easily snatched with only a camera as a silent witness to
>the crime?
His mother was in a shop with him. She looked away for a moment to get
some money out of her handbag and he ran out of the shop. It's the
kind of thing that happens everyday - as you yourself said it's so
easy for it to happen. I've been in stop and seen kids run off when
their parents are looking at clothes or filling their baskets. I don't
doubt that James' mother still feels guilty about it.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
From the onset the press portrayed one, Thompson as being more cunning
and manipulative than the other, Venables.
Thompson was reportedly very calm and together during the interview
process and did not at any stage take responsibility but blamed
Venables. Venables wept throughout, blamed Thompson and eventually
admitted that they did kill James. He told his mother to tell James'
mother that he was sorry.
I always wondered if we assumed that Thompson's "control" came from
cunning rather than just a different display of fear because we needed
a reason - that one of them *was* evil and the other just fell in with
him. This is somewhat at odds with the fact that they apparently
planned to take a child (and had unsuccessfully tried to abduct a
child earlier that day) and that it was Venables who beckoned to James
and Venables who led him out of the shopping centre hand in hand.
Their family backgrounds may also have been relevant. Thompson came
from the poorer background - his father was absent, he had a number of
siblings - five I think - and there was a pattern of bullying in the
household where each brother "ruled" over those younger than him. One
brother had attempted to take his life, some of them were or ended up
in care and the kids were frequently seen going through rubbish to
find food. His mother was also an alcoholic. I think this added to the
idea that he was the bad seed. On the other hand whilst Venables'
parents were separated at the time, he still saw his father. His
mother was having difficulty coping with his two siblings who both
had learning difficulties (I think he also suffered from hyperactivity
and similar difficulties) and her depression reportedly left him
suicidal.
In the years since it's Thompson who has had the "bad press" - the
papers reported that he was not rehabilitated and psychotic based on
an alleged incident when he tried to strange a fellow inmate. It
turned it he was actually the victim in that encounter. They published
further details of aggressive behaviour only to find that the
documents they had based this on were faked. And it was his immature
letters to a fellow recently released inmate that ended up all over
the tabloids.
I suspect that the focus on him now is partly because until we have
answers "from them*, we need to blame one of them. I think also the
fact that he has done so well in the secure facility (both boys have
passed exams - Thompson has a particular aptitude for arty subjects)
is also galling for some people.
snarkygirl
snarkygirl
>"snarkygirl" <snark...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> Another thing I was shouted down about yesterday was when I said that
>> I thought the co-dependent relationship that had formed between James
>> Bulger's mother and the press was distasteful. ("How could you her
>> child is dead, blah blah blah.") I have every sympathy for her but she
>> has grieved very very publicly. She's sobbed and raged for the papers
>> everytime the've asked and they've stoked the fires for her.
>
>Has she taken money for her story?
To be honest I'm not sure.
>> One example of the mob rule that resulted - a middle aged (female)
>> paediatrician was run out of her home because the uneducated idiots
>> who spray painted pervert on her door couldn't quite figure out that
>> she was a doctor not a child molester.
>
>Gosh that's scary and a great reason we've got to protect society from mob
>rule - they certainly don't have the required smarts for it.
Seems as if the great plan is already unravelling. The Manchester
Evening News printed details of where the boys were believed to be in
yesterday's early editions and on their website which had huge traffic
until they took it down. The Home Office has said that it's only a
matter of months before they get found out and have a number of
contingency plans though God only knows what they will be. Various
newspapers have recent photographs and have said that whilst they
won't reveal their whereabouts now, should *they* feel that there is
any risk, they will.
So far their locations haven't appeared on the internet but it's only
a matter of time.
snarkygirl
Pete B.
> His mother was in a shop with him. She looked away for a moment to get
> some money out of her handbag and he ran out of the shop. It's the
> kind of thing that happens everyday - as you yourself said it's so
> easy for it to happen. I've been in stop and seen kids run off when
> their parents are looking at clothes or filling their baskets. I don't
> doubt that James' mother still feels guilty about it.
I believe you're right about her still feeling guilty. When my friend's
two-year-old son ran out into the street and *didn't* get killed when I was
watching him God was smiling on me. But had he died it would have been my
fault. I stopped sitting for anyone after that because I knew I didn't have
the "radar" required to do it right and wouldn't want to live with what
might happen as a result. As a single guy it was easier for me to make that
choice than it is for parents who have to swap sitting services sometimes
just to survive.
Petey
snarkygirl
> snarkygirl wrote:
>
> <plenty of snippage because I agree with all that you've said>
I like when that happens. <g>
[snip]
> > Had it been an adult male who had done it, the reaction would have
> > been different. But it was two kids and children aren't supposed to
> > kill. (Similarly women who kill - Myra Hindly, the Moors murderer
> > being a perfect example - are demonised far more than male killers
> > because they are women and it goes against the "nature" of what women
> > are.)
>
> Not sure about that (see point above, and also Hindley was no more demonised
> than her accomplice, Ian Brady).
But Brady had the decency to go mad whereas Hindley has banged on and
on about the unfairness of her sentence (Every day lifers are released
- why not her?). I think that because she's a woman she has been
depicted differently from Brady. He's nuts so we can explain his
behaviour or his evilness. She doesn't have that excuse. The salacious
reporting of her affairs in prison is just a part of that (more
tabloid "look she's not a normal woman stuff").
snarkygirl
posting via google for the first time
Alina Holgate
> Jason wrote:
> > Not sure about that (see point above, and also Hindley was no more demonised
> > than her accomplice, Ian Brady).
>
> But Brady had the decency to go mad whereas Hindley has banged on and
> on about the unfairness of her sentence (Every day lifers are released
> - why not her?). I think that because she's a woman she has been
> depicted differently from Brady. He's nuts so we can explain his
> behaviour or his evilness. She doesn't have that excuse. The salacious
> reporting of her affairs in prison is just a part of that (more
> tabloid "look she's not a normal woman stuff").
Not that I want to defend Myra Hindley but I can see her point
that her case is treated differently and that there have been female
murderers as equally heinous who have done their time and been
quietly released. She's done something like 35 years. If people
think that child-murderers should be locked up for the rest of
their natural then fair enough but I think it should be applied
consistently, not just to Myra Hindley.
> snarkygirl
> posting via google for the first time
And you're doing it very well.
quixote
Alina Holgate wrote:
You're right, but Hindley's become such an icon, more known now for what she
represents that what she did. And what she's guilty of, I suppose, is
continuing to represent it, and she's effectively given a new sentence for
this crime every year.
I grew up around thirty miles from where the moors murders were, and about
ten years after, but Hindley (and Brady) was still some sort of universally
applied bogeyman/woman symbolising the shattering of normality, much in the
same way the Bulger case became totemic decades later. You couldn't grow up
without knowing the story. (Then the Yorkshire Ripper killed a couple of his
victims round the corner from my school and partially replaced her in the
local communal psyche. Nice neighbourhood.)
The only reason she's still in jail is political, not legal - though the two
shade into each other. People just don't get life-means-life sentences in
Britain, except those, like Brady and Sutcliffe, who are put into mental
institutions. But the release of Hindley would be so unpopular that any
government sanctioning it would percieve that they'd go down five points in
the polls and be open to charges of "softness on crime", which is
inconvenient if they ever need to play the populist card. But this is a kind
of democracy of justice, whether or not you think influence over these kinds
of decisions should be left to "the people".
Jason
Martha K.
batch of posts, and I'm also lazily putting my reply on top. Shocking.
Children do get loose. I have three. Every one of them has managed to
wriggle away in a store over the years. Edward once terrified his father
and me in the Rose's department store in Charlottesville, VA, by hiding
under the circular racks. Since we left there in June of '87, he could not
have been more than 14 or 15 months old. Still he was a nimble little
fellow. And that was with two of us. I have a fairly keen "chain"
attaching me to my children, and that has made it difficult to let them go
off with their dad since we divorced four years ago. He is fairly neurotic,
so I hope that means he is careful about them. I know I am. Now that my
youngest is 6, I feel a bit less anxious about a sudden kidnapping from the
mall, but I also struggle because that youngest is the most inclined of the
three to go her own way. Especially in a clothing store, she wants to get
her hands on everything. We had a very stressful trip to the mall just the
other day. My target destinations were Victoria's Secret and the Gap.
Ooh-la-la! She was excited, especially by the padded bras may I say, and it
was very difficult to keep track of her. I asked her to stay in the same
"room" with me, but she drifted or scampered away, to look at stockings, or
hide under the stunning tablecloths. At 6, she knows what I am asking her
to do. What of a child who is 2? The shopping environment is that much
more overstimulating.
I'm sure that mother feels culpable, but I think the running off could
have happened to any parent of a lively two-year-old who didn't go to the
extreme of using a leash. From the mother's angle, it's a tragedy, just as
if he had fallen under a bus, yes.
Borrowing the holy .11,
Which is fairly unusual for non-controversial me,
Martha K.
"snarkygirl" <snark...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b35a8f6...@news.cableinet.co.uk...
Alina Holgate
> I've been sitting back on this debate, since I managed to miss the first
> batch of posts, and I'm also lazily putting my reply on top. Shocking.
> Children do get loose. I have three. Every one of them has managed to
> wriggle away in a store over the years.
Snip of scary stories which demonstrate how easy it is for a kid to
disappear in an instant.
I've got a friend who's got 3 year old twins and when I offer to go
shopping with her I can see that she just thinks it's like being on
holiday because while she holds onto one I hold onto the other.
One time I took my 4 nieces-in-law (ranging from 5 to 13) to the
Melbourne show and I was terrified that one of them would get
separated in the crowd. I took the two youngest up to a couple
of police officers and told the kids that if they got lost they had to
look for someone dressed like these people and then go and ask
them for help because it was their job to help little kids. The cops
thought I was wonderful, the two older girls thought I was clinically
insane.
snarkygirl
>Not that I want to defend Myra Hindley but I can see her point
>that her case is treated differently and that there have been female
>murderers as equally heinous who have done their time and been
>quietly released. She's done something like 35 years. If people
>think that child-murderers should be locked up for the rest of
>their natural then fair enough but I think it should be applied
>consistently, not just to Myra Hindley.
Which was my point exactly. As Jason says it's political and it
shouldn't be.
>> snarkygirl
>> posting via google for the first time
>
>And you're doing it very well.
Well I wanted to reply to a post which didn't appear on my news server
and was astonished to find that after posting from google it told me
it could take 3-9 hours for the post to appear! I guess it didn't take
that long but added to the fact that they update only once a day and
won't let me spam-proof my posting address, all I can say is bring
back deja!
snarkygirl
Dionne Siley
opined:
(snippage of stuff I agree with)
>Jason, Snarkums, Dionne, what do you think about this? What are the
>odds that an innocent person will be mistaken for Thompson or Venables
>and be beaten or killed under circumstances indicating that the
>mistake would not have been made if the vigilantes had been given
>current photos of the real killers and told where they lived?
Low, I think. Unless the vigilantes are going to carefully study every
teenage stranger who moves into their area, and try to compare said
stranger with Venables & Thompson's pictures at the time of the trial,
I can't see many reprisals under the present circumstances.
Of course, all that would change if pictures and/or names were
published on the internet (and I can see that happening shortly).
Jason mentioned the News of the World's "moral crusade for the good of
the country" (their words, not mine); as a result of that, an elderly
man in my area, who had lived a quiet life for most of his life, was
fire bombed out of his home because he had the same name as one of the
paedophiles listed. He lost most of his possessions, but said that he
was just grateful to be alive, particularly as most of the vigilantes
would not accept that he was not the same man listed in the paper.
>I also wonder (can anyone tell me?) whether there's any guarantee that
>these guys and their secret identities are going to remain in the UK.
Jason responded:
>Yes they will remain in the UK because they have been released under
>license, which means constant attention from the law-enforcement and social
>service agencies. There is no precedent for a prisoner released on a life
>license being allowed to live abroad.
Out of interest - what would happen if their identities were revealed,
and there were serious consequences because of it? Would they be
allowed to live abroad, or would the Government have to review their
laws in order to protect them?
>
>--Patrick
>who thanks Kayleigh for starting another fascinating thread
Me too. There's a discussion on Jamie Bulger in another ng that I lurk
in - the difference in the level of debate between that ng and ath is
staggering.
--
Dionne
I'm a reasonable girl - get off my case.
Diane
wrote:
> I've been sitting back on this debate, since I managed to miss the first
>batch of posts, and I'm also lazily putting my reply on top. Shocking.
> Children do get loose. I have three. Every one of them has managed to
>wriggle away in a store over the years. Edward once terrified his father
>and me in the Rose's department store in Charlottesville, VA, by hiding
>under the circular racks. Since we left there in June of '87, he could not
>have been more than 14 or 15 months old. Still he was a nimble little
>fellow. And that was with two of us.
<snipped rest>
Yes, as you say, it only takes a second. I think everyone with any
experience with young children in public places has had that 10
minutes of absolute fear, and it probably wasn't even 10 minutes, just
felt that way.
I had a sibling that used to pull that hiding under the racks trick.
And then would refuse to answer when called.
People think that it's horrid to use those kiddie leashes, but I'm
totally for them for very young children. When you have three kids
under the age of three, you need every bit of help you can get.
And on the flip side, those of you with multiple kids, have you ever
hauled someone else's kid along with you by mistake? That's another
experience I think most parents have had at least once : )
Diane
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>
>Patrick wrote:
>
>> I also wonder (can anyone tell me?) whether there's any guarantee that
>> these guys and their secret identities are going to remain in the UK.
>>
>
>Yes they will remain in the UK because they have been released under
>license, which means constant attention from the law-enforcement and social
>service agencies. There is no precedent for a prisoner released on a life
>license being allowed to live abroad.
>
When their upcoming release was announced earlier this year, the
possibility was put forward of them being relocated to Australia. The
story then became (rather annoyingly) a local discussion about whether
the UK had any right to dump their criminals in Australia as they did
two centuries ago. Very little reasoned debate was had here about
whether these kids deserved a second chance or not.
Now that they have been released, the debate over whether they should
be let into Australia rages again - whether or not there is any
likelihood of it happening. The Government has not ruled out allowing
them into the country.
I'm heartened to hear that they probably won't leave the UK. This
seems more reasonable for them. I believe they should be allowed the
best opportunity to reintegrate into society, so sending them to the
other side of the world may make it easier on one level (less chance
of them being found out) but more difficult for them personally -
outcast from the society that saw fit to rule against them.
-- Keith Gow --
"Fun is my god, Frank."
Pete B.
> And on the flip side, those of you with multiple kids, have you ever
> hauled someone else's kid along with you by mistake? That's another
> experience I think most parents have had at least once : )
No, but I did get hauled away once by someone else's family by mistake at
Kennedy Airport. I was trotting along with them and kept asking "Dad, what
time is it?" You should have seen both his and my face when I finally
tugged at his watch to look for myself and we both made eye contact. Quite
a surprise for the both of us! I was about 6 or 7 . . .
Petey
Pete B.
> Low, I think. Unless the vigilantes are going to carefully study every
> teenage stranger who moves into their area, and try to compare said
> stranger with Venables & Thompson's pictures at the time of the trial,
> I can't see many reprisals under the present circumstances.
I dunno, Dionne. Vigilantes don't seem to be obsessed with accuracy, now or
ever. (-: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/felix24.htm
They're happy to avenge even the uncommitted crime.
Petey
Pete B.
> When their upcoming release was announced earlier this year, the
> possibility was put forward of them being relocated to Australia. The
> story then became (rather annoyingly) a local discussion about whether
> the UK had any right to dump their criminals in Australia . . .
I can't help hearing in the back of my mind that old pizza commerical that
says: "But it's tradition!" (-:
Petey
Pete B.
> In the years since it's Thompson who has had the "bad press" - the
> papers reported that he was not rehabilitated and psychotic based on
> an alleged incident when he tried to strange a fellow inmate. It
> turned it he was actually the victim in that encounter. They published
> further details of aggressive behaviour only to find that the
> documents they had based this on were faked. And it was his immature
> letters to a fellow recently released inmate that ended up all over
> the tabloids.
It sounds like almost every shred of printed material is suspect - just like
America!
Petey
Pete B.
> astonished to find that after posting from google it told me
> it could take 3-9 hours for the post to appear!
Or forever. Or five minutes for it to appear five times in a row. (-: It's
been a crap shoot in my experience.
Petey
Pete B.
> One time I took my 4 nieces-in-law (ranging from 5 to 13) to the
> Melbourne show and I was terrified that one of them would get
> separated in the crowd. I took the two youngest up to a couple
> of police officers and told the kids that if they got lost they had to
> look for someone dressed like these people and then go and ask
> them for help because it was their job to help little kids. The cops
> thought I was wonderful, the two older girls thought I was clinically
> insane.
But we all know your world is different and that at any unguarded moment
those kids were in danger of being taken by a pack of dingoes. (-:
Seriously, bless your 'clinically insane' heart because you've thought of
the things some people very sadly only get to think about after the worst
has happened and they berate themselves day after day and year after year
with "why didn't I . . .?" Put me down with the cops - I think that's
wonderful!
Petey
Mardelle
>But if you're suggesting that someone's
>failure to take a precaution means that he or she shares in the moral
>culpability for the crime, or that the moral culpability of the
>criminal is diminished when a non-criminal has unwittingly created the
>opportunity for the criminal to act, then I couldn't disagree more.
I'm with Patrick on this one. It's in the same genre as accusing the
provocatively dressed voluptuous woman as deserving of her rape.
Mardelle
Mardelle
>Children do get loose. I have three. Every one of them has managed to
>wriggle away in a store over the years.
Amen, sister. My three-year-old slipped away while I was selecting a Christmas
sweater for my husband. She walked around one side of the table, and in a
flash, was nowhere in sight. It was an hour later than one grandmotherly
shopper recognized that my daughter was riding the holiday train repeatedly
with no supervision. Mandy admitted that she had spotted the train display upon
entering the mall and headed for it at the first opportunity.
I was an educated, caring, concerned Mom, yet, with all the dangers that
abound, I marvel that two unscathed adults emerged. The balancing act is
teaching a healthy fear of the perils without instilling neurotic inhibitions.
Finally, there's just a lot of luck involved. (Try teaching them to drive when
their route to school is through the Los Angeles traffic).
Mardelle
Mardelle
>Even a dog knows to run and hide when it does something bad. (-: It's
>reflexive.
Apologies for coming late to the discussion. It's been a busy week.
Earlier posts referred to the "bad seed." We know that there are autistic
children, and children who, in spite of normal upbringing, exhibit sociopathic
or psychopathic tendencies from the get-go. There are physiological anomalies
that pre-dispose individuals to behave without regard to the effect that their
behavior has upon others. Children are born without empathy, without a
conscience.
I agree that most criminal behaviors are a result of a myriad of environmental
conditions, but we can't ignore the fact that there are exceptions. I don't
think any of us knows enough about the British youngsters to make that judgment
call.
Suffice it to say that I'm for keeping anyone of any age isolated from society
for the remainder of his life when his behavior has steered so far from the
norm. I would protect these boys from older prisoners, but recognizing that our
psychiatric science is in its infancy, would never again risk another innocent
life.
Anyone purporting that these youngsters have been rehabilitated is making an
educated guess. Conjecture just isn't sufficient when the risk is so great.
Mardelle
Pete B.
> Earlier posts referred to the "bad seed." We know that there are autistic
> children, and children who, in spite of normal upbringing, exhibit
sociopathic
> or psychopathic tendencies from the get-go. There are physiological
anomalies
> that pre-dispose individuals to behave without regard to the effect that
their
> behavior has upon others. Children are born without empathy, without a
> conscience.
But far more likely they got that way because that's what their parents
taught (or didn't teach them). I contend that if there's anyone who is
likely to unlearn such horrific behavior it's young kids. And I'll continue
to believe it until someone in ATH or in the British the criminal system can
point to a doubled or twisted chromosome in one of those kids and say with
surety "Ah, the Usama Bin Laden gene!"
> I agree that most criminal behaviors are a result of a myriad of
environmental
> conditions, but we can't ignore the fact that there are exceptions. I
don't
> think any of us knows enough about the British youngsters to make that
judgment
> call.
No one can predict any human behavior. So we have to compromise. The crime
was horrible, to be sure, but so was OJ's, who repeatedly beat his wife
bloody and demonstrated his bad genes but still walks among us. The facts
here seem to be that the tabloids and their inaccurate and sensational
reporting seem able to override all of the professionals in the British
prison system with their whipped-up blood lust. The people in the best
position to know want something for these kids that a very likely misled
public does not. I'll favor the prison shrinks over a tabloid editorial
writer any day.
> Suffice it to say that I'm for keeping anyone of any age isolated from
society
> for the remainder of his life when his behavior has steered so far from
the
> norm. I would protect these boys from older prisoners, but recognizing
that our
> psychiatric science is in its infancy, would never again risk another
innocent
> life.
But Mardelle, we do it all the time. The average prison sentence for murder
was about 23 years among transferred juveniles and 21 years among adults
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/scscf96.txt
and the same report states that only 51% of an average sentence is actually
served. We routinely release heinous killers and they routinely kill again.
Recidivism for violent crimes runs about 34% according to:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf
so we deliberately release murderers (and rapists and pedophiles) knowing
full well there's a one-in-three chance they'll do it again. Why? We have
to. We can't house that many people and society has tacitly agreed to those
rules for practical and economic reasons. And the fact that 2/3's of them
stay out for good.
> Anyone purporting that these youngsters have been rehabilitated is making
an
> educated guess. Conjecture just isn't sufficient when the risk is so
great.
Life is just one educated guess after another. The stats show we're a
species of wheel-of-fortune spinners who'll give it a turn even when the
numbers stack up so badly. I'm sure you know the laws that are being passed
against pit bulls all over the country. Oddly enough the cocker spaniel,
IIRC, is the country's biggest biter but the pit bulls get the headlines and
therefore the "most solutions." These boys got the same treatment from the
tabloids and were turned into anti-poster children who will be punished for
the sins of society as much as for their own deeds. The pit bull analogy
important because they can either bite you to death or lick to death
depending on how they had been raised. And if the common wisdom "you can't
reach an old dog new tricks" has any ring of truth it should lead us to
believe that these young dogs were indeed capable of unlearning their bad
tricks.
Yes, I know, there *are* rabid dogs and some that seem born with high
aggression factors but most dog professionals will tell you it's mostly in
how they are raised. Just like kids.
Petey
Pete B.
> I'm with Patrick on this one. It's in the same genre as accusing the
> provocatively dressed voluptuous woman as deserving of her rape.
If wearing a skimpy halter top could get you hit by a train I might agree.
What if you drive a tiny open cockpit sportscar and wear a long scarf? Have
you contributed to your own death if it gets tangled in the wheel spokes and
breaks your head open? Sadly, I think so.
And yes, little kids do get away in malls and elsewhere but they get away
because an adult bundled them in a car and took them somewhere (in most
cases) without really thinking about the myriad of dangers they are exposing
them to. And many of them never thought to tell those kids what to do (a
million times) if they *do* get lost. Adults are responsible for their
children and when they run loose it reflects poorly on them, not on the
child. I know how often it happens but it's clear that some parents take it
far more seriously than others. Whether they fall prey to a killer or a
truck tire or a pond it is their parents who failed to look out for them -
they are just too young to look out for themselves. If they're incorrigible
escapees than you'd better leave them home or get a leash or a Kid-Jack
transmitter. They have them for dogs. Aren't children a tad more precious?
I've written a lot of missing and subsequently dead or presumed dead child
stories in my day and you just can't imagine how differently the parents
feel than you do once the worst has happened. They all say they would have
glued themselves to that child had they known what might have happened. And
even if society sees no crime in their actions they see it within
themselves. And that's why I am so fervent about this. I've transcribed
their quivering voices and looked into their lost and tear-streaked eyes to
the emptiness within and know that guilt just never dissipates. "If only I
had . . ."
Petey
Pete B.
> Amen, sister. My three-year-old slipped away while I was selecting a
Christmas
> sweater for my husband. She walked around one side of the table, and in a
> flash, was nowhere in sight.
You could easily translate that as: "I took my daughter to a place I knew
she had no interest in and then lost track of her when she got bored as any
logical person could predict she might do. Then, because she didn't
understand the dangerous nature of the environment I brought her to she ran
off." Why did she come along? If it's like a million other moms and dads
it was more convenient for you to do so than hire a sitter. I know, I've
been there. Did you like going to the mall with mom to buy adult stuff when
you were a kid? I sure didn't! I guarantee you, though, had something evil
happened to her you would hate yourself, your husband, malls and sweaters to
this very day. And you would be swimming in an endless sea of guilt like so
many other unlucky parents whose momentary lapse, like Bulger's, turned into
a disaster.
> Mandy admitted that she had spotted the train display upon
> entering the mall and headed for it at the first opportunity.
As any child might. I still contend that it doesn't take rocket science to
assume they will be more interested in *anything* other than adult shopping
and should have stayed home. You talked about certainties in your other
message and that if we can't be sure of their rehabilitation we should leave
them in jail. Yet with your own kids when you couldn't be sure that you
could keep them under your wing and safe from harm you still brought them
along. We all roll the dice one way or another. If anything good came out
of the Bulger case it's that maybe little kids shouldn't be taken to the
hyperstimulating enviroment of a mall unless they are *very* securely in
tow. Almost secure isn't good enough.
> I was an educated, caring, concerned Mom, yet, with all the dangers that
> abound, I marvel that two unscathed adults emerged. The balancing act is
> teaching a healthy fear of the perils without instilling neurotic
inhibitions.
I agree. It is a balancing act but I fear that I have seen far too many
instances of adults chance-taking with their kids then I am comfortable with
having written, as I mentioned, stories of children who were here one day
and then gone forever. I've seen kids hit by cars, buses, trucks, mauled by
dogs, lost in state parks, drowned, suffocated in refrigerators and car
trunks, burned, trapped in wells, poisoned, kidnapped, pushed off roofs,
fallen out of windows, electrocuted and murdered. In almost every case it
was a parent that lost track of them "for just a moment." Well, that's all
it takes to become a headline.
Petey the Crusader
Pete B.
> I'm with Patrick on this one. It's in the same genre as accusing the
> provocatively dressed voluptuous woman as deserving of her rape.
Let's try a different scenario but the same general principle. You leave
your house unlocked and come home to find it ransacked. The crime is
different (larceny vs. B&E) than if you had locked it and your insurance
company may not even pay because of the concept of contributory negligence.
You made it easy for the criminal and in effect helped him to commit his
crime by failing to protect your possessions.
Now what about letting your two-year-old child roam around a mall
unsupervised? Where does that lie on this continuum? Obviously we have
differing viewpoints. But I remind you that in many states leaving a child
under 10 home alone gets you jail time. The law seems to strongly imply
that they need constant adult care and when that isn't provided a crime has
occured.
Petey
La Reina
>If wearing a skimpy halter top could get you hit by a train I might agree.
For some reason, my overworked brain read, "I'm wearing a skimpy halter top and
you could get hit by a train...."
Now I have this mental picture of Petey, parading around the train tracks in a
skimpy halter top, driving people to such distraction that they wander onto the
tracks and die.
Reina De Paréntesis
Patrick
wrote:
>"Mardelle" <mard...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> I'm with Patrick on this one. It's in the same genre as accusing the
>> provocatively dressed voluptuous woman as deserving of her rape.
>
>If wearing a skimpy halter top could get you hit by a train I might agree.
Why does it matter whether the risk of criminal harm is supplemented
by a risk of non-criminal harm? I thought your point was that
exposing one's child to *any* sort of risk resulted in partial
responsibility for the harm resulting from a subsequent crime. Are
you suggesting that you would not consider Bulger's mother responsible
if she had protected him from accident while leaving him exposed to
crime? (In any case, it seems clear that skimpy halter tops can cause
traffic accidents, though admittedly less clear how much risk the
accidents pose to the wearer.) 8^)
>What if you drive a tiny open cockpit sportscar and wear a long scarf? Have
>you contributed to your own death if it gets tangled in the wheel spokes and
>breaks your head open? Sadly, I think so.
I agree. For example, I don't think one should be able to sue the car
manufacturer in those circumstances. (If you tell the Bar Association
I said that, I'll deny it.) But suppose your driver wore a long scarf
and was killed when someone intentionally grabbed the loose end and
yanked on it as the car sat motionless at a red light. Would you hold
the driver partially responsible for his own death *by human
intervention* just because the scarf created a risk of death *by
accident*? I wouldn't.
>
>And yes, little kids do get away in malls and elsewhere but they get away
>because an adult bundled them in a car and took them somewhere (in most
>cases) without really thinking about the myriad of dangers they are exposing
>them to. And many of them never thought to tell those kids what to do (a
>million times) if they *do* get lost. Adults are responsible for their
>children and when they run loose it reflects poorly on them, not on the
>child. I know how often it happens but it's clear that some parents take it
>far more seriously than others.
If all you're saying is that guilt attaches to parents whose conduct
is so far outside the norm that they can't be said even to have taken
the safety of their children seriously, then maybe I agree. But it
sounds like you go much further. And I don't know that a case of such
gross negligence can be made against the Bulger boy's mother.
>Whether they fall prey to a killer or a
>truck tire or a pond it is their parents who failed to look out for them -
>they are just too young to look out for themselves. If they're incorrigible
>escapees than you'd better leave them home or get a leash or a Kid-Jack
>transmitter. They have them for dogs. Aren't children a tad more precious?
Here, you seem to be introducing a fudge factor. Do you hold parents
strictly responsible for any harm that befalls any wandering child?
Or do you accept "But he never ran off like this before" as a defense?
Do you accept any other defenses?
>
>I've written a lot of missing and subsequently dead or presumed dead child
>stories in my day and you just can't imagine how differently the parents
>feel than you do once the worst has happened. They all say they would have
>glued themselves to that child had they known what might have happened. And
>even if society sees no crime in their actions they see it within
>themselves. And that's why I am so fervent about this. I've transcribed
>their quivering voices and looked into their lost and tear-streaked eyes to
>the emptiness within and know that guilt just never dissipates. "If only I
>had . . ."
If you accept their own judgments of themselves as the best gauge of
whether they're morally culpable, then you've dealt yourself a winning
hand, debate-wise. But don't you think grieving parents are harder on
themselves in this sort of situation than any objective observer would
be? Indeed, wouldn't the *most* protective parents likely be
*hardest* on themselves for failing to take that one extra, decisive
precaution? I say: let them condemn themselves if they wish, but *I*
shall not judge a parent morally culpable in a child's death at the
hands of a criminal, at least not in the absence of really deplorable
(in legal terms "gross") negligence.
Notaparently, Patrick
Pete B.
>
> For some reason, my overworked brain read, "I'm wearing a skimpy halter
top and
> you could get hit by a train...."
>
> Now I have this mental picture of Petey, parading around the train tracks
in a
> skimpy halter top, driving people to such distraction that they wander
onto the
> tracks and die.
Damn - who's going to clean this halter now that I've spit Coke all over it?
I think you clearly share some of the blame for this mess!!!!! (-:
Peterina La Blue
Patrick
wrote:
>Let's try a different scenario but the same general principle. You leave
>your house unlocked and come home to find it ransacked. The crime is
>different (larceny vs. B&E) than if you had locked it and your insurance
>company may not even pay because of the concept of contributory negligence.
>You made it easy for the criminal and in effect helped him to commit his
>crime by failing to protect your possessions.
Actually, it's Burglary 2 either way, at least in New York. And I
would consider insurance arrangements completely irrelevant on the
question of moral culpability. If I have a $1000 deductible and I
only lose $1000 worth of stuff to the burglar, does that make me
morally responsible for the burglary even if my house was locked? If
I fail to install smoke alarms as required by my insurance policy, and
my house is torched by an arsonist when nobody was home anyway, does
the insurance company's refusal to pay have anything to do with my
moral culpability for the fire?
>
>Now what about letting your two-year-old child roam around a mall
>unsupervised?
I think this is getting a little beyond what we've been told about the
Bulger boy's mother.
> Where does that lie on this continuum? Obviously we have
>differing viewpoints. But I remind you that in many states leaving a child
>under 10 home alone gets you jail time. The law seems to strongly imply
>that they need constant adult care and when that isn't provided a crime has
>occured.
I'd say that what the law implies is that there is a certain minimum
level of care that must be provided on pain of criminal penalty. That
minimum level falls far short of "constant adult care," if by that you
mean "no possibility of wandering off in the mall."
--Patrick
whose wife wishes he wouldn't wander off in the mall
Unhurried1
>
> I agree that most criminal behaviors are a result of a myriad of environmental
> conditions, but we can't ignore the fact that there are exceptions. I don't
> think any of us knows enough about the British youngsters to make that judgment
> call.
> Anyone purporting that these youngsters have been rehabilitated is making an
> educated guess. Conjecture just isn't sufficient when the risk is so great.
"Right and wrong are the same for everybody, you see, but the rights
and the wrongs aren't the same." - Barbara Stanwyck to Fred MacMurray
in "Remember the Night," written by Preston Sturges.
For Thompson and Venables, the rights and the wrongs have apparently
been modified to the point where the pair can be released into society
without constituting a further threat -- this according to
recommendations made by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales on
Oct 26 2000.
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/notices/t_v.htm
Following are bits I found interesting.
"However grave their crime, the fact remains that if that crime had
been committed a few months earlier, when they were under 10, the boys
could not have been tried or punished by the courts."
"Quite apart from the welfare of these two young men there is a public
interest in ensuring that what has been achieved in their upbringing
is not wasted. Society has invested considerable energy and skilled
care in their upbringing. A great deal of money must have been
expended upon them. This commitment should be built upon."
"Naturally, whenever these two young men come to be released from
detention, that will be far too early so far as the victim's family
are concerned. The parents are entitled to point out that James had no
second chance. He was entirely innocent but he will not have the
opportunity of growing up and maturing in the way his killers have. As
any parent would, I understand and sympathise fully with the family's
position."
"However, there are other considerations to be placed in the balance.
The two boys have developed and behaved during their detention in a
way in which the trial judge and the then Lord Chief Justice could not
be aware. The material which is before me, including the reports from
very eminent doctors, demonstrates that further detention would not
serve any constructive purpose."
"Their release will not end their punishment. Having become
responsible young men, they will have to live with, and will be marked
by, what they did when children of 10. Their crime is not one which is
expunged by the Rehabilitation Act 1974. They will be on licence and
liable to be recalled to custody for the rest of their lives if they
do not comply with the terms of their licence. It is to be hoped that
this does not prevent them leading full and useful lives. So far as
this is possible it is in the interest of the public that they should
now do so."
I appreciate his position but still, I find it hard to accept that,
unless they are tracked down by vigilantes, their punishment is
effectively finished. On the other hand, I keep thinking of the
following hypothetical scenario. A person with two distinct
personalities (various hypothetical causes to come) commits a
premeditated, grisly murder. Jeckyll-Hyde is convicted and goes to
death row. JH slips in the shower and hits his head, and the killer
Hyde personality is gone forever, leaving the innocent Jeckyll to go
to his fate. Now to complicate things further, Jeckyll only became
Hyde in the first place because of one of:
(a) a nutritional deficiency caused by childhood poverty
(b) a car accident after he'd been drinking
(c) drug abuse
(d) exposure to toxic chemicals serving in the Gulf War.
The question is, should any of those Jeckylls still get the chair, or
should they even be incarcerated? How different is Jeckyll from
Thompson and Venables?
--
Unhurried1,
paraphrasing Morph - no answers, just more questions
Patrick
wrote:
>On the subject of dependence I think a jury, evaluating two otherwise
>identical kids, would be harder on the one they perceived to be more
>independent such as a latchkey kid. I think they could easily mistake a
>child's ability to care for themselves in some simple ways (even to the
>extent of just making a PBJ) as a sign that they were somehow older and
>wiser and more deserving of punishment. But that's just a gut feeling.
I agree with you, but I think the key word is "mistake." The jury in
your hypothetical case correctly perceives that immaturity means
diminished culpability, which in turn means a lessening of the
deserved punishment. The jury does *not* think that dependency itself
causes diminished culpability or lowering of deserved punishment. But
the jury uses *evidence* of independent behavior to draw *inferences*
(mistaken ones, in your hypothetical) about maturity. If it were the
independence itself that mattered, there would be no need to draw
inferences about maturity, and the mistake would be irrelevant.
--Patrick
can care for himself, but don't draw any inferences
quixote
Unhurried1 wrote:
<snipped>
>
> I appreciate his position but still, I find it hard to accept that,
> unless they are tracked down by vigilantes, their punishment is
> effectively finished. On the other hand, I keep thinking of the
> following hypothetical scenario. A person with two distinct
> personalities (various hypothetical causes to come) commits a
> premeditated, grisly murder. Jeckyll-Hyde is convicted and goes to
> death row. JH slips in the shower and hits his head, and the killer
> Hyde personality is gone forever, leaving the innocent Jeckyll to go
> to his fate. Now to complicate things further, Jeckyll only became
> Hyde in the first place because of one of:
> (a) a nutritional deficiency caused by childhood poverty
> (b) a car accident after he'd been drinking
> (c) drug abuse
> (d) exposure to toxic chemicals serving in the Gulf War.
>
> The question is, should any of those Jeckylls still get the chair, or
> should they even be incarcerated? How different is Jeckyll from
> Thompson and Venables?
>
> --
Just to follow your hypothetical literally, Jeckyll/Hyde (who actually was a
product of drug abuse, being a result of RL Stevenson's dalliance with
cocaine, but I digress) would, as a textbook schizophrenic, be found, in
Britain at least, not guilty by reason of insanity and, probably, locked up
in a mental hospital not a prison. Don't know how it works in the US.
Throwing something else into the pot, for those who might think this is
modern phenomenon and sure sign that everything's going to
hell-in-a-handcart, here, from AN Wilson in today's London Evening Standard,
are some stories of past crime and punishment.
____________________________
Some prize-ass on Any Questions last Friday got a round of applause by
saying that in the "old days" these children would have been hanged.
Two horrible cases from the last century come to mind to prove this notion
wrong.
In 1861, two eight-year-olds, called Bradley and Barratt, from Stockport in
Cheshire, murdered a two-year-old called George Burgess. They beat him and
then drowned him - the parallels with the Bulger case are uncanny. They were
so small that their heads did not show above the dock when they were tried
at the Chester Assizes. They were sentenced to one month in prison (one
month, note well, Mr Michael Howard) followed by five years in a
reformatory. Thereafter, they vanish without trace. They were not pursued by
vigilantes or the Press. I have tried to find out what happened to them - so
far without success - but I guess that they joined the Army.
The other case, much more famous, in 1860, was when a four-year-old (this
time middle-class) boy called Savill Kent was found almost decapitated in
the shrubbery of his parents' house. Five years later, his half-sister
Constance Kent confessed to the crime.
In spite of appeals by the clergyman who had persuaded her to give herself
up, Constance Kent was given 20 years' hard labour.
Thereafter, she was also allowed to disappear, until a brilliant 20th
century writer, Bernard Taylor, traced her to Australia. She had lived under
a new name until 1944, receiving a telegram from the King on her hundredth
birthday. She was a devoted and saintly children's nurse.
The contrast between the way the Victorians treated their juvenile murderers
and our superstitious and vindictive attitude is bitterly, deeply shaming.
______________________
Jason. more questions.
Mardelle
>I've seen kids hit by cars, buses, trucks, mauled by
>dogs, lost in state parks,. . .(snip)
I agree, Pete, that these are horrific outcomes, and had my child suffered as a
result of my neglect, though it were for a millesecond, I would be consumed
with guilt forever.
However, while parental duty is all-consuming, no one, no matter how
conscientious, can prepare for every contingency nor be ultra-vigilant every
single moment of every day over 18+ years. It's an unrealistic standard by
which to be measured.
You've focused on the terrible results of momentary inattention. I've seen the
damage of parents so over-protective that their child literally cannot make the
smallest decision without consulting Mom, a child who won't climb a tree, or
set out on a hike, or approach new situations with joyous anticipation.
It's all a matter of degree, and sometimes, as a parent, you just have to cross
your fingers and pray that you've trained them well enough to cope with life's
vagaries.
Mardelle, forgiving of foibles
Mardelle
>But far more likely they got that way because that's what their parents
>taught (or didn't teach them). I contend that if there's anyone who is
>likely to unlearn such horrific behavior it's young kids. And I'll continue
>to believe it until someone in ATH or in the British the criminal system can
>point to a doubled or twisted chromosome in one of those kids and say with
>surety "Ah, the Usama Bin Laden gene!"
Yes, far more likely that the behavior exhibited was learned, and, therefore,
there is hope that it can be unlearned. There are tools which can measure the
child's ability to understand and feel the normal gamut of human emotions,
including tenderness, caring, remorse. I hope they've been utilized in this
case.
>No one can predict any human behavior. So we have to compromise.
We have to err on the side of protecting innocent potential victims.
> The crime
>was horrible, to be sure, but so was OJ's, who repeatedly beat his wife
>bloody and demonstrated his bad genes but still walks among us.
Yes, but OJ's bizarre accomplishment doesn't mitigate the facts here.
>. . . the tabloids and their inaccurate and sensational
>reporting seem able to override all of the professionals in the British
>prison system with their whipped-up blood lust. The people in the best
>position to know want something for these kids that a very likely misled
>public does not. I'll favor the prison shrinks over a tabloid editorial
>writer any day.
>
It's unfortunate that the tabloids have such influence, but the prison shrinks
aren't necessarily at the top of their profession, either.
>>I would never again risk another
>innocent
>> life.
>
>But Mardelle, we do it all the time. The average prison sentence for murder
>was about 23 years among transferred juveniles and 21 years among adults . . .
>so we deliberately release murderers (and rapists and pedophiles) knowing
>full well there's a one-in-three chance they'll do it again. Why? We have
>to. We can't house that many people and society has tacitly agreed to those
>rules for practical and economic reasons. And the fact that 2/3's of them
>stay out for good.
Doesn't make it right. I won't address the economics here, but there are
substantive changes that can be made to reduce costs and make prisoners
responsible for the institution's economic viability. It's no coincidence that
California's crime rate dropped, and continues to drop, since the three-strike
law was introduced. We're keeping repeat offenders in prison, which makes it a
tad difficult for them to ply their trade.
In California, as in many states now, pedophiles must register with local law
enforcement. Residents picket and protest, and it becomes difficult for them to
find living quarters. I could care less.
This is a difficult case, made more so by the publicity. Let's hope that (a)
the boys are rehabilitated, (b) they are left alone to attempt normal lives,
and (c) the tabloids gain some perspective.
Mardelle, we should live so long
Mardelle
Thanks for supplying his rationale, leisurely one.
Mardelle, not fond of Jeckyll or Hyde
Mardelle
>What if you drive a tiny open cockpit sportscar and wear a long scarf?
And how many of us remember Isadora Duncan, poor thing?
Mardelle
Patrick
Good Lord! I had no idea that Pete's hypothetical wasn't
hypothetical.
http://www.aarrgghh.com/no_way/duncan.htm
Relevantly, the article also mentions that before she met her own
tragic end, Ms. Duncan had left her two children alone in a car, which
had rolled down a hill and into the Seine, drowning them both.
Unsyntactically, Patrick
Pete B.
> Pete wrote:
>
> >I've seen kids hit by cars, buses, trucks, mauled by
> >dogs, lost in state parks,. . .(snip)
>
> I agree, Pete, that these are horrific outcomes, and had my child suffered
as a
> result of my neglect, though it were for a millesecond, I would be
consumed
> with guilt forever.
Cops and journalists develop a somewhat skewed perspective because our jobs
often entail going from one disaster to another trying to make sense of what
caused these terrible things to happen. It's impossible to hear the same
stories of a moment of inattention leading to a lifetime of grief without
reaching a conclusion, perhaps wrongly, that many parents are almost as
blithely unware as a two-year-old of the multitude of dangers in the world.
Yet as I've noted I've been there, done that and come back to my original
premise that it takes both a momentary lapse of vigilance AND some very bad
luck to combine into tragedy.
Here in the DC area we had a horrific crime where a young boy was murdered
while playing in his front yard. In a case like that I can't attach any
blame to the parents - there is a reasonable expectation of safety in your
own front yard. But I think it's a mistake to believe that zone of safety
extends to the regional supermall. Yet so very many parents do . . .
I have to add, as an aside, that I travel with a high paranoia pack. Ever
since I was a reporter I've had a central station alarm and loads of other
security options. I know how long it can take for the police to arrive
(though I will say the two times I tripped the alarm accidentally I had two
squad cars here in less than three minutes and they made *very* sure that
everything was OK before they left). I have the alarms because I believe
that the summoning of help should be as easy and automatic as possible
because it's hard to think straight under extreme duress. Paranoid? Maybe.
But I sleep a lot more peacefully than I used to without an alarm.
Petey
Martha K.
> Petey asked:
>
> >What if you drive a tiny open cockpit sportscar and wear a long scarf?
>
> And how many of us remember Isadora Duncan, poor thing?
Actually, I got the reference, too.
Culturally yours,
Martha K.
Unhurried1
Legally, yes, though it's my understanding that a tragically
significant number of prisoners suffer from some form of mental
illness. (Incidentally, would any of the J-H's from the above
scenario -- not the novel -- be a case of schizophrenia, or would it
be Multiple Personality Disorder or whatever the term-du-jour is?)
But, from the beginning, my post did not address the legality of the
Thompson-Venables release, which is a fait accompli, but its
"rightness" or "wrongness." Is it right for a justly convicted
individual who, over time and by whatever means, has become a
completely different person, to remain incarcerated or even be
executed? The Jeckyll personality inhabits the same physical body
that swung the ax, but it was the now-gone Hyde personality that made
it happen. Is Jeckyll's imprisonment comparable to a good twin's
paying the price for his evil twin's crimes? And thus, is it right
for Thompson and Venables to remain locked up if they are no longer
what they were? The UK decision, at first glance an outrage, seems
more acceptable on closer inspection.
--
Unhurried1
Pete B.
> Are you suggesting that you would not consider Bulger's mother responsible
> if she had protected him from accident while leaving him exposed to
> crime?
Again, as in the case of maturity and dependency the two are too tightly
interwoven for me to separate them out in any but a hypothetical world. If
she had held onto his hand, or used a leash or had a friend to keep their
eyes on the boy it's not likely that Venables could have done what he did
and neither could a truck, tram, pond or any of the many accidental types of
harm we've discussed befallen him. It's just a numbers game, though - does
the convenience of taking him along to shop outweigh the risks? Not this
time, it didn't.
Let me ask this (and maybe our UK posters can shed a little light having
followed the story more closely): Do you think the behavior of all mothers
in the UK changed as a result of this crime? My strong suspicion is that it
did because they were made aware of a danger that they had up until then not
thought much about.
> >What if you drive a tiny open cockpit sportscar and wear a long scarf?
Have
> >you contributed to your own death if it gets tangled in the wheel spokes
and
> >breaks your head open? Sadly, I think so.
>
> I agree. For example, I don't think one should be able to sue the car
> manufacturer in those circumstances. (If you tell the Bar Association
> I said that, I'll deny it.) But suppose your driver wore a long scarf
> and was killed when someone intentionally grabbed the loose end and
> yanked on it as the car sat motionless at a red light. Would you hold
> the driver partially responsible for his own death *by human
> intervention* just because the scarf created a risk of death *by
> accident*? I wouldn't.
Good point. It's clear that this is a very slippery problem. It reminds me
of a movie I saw where one man asks another, insultingly, "why do you wear
that stupid bow tie?" The man replies, yanking his questioner off the ground
by his long necktie: "So that people can't do this to me!" Do you roll up
your windows and/or lock your doors when you see someone on the street like
a squeegee man or a drunk? I know many, many people who do. They do it
because they don't want to contribute in any way to their own harm by not
taking simple precautions.
I hold many of them responsible for a great deal of it. IIRC, we have laws
that require fridge doors be removed from dead iceboxes because so many kids
have died within them. We have laws about child car seats, bike helmets,
swimming pool fences and more because it's because obvious to authorities
that many parents, unless forced, would not take these very reasonable and
necessary precautions to protect their children. Let's just say I would
blame the parent far more readily than the child in almost any situation in
which a child is seriously injured.
> Or do you accept "But he never ran off like this before" as a defense?
Once, perhaps. But it would depend wholly on the circumstances.
> Do you accept any other defenses?
No, but I do take cash donations!
> >I've written a lot of missing and subsequently dead or presumed dead
child
> >stories in my day and you just can't imagine how differently the parents
> >feel than you do once the worst has happened. They all say they would
have
> >glued themselves to that child had they known what might have happened.
And
> >even if society sees no crime in their actions they see it within
> >themselves. And that's why I am so fervent about this. I've transcribed
> >their quivering voices and looked into their lost and tear-streaked eyes
to
> >the emptiness within and know that guilt just never dissipates. "If only
I
> >had . . ."
>
> If you accept their own judgments of themselves as the best gauge of
> whether they're morally culpable, then you've dealt yourself a winning
> hand, debate-wise. But don't you think grieving parents are harder on
> themselves in this sort of situation than any objective observer would
> be? Indeed, wouldn't the *most* protective parents likely be
> *hardest* on themselves for failing to take that one extra, decisive
> precaution? I say: let them condemn themselves if they wish, but *I*
> shall not judge a parent morally culpable in a child's death at the
> hands of a criminal, at least not in the absence of really deplorable
> (in legal terms "gross") negligence.
I guess I am not so much interested in fixing blame as I am in fixing the
problem and the problem, as I see it, is that parents do, in many ways,
contribute greatly to the harm that befalls their children.
"Oh, we put a rock over that well and we didn't think they were strong
enough to move it!" Guilty or not guilty?
"I left the pool gate unlocked because I was about to put chlorine in it
when I got distracted by a phone call." Guilty or not guilty?
"He didn't need his bike helmet, we was just riding around the block."
"I taped the old refrigerator door closed because I didn't have a
screwdriver."
"Those damn outlet guards are just too much trouble for adults."
"My husband took the car with the child seat and I used his without because
. . ."
"I didn't think he would like the taste of lye so I didn't lock it up."
Petey
Pete B.
> I fail to install smoke alarms as required by my insurance policy, and
> my house is torched by an arsonist when nobody was home anyway, does
> the insurance company's refusal to pay have anything to do with my
> moral culpability for the fire?
Whoa! We're straying pretty far away from the morality of an adult's
complete custody over a totally dependent life! (-: Let's take your
scenario and bring it back to kids and say "Are you responsible in any way
for an arson fire if you leave you house unlocked and make it easier for a
little kid to get in and play with matches, the great forbidden dream of so
many children?"
> >Now what about letting your two-year-old child roam around a mall
> >unsupervised?
>
> I think this is getting a little beyond what we've been told about the
> Bulger boy's mother.
Well, clearly we've both drifted away from that topic but if you don't think
kids are dumped on their own in terrible places by uncaring parents maybe
Mardelle can tell us a little but about the (I believe now mostly solved)
problem of the children of gamblers in Las Vegas. (-: I can't find that
item right now (about how kids used to be left to fend for themselves while
their parents gambled away their college tuition) but I did come across this
site:
<<CARSON CITY -- Children under 18 could not ride in the cargo areas of
pickups and trucks under a bill passed 32-8 Friday in the Assembly.
"Children are not cargo," said Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, D-North Las
Vegas. "They should not ride in the back of a pickup truck." >>
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-14-Sat-2001/news/15870267.html
You know if they had to pass a law like that, folks have been spewing their
poor children out into the street like sacks of potatoes for a while now.
When parents don't think and bring harm to their children all society pays
the price.
> > Where does that lie on this continuum? Obviously we have
> >differing viewpoints. But I remind you that in many states leaving a
child
> >under 10 home alone gets you jail time. The law seems to strongly imply
> >that they need constant adult care and when that isn't provided a crime
has
> >occurred.
>
> I'd say that what the law implies is that there is a certain minimum
> level of care that must be provided on pain of criminal penalty. That
> minimum level falls far short of "constant adult care," if by that you
> mean "no possibility of wandering off in the mall."
I think it really does imply constant adult care. In an age of sexual
predators that are constantly arrested and re-released there are some real
dangers in the world. A mall, unlike many other stores, doesn't have
registers or guards at the exits. That makes an accidental child escape far
harder to control than in a local Safeway where they want to make sure you
don't steal from them so they have some control over egress. I would say to
moms if you're going to take your kid to a mall you'd better realize that if
they get away, they could get away for good. And while you'll likely be
forgiven and held blameless by a large number of people, especially parents
forced to make similar choices (leave them home or take them), there's a
large number of people who will think you're a boob at best and complicit in
whatever evil befalls that child at worst. Will you be *legally*
responsible? Well, probably not unless you drove them there in the back of
a pick-up truck!
Pete B.
Martha K.
news:9h9kpb$dtk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
On the subject of both Mardelle and Las Vegas, by which I mean on the sense
of playing the odds, part of parenting is knowing your individual child and
the likelihoods involved. It's actuarial, doncha know. With each of mine,
I have had a sense of what they were likely to get up to in most any
setting. The first one had the element of surprise over me initially, but I
learned and was far better prepared the next time. Nothing my youngest did
at the mall the other day surprised me; attempting to hide under the
lingerie tables was no more unusual than asking for a ride on the escalator
at the department store. I want my kids to wear helmets while biking
because I know the likelihood of a head injury should they be in a serious
accident. But I let the youngest out to play alone because (1) I know she
understands the dangers of crossing the street, (2) I know the nature of our
quiet street and (3) like Mardelle, I have seen the dreadful results of
being neurotically over-protective.
Seems I have a lot to say this morning,
Martha K.
Patrick
wrote:
>Let's just say I would
>blame the parent far more readily than the child in almost any situation in
>which a child is seriously injured.
I don't think anyone is talking about blaming the child -- especially
the little Bulger boy.
>"Oh, we put a rock over that well and we didn't think they were strong
>enough to move it!" Guilty or not guilty?
Okay, I'll play. Not guilty. The parents took a precaution but made
an honest mistake about the child's ability to defeat it. Similar to
putting a child in a car seat and being surprised when the child
figures out how to unfasten the restraint.
>
>"I left the pool gate unlocked because I was about to put chlorine in it
>when I got distracted by a phone call." Guilty or not guilty?
Guilty, but close. "I got distracted by my neighbor's cry for help"
would have been Not Guilty. A ringing telephone is ordinarily not
enough of an emergency to justify taking even the relatively small
risk of leaving the pool open and unguarded for a short period of
time.
>
>"He didn't need his bike helmet, we was just riding around the block."
Guilty. But most kids I know who ride without helmets sneak away
without them against firm parental orders.
>
>"I taped the old refrigerator door closed because I didn't have a
>screwdriver."
Not guilty if s/he taped it just long enough to go get a screwdriver;
otherwise guilty.
>
>"Those damn outlet guards are just too much trouble for adults."
Depends on many factors such as whether there are young children
living in the house (high risk) or not (low risk) and whether the
adults in the house have arthritis (high inconvenience) or can easily
remove the guards (low inconvenience). I would not assign any moral
culpability to an arthritic couple with grown children whose
grandchild was injured by an uncovered electric socket on a
once-a-year visit.
>
>"My husband took the car with the child seat and I used his without because
>. . ."
Husband: guilty once-removed if he had been told (as he most certainly
had been) that the wife needed to go somewhere with the child later.
Wife: depends on the urgency of the errand, the availability of a
sitter at short notice, etc.
>
>"I didn't think he would like the taste of lye so I didn't lock it up."
Guilty. Any parent should know taste is irrelevant. Hell, even *I*
know that.
--Patrick
doesn't like the taste of brussels sprouts and wishes someone would
lock them up
Pete B.
> Actually, it's Burglary 2 either way, at least in New York. And I
> would consider insurance arrangements completely irrelevant on the
> question of moral culpability.
I'm going to take a while to think about this because I believe the
insurance industry has become almost a shadow government. I also think it
has become more tightly entwined with our morals and actions towards one
another than anyone, especially the framers of the Constitution, had ever
imagined. If you're looking for a "responsibility quotient" to assign to
someone as a way to place them on the continuum of responsibility then look
at how they are rated by insurers. Insurers teach us that even if you let
bad things happen to yourself, we're going to charge you for it and
eventually deny you coverage. And even if these bad things happen through
no fault of your own, we're going to charge you for it in the long run (or
the short run if it happens enough). Or we'll charge you and all your
neighbors.
But worst of all I think the insurance companies create an enormous amount
of crime that would not normally occur. Do babies really need life
insurance? But this draws us further away from Bulger question which I'll
have to think about some more . . .
Petey
Patrick
wrote:
>"Patrick" <pjh714F...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
>
>> And I
>> would consider insurance arrangements completely irrelevant on the
>> question of moral culpability.
>
>Insurers teach us that . . . even if these bad things happen through
>no fault of your own, we're going to charge you for it in the long run (or
>the short run if it happens enough).
That's why I think you can't use insurance practices to gauge moral
culpability -- even if it's not your fault, if the insurance company
sees a risk factor, it gets computed into the rates. If all you're
looking for is risk assessment and assigning dollar values to various
risks for comparison purposes, insurance companies can't be beaten.
They can even tell you the best strategy for trading off high-dollar
risks and accepting low-dollar ones instead. But they can't tell you
that acceptance of a particular risk has a certain quantum of moral
culpability attached to it.
Explanatorially, Patrick
Kayleigh19
>Well, clearly we've both drifted away from that topic but if you don't think
>kids are dumped on their own in terrible places by uncaring parents maybe
>Mardelle can tell us a little but about the (I believe now mostly solved)
>problem of the children of gamblers in Las Vegas.
Even better, Pete....I can refer you to a story that happened in my neck of the
woods, which I once mentioned here at ath. A young mother, in the Army, took
her newborn across the state line, and left her locked in her car while she
gambled. The child died.
While this is deplorable, I, like Patrick, don't give this sort of gross
abandonment as much weight as the "two-second" wandering off in the mall.
Any person who has ever spent any kind of time with a child knows that you
can't keep them safe every second. All it takes is that split second, and your
life could change. Is it anyone's fault, or did it just happen? Was the
parent negilgent, or merely unobservantly unlucky?
Here's another hypothetical.....Parents take small child out on granparents
boat. Child, age three or so, wears lifejacket on boat. Upon returning to
dock, mother goes for a quick dunk in river while father rides a Jet-Ski.
Grandparents watch over child. Child complains that jacket is hot, so
Grandmother takes off jacket to hose child off. In the space of a second, the
child, while both grandparents hover, manages to fall off dock. Child is
ultimately rescued quickly, but is anyone at fault, or are they guilty of plain
bad judgement?
Think on this. Now, does it make any difference that the mother is me, and the
child is my daughter? It's all debate until it happens to you. I don't blame
my parents - in fact, I'm grateful that my stepdad was there to fish her out of
the water. But, it was one of those things that, despite being watched over by
TWO adults, happened anyway.
All I can say is that I swam twenty feet in about three seconds, and I thank
God every day that I got her back.
Kayleigh
Alec ***^.~***
La Reina
>Any person who has ever spent any kind of time with a child knows that you
>can't keep them safe every second. All it takes is that split second, and
>your
>life could change. Is it anyone's fault, or did it just happen? Was the
>parent negilgent, or merely unobservantly unlucky?
>
>
Over the weekend in Chicago, a drunk driver turned a corner onto Michigan
Avenue (near where it splits off to LSD, I believe) and crashed into a couple
pushing their baby in a stroller. The baby died, the parents are in critical
condition. Is it their fault for deciding to take a stroll? No. Is it their
fault for not seeing or hearing the car in time to react and push the baby to
safety? No. But if they recover, you can bet they'll find ways to blame
themselves forever.
As for K-Lee's "hypothetical", I remember when that happened and how much it
shook her and how happy she was her baby girl was fine. I think K-Lee, her
husband, and parents were far more frightened by it than little Kayleigh
herself.
Reina De Paréntesis
jeremy zimmerman
your friend
jeremy david zimmerman
Kayleigh19
>As for K-Lee's "hypothetical", I remember when that happened and how much it
>shook her and how happy she was her baby girl was fine. I think K-Lee, her
>husband, and parents were far more frightened by it than little Kayleigh
>herself.
>
>
>Reina De Paréntesis
Even so, I can see Pete's point about the parents beating themselves up forever
about "woulda, coulda, shoulda"...I still feel tremendous guilt today, and I
can only imagine how bleak I'd feel had my stepdad *not* managed to grab hold
of her.
As a reporter, I can certainly imagine the things Pete's seen, but each
situation needs to be looked at for what it is, and not what *could* have
happened. The fact is, kids get away from parents every day.
Taking your child to the mall is not a Bad Thing -- my child begs to go. To
her, the Mall is a great outing. There's ice cream, a carousel, a train at
Easter and Christmas. (I can only imagine the sensory overload for both child
and parent at a place like the Mall of America....) Do we look at everything
that pleases her? No. Do we try to keep one hand on her at all times? Yes,
we do, but that split second is all that's needed for catasrophe to strike. If
I take my child to the mall, do I go clothes shopping? No, not unless my
husband's there to watch her. Could she still get away with both of us
watching her? Yes, most undoubtedly so. Should I confine her to the house
until she's thirty? No. Either extreme is bad. Our job as parents is to find
the middle line, and hope like hell that they aren't scarred too much.
Kayleigh
Mardelle
>But I think it's a mistake to believe that zone of safety
>extends to the regional supermall. Yet so very many parents do . . .
Essentially we're on the same wavelength. What I've tried to say is that I see
two sides to the coin, two extremes that can lead to disaster: neglect and
over-protectiveness. If you've ever parented a toddler, you wonder how
humankind manage to survive 'til adulthood.
In another post, you referred to the gambling parents who let their children
run free. This is a major problem. While children are not allowed in casinos,
except to move accompanied from entry to accommodations (and, as you know, the
routes are circuitous in the hope that people will be distracted to pop a few
dollars in the machines along the way), most kids are still parked in the
videogame rooms, where they run out of quarters fast. Usually manned by an
indifferent minimum wage earner, these rooms attract adults up to no good.
Just a few years ago at a state line casino, a California teenager lured a girl
(7 to 9 years old, I believe) to her death at about 3 a.m. in a woman's
restroom. The enticement was recorded on tape, and is heartbreaking to view.
The Dad? Gambling all night. Said he thought she was safe in the kids' area.
The "new" Vegas has made a point of attracting families, providing
entertainment for all ages, but only a few have secure areas where children are
supervised appropriately. I see that my neighborhood "Station" (one of a
chain) has just completed a separate building with indoor and outdoor
facilities for children. It looks colorful and attractive and appears as though
management is trying to provide a safe haven.
>I know how long it can take for the police to arrive
>(though I will say the two times I tripped the alarm accidentally I had two
>squad cars here in less than three minutes and they made *very* sure that
>everything was OK before they left).
When I left L.A., the police were spread so thin that avg response time to my
neighborhood was 58 min. They were charging -- a lot -- for false alarms.
By the way, I'm a big admirer of the LAPD -- not the few bad apples or the
Rampart gang -- but the many cops who protect and serve under difficult
circumstances. But that's another story.
Mardelle