Is This Justice

[Diva]

Shit! Edited after Amaurote pointed out mistake. That's what I get for cut and pasting before the coffee kicks in!

Tahir Malik was 16 when he battered and strangled a nine-year-old boy in a motiveless murder in 1993. When he turned 18 he successfully applied for a reduced sentence. He only served 8 years of the life sentence.

In 1993 Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were were sentenced to life in prison. They were both 10 when they murdered 2-year-old James Bulger. They rained house bricks on to his head and body. Thompson kicked the toddler and James was also struck on the head with a 28lb iron bar. There was evidence he was also sexually abused.

Their sentence was reduced when they turned 18. They only served 8 years of the life sentence.

Was justice served? Do you think that a sentence can be overturned simply by turning 18?
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/xnews/video.jpghttp://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/xnews/james.jpg
http://www.nochicktrix.com/fun/xnews/jonrobert.jpg

[Anton]

This opens the enitre justice system up to debate.

Why are people imprisoned? Is it to make us feel better? safer? Or is it to rehabilitate the criminals or is it something i haven't thought of?

If its to make us feel better, then it doesn't say much about us as a people.

If its to make us feel safer every criminal should be killed so they don't have the chance to commit any other crimes.

If the main aim is rehabilitationwe have a well meaning but flawed justice system.

In the case highlighted, we have 2 boys who when they were younger killed another boy. The motives for this are unknown and will probably never be known. The question that needs to eb asked is are these boys ready for society and is society ready for them? There is a good chance that they will never commit another crime in their life and will go on to live productive lives, if that happnes the justice system has worked.

They could, however, be what is described today as evil. If this is the case they should never be let out.

My personal feelings are that they should be released but kept under surveillance fo at least the first couple of years.

I may never have comitted murder whne i was younger but I did a lot of stuff I wouldn't even consider doing now. Its called growing up and most of us do it

[Amaurote]

Originally posted by Diva
In 1993 three youths: Darren Dermody, Bernard Thomas Coddington and Tahir Malik were were sentenced to life in prison. They were all under 18 when they battered and strangled a 9-year-old James Bulger in a motiveless murder.

Their sentence was reduced and they only served 8 years of the life sentence. Was justice served?

Di: you make an excellent point, but I'm not sure which source you're referring to here. The original case I believe you're highlighting was indeed the 1993 murder in Liverpool, but James was 2, not 9, and his murderers were John Venables and Robert Thompson (the infamous Child A and Child B), who were only 10 years old - which is far, far worse, of course. I'm not sure who Dermody, Coddington and Malik are, unless I'm confusing two entirely distinct cases.

It's a critical question, though: I tend to avoid both the Calvinist view of children as sinks of iniquity, and also the Romantic view of them as somehow more innocent than adults. They are neither; and they should be accountable. At the time, the UK acquired a reputation throughout Europe as a country with a "medieval" system of Child Law - the Irish in particular were in favour of leniency towards the two murderers. This is hard to understand when you consider the details: they kidnapped him; beat him and punched him over a 2 or 3-mile walk; threw missiles at him; murdered him; sexually assaulted him and inserted a battery into his anus. They then left him on the train-tracks to be decapitated.

Leniency? I think not. As for their sentences - those men will now have to emigrate. They'll no more survive upon release in England than Osama Bin Laden would survive a walk in Central Park. The people of Liverpool have long memories; be in no doubts about that.

[Diva]

Anton: This is about two young boys who, at age ten, kidnapped, torchured, murdered and then sexually assaulted a two year old boy. For their horrific crimes they were given 120 year terms. After only 8 years they petitioned, and won, an appeal to be released.

Why should a convicted criminal allowed a re-trial based on the fact that they turned 18.

Would you want children areound them?

Am, hon... They were let out in June/July. They're walking the streets as we speak. Take a real good look at those features... One of them may be sitting beside you at dinner.

[Anton]

The 120 year terms were a result of public outcry process. I fail to see how one cold blooded murder is any worse than another. If I went out and killed someone right now I'd probably be able to get a life sentence and be out in about 15 years. They served 8. They also have a much greater chance of rehabilitation that I would.

It can't be proved that they knew exactly what they were doing. Yes, they probably knew they were going to kill him but did they had not been subjected to same thoughts of death we have. Every one of us has pondered death at some point and most of us have come to the conclusion its something we'd like to put off for a few years. If we hadn't spent hours thinking about death it probably wouldn't be as big a deal to us now and we would probably take more risks with our own life but not others because we have developed a sense of right and wrong. We know that killing someone is wrong, yes they did as well but chances are they didn't know it as well as we do.

I'm not disputing the fact they are/were sick little fucks but people do change. Can you remember the person who used to kick the shit out of you and steal your dinner money? A few things might have happened to them that changed their life and now they could be good honest people with families and jobs. They are not the same person that beat you up everyday.

The same might possibly true of the convicted and now released boys albeit in a much more extreme level. If someone has truly changed for the better can we honestly say its right to punish them for things they did and would never do again? For all intents and purposes the part of them that killed may well be dead and in my view the justice system has done its work and are we so selfish as to prevent them from attempting to live a normal life?

Of course my entire argument is based on if's and possibilities and they may not have been rehabilitated but it is not my place to judge that.