Schoolboy killer sentenced to life imprisonment

[P.K.]

I think sometimes people confuse psychosis and psychopathy. The first is often a transient, treatable disorder of thinking that may lead an individual to commit crimes, the second is a state of being - it's just the way they're made. Hannibal Lecter is a good example from fiction. As a caring society we should certainly aim to look after, treat, and rehabilitate the former category, but the latter are not treatable and cannot remain part of normal society and must be removed from it, for the good of the many. Secure psychiatric institutions are the normal way, but as I said above, which Mr Tatlock doesn't seem to agree with, I have no problem with offering them euthanasia. Ian Brady for example has been wanting to die for years, and society won't let him - I don't see why not.

Payback. That's why not. The parents of the murdered children want him to live his life out preferably suffering behind bars. Who can blame them?

 

IMHO you're absolutely right though. Psychosis can be treated but if he's a psychopath then he has to be removed from society because there's no cure for the way he is.

 

The crime is just so cold-blooded I would be very surprised if anyone argued a case for EVER letting him out.

[ScotsAlan]

 

I was surprised at the length of the sentence. I thought the UK was not allowed to sentence juviniles to life sentences.

 

He is a stroppy teenager who done something well across the line. Punishment yes. Will he be the same person in 10 years time? Probably not.

 

But thinking back to the recent thread about an alleged burgler being caught, and after reading the posts from Amadeus, a victim of that crime, there is definately a case for the victims to have a say in the sentence.

 

Will the victims feel the same in 10 years time? Only time will tell.

 

In the meantime, it's maybe best not to do more things that can't be undone.

That is so far off the mark to be completely ludicrous. A stroppy teenager is one that won't get out of bed in the morning, not one who repeatedly stabs his teacher because he doesn't like her. All parents get to know stroppy teenagers, not many of them get to know murderers.

 

 

Yes wrighty.

 

I accept my comment was totally off the mark. Because I used the wrong word.

 

I said stroppy. I should have used demented, mad, or whatever.

 

Putting aside all the comments about why his condition was not diagnosed etc, I find this thread interesting because it is a prime example of gang mentality at work. The general consencious is that this teen should be executed, and the more that agree with that the more barbaric the punishment demanded becomes.

 

The only people who have the right to demand DEATH are the victims. Not the outraged vigilante mob who are rolling down the hill like a snowball.

 

I am anti death sentence. The state has no right to take a life. Nobody has a right to take a life.

 

But the victims?..... possibly. Sharia law seems to cover that one.

 

 

 

[Shake me up Judy]

At last Ceaseless Change has come out of the corner. You were tying yourself in knots until Albert (With his Mein Kampf reference - nice one Albert ) and Declan's posts emboldened you to really speak your mind. Admit it: you see this boy as a victim just as much as the woman he murdered. You think the sentence was far too harsh. That there was a reason why he did it. That 'we've' failed this boy somehow. That whatever he did he's not a bad person. You feel you occupy a more enlightened moral position and possess a deeper tolerance and understanding. You would find space for and a time for forgiveness.........blah.....blah......

 

Well I wouldn't want to see the death penalty for this lad. I'd reserve that for the mass murderers and the absolute worst of the worst. But I'm tired of the self-righteousness of the liberal hand-wringers, the 'think of the children' brigade whose heads have been turned inside out by fashionable orthodoxies and relativism. I reckon Judge Coulson got this absolutely right; and for once the right message has gone out, however uncomfortable it makes some of you feel.

[Ceaseless Change]

At last Ceaseless Change has come out of the corner. You were tying yourself in knots until Albert (With his Mein Kampf reference - nice one Albert ) and Declan's posts emboldened you to really speak your mind. Admit it: you see this boy as a victim just as much as the woman he murdered. You think the sentence was far too harsh. That there was a reason why he did it. That 'we've' failed this boy somehow. That whatever he did he's not a bad person. You feel you occupy a more enlightened moral position and possess a deeper tolerance and understanding. You would find space for and a time for forgiveness.........blah.....blah......

 

Well I wouldn't want to see the death penalty for this lad. I'd reserve that for the mass murderers and the absolute worst of the worst. But I'm tired of the self-righteousness of the liberal hand-wringers, the 'think of the children' brigade whose heads have been turned inside out by fashionable orthodoxies and relativism. I reckon Judge Coulson got this absolutely right; and for once the right message has gone out, however uncomfortable it makes some of you feel.

Amusingly wrong.

 

The boy is to blame.

 

The boy is not the victim here.

 

The sentence is not too harsh, but I do think it should have been a remand to a prison hospital. He may never be safe to let out. This is one of the most awful and frightening murders I've ever heard of. Frightening because of his age and because no one saw it coming at all.

 

Of course there are reasons he did it. But so what? That's just because he's a human being not a boulder rolling down a hill. Humans have reasons, even murderers.

 

As far as I'm aware he wasn't failed. No one saw it coming. There is no history of abuse or neglect or trauma that I'm aware of.

 

Hes clearly done something terrible. Is he a bad person? That question only makes sense if you think people ARE bad or good in a permanent enduring sense, as opposed to DO bad or good things at one time and then other good or bad things at other times. I think the latter. I assume you think the former.

 

I don't think I'm more moral or enlightened. However I have given cogent REASONS for my views which you have not. None of you right wingers have except anger and incorrect presumptions about what victims inevitably want to do to the perpetrators.

 

I am an advocate of forgiveness but not for the perpetrators benefit. Forgiving them makes no difference to them and every difference to the victim. It lets you move on.

 

If I forgive I do it for myself.

 

So, by my count you scored zero in your presumptuous rant.

 

Apologise?

[Shake me up Judy]

Apologise for what ? I reckon I've read you spot on

[Ceaseless Change]

After me identifying very clearly all the ways you misread me?

[woolley]

 

Maybe if we despatch them at a young age, we can breed it out of future generations. Even if we can't, at least we don't have to keep them and pontifcate endlessly about how to solve their "issues".

I think that was in "Mein Kampf".

 

Quite possibly. And as a result, because of those days, we were so horrified that we threw the baby out with the bath water and set a disastrous, over liberal course.

[The Border Terrier]

The lad was old enough to plan and carry out a brutal murder by all accounts he was going to kill a pregnant teacher and one other. Someone like that doesn't just get cured. He will in all liklihood be a danger to the public for the rest of his life. Those of you who think it is to harsh why don't you offer him a room to stay in and help him out.

 

Well done to the judge for having the stones to hand out a proper sentence.

 

>...why don't you offer him a room to stay in and help him out.

 

There's merit in this suggestion.

 

What better test of resolve of those sanctioning his release?

 

TBT.

[woolley]

 

I am saying that they are on a fool's errand. The fact that the worst of the worst are released into society is ridiculous and the only answer to that problem is to wise up and stop doing so.

 

It's a fool's errand, because it doesn't work..... and because it doesn't work, the only answer is to keep them locked up?

 

 

"Expert independent criminologists Professor Lawrence Sherman and Dr Heather Strang state that the reduction in the frequency of reoffending found in this research was 27% - that's 27% less crime, 27% fewer victims following restorative justice. Alongside the Sentencing Green Paper in December 2010 the Government published their own further analysis of the data behind the Shapland reports, quantifying the size of the reduction in the frequency of reoffending following restorative justice as 14%."

 

 

 

3) Your views are brutal. Literally brutalising. You are advocating murder! You are obviously opposed to crime - and yet you advocate more brutality as the cure for it! This is nonsensical, and dangerous. As well as historically ignorant - we used to live in a world that did very much what you are advocating until only a century or two ago - and did we have lower crime back then? Did we hell.

 

 

I am not interested in your liberal "experts" and their dangerous twaddle. 27% cut in reoffending? Impressive. Tell that to the victims of the remaining 73%. I dispute the 27% in any case. You cannot dispute the fact that execution cuts reoffending by 100%. And no, I don't care a jot about them. Exactly the same consideration as they gave their victims. You say you have been in the position of victim. I sympathise, truly I do. I would equate your views of empathy with the perpetrator of whatever it was with Stockholm syndrome. I certainly do not see it as as some form of heightened humanity or enhanced civilisation.

 

I contend that your views are brutal. You are putting the innocent in the firing line of your experimental socialising of the reprehensible wicked. It is lunacy.

 

You say that release into the community is the law and I don't have a constructive way of dealing with it. I do. It is not to accept bad law and to argue for sanity. The liberal period we have lived through is a moment in time in a part of the world. All manner of truths have been stood on their head so that wrong is seen as right and vice versa. Don't make the mistake of believing it will endure forever as members of all decaying civilsations throughout history have done. It won't.

[Ceaseless Change]

 

 

Maybe if we despatch them at a young age, we can breed it out of future generations. Even if we can't, at least we don't have to keep them and pontifcate endlessly about how to solve their "issues".

I think that was in "Mein Kampf".

 

Quite possibly. And as a result, because of those days, we were so horrified that we threw the baby out with the bath water and set a disastrous, over liberal course.

 

 

I think this can only be taken to mean that you think that one of the things the Nazi's should take the blame for is making eugenics beyond the pale.

 

Those damned Nazi's, screwing up our right to execute children!

 

I think you need to get your head examined.

[Ceaseless Change]

 

I am not interested in your liberal "experts" and their dangerous twaddle. 27% cut in reoffending? Impressive. Tell that to the victims of the remaining 73%. I dispute the 27% in any case. You cannot dispute the fact that execution cuts reoffending by 100%. And no, I don't care a jot about them. Exactly the same consideration as they gave their victims. You say you have been in the position of victim. I sympathise, truly I do. I would equate your views of empathy with the perpetrator of whatever it was with Stockholm syndrome. I certainly do not see it as as some form of heightened humanity or enhanced civilisation.

 

I contend that your views are brutal. You are putting the innocent in the firing line of your experimental socialising of the reprehensible wicked. It is lunacy.

 

You say that release into the community is the law and I don't have a constructive way of dealing with it. I do. It is not to accept bad law and to argue for sanity. The liberal period we have lived through is a moment in time in a part of the world. All manner of truths have been stood on their head so that wrong is seen as right and vice versa. Don't make the mistake of believing it will endure forever as members of all decaying civilsations throughout history have done. It won't.

 

 

Well fine. We have no basis on which to discuss then do we.

 

You reject the findings of Professors of Criminolgy on grounds that have nothing to do with cold hard facts or science, just simply because you don't like the results.

 

You say we shouldn't bother to cut re-offending by even 1%, let alone 27%, because if it isn't 100% what is the point? You are like someone on the Titanic looking at the iceberg coming in to view and all you can shout is "WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE SET SAIL!".

 

You are not living in the real world.

 

You (and Shake Me Up Judy) are also outrageously misrepresenting me and what I think despite my repeated and clear explanations. I do NOT advocate releasing genuinely dangerous people back in to the community. I cannot say that any more clearly. I am not some liberal soft hearted weakling who cannot face depriving people of their liberty to safeguard other people who are not dangerous to society. I am perfectly fine with that.

 

On the other hand as I'm not frothing at the mouth and calling for summary executions, you seem to think i'm a communist.

 

And finally - to take my experience, of which you know nothing, and to dismiss it as Stockholm Syndrome is just outrageously offensive. It's a good guide to never say anything on the internet you wouldn't say to someones face. I presume you aren't the sort of person that would say that to the face of a victim of a very, very serious crime, that you can only conclude that they are suffering from a serious mental illness.

 

THINK about that. That's actually serious. That's actually a deeply immoral, reckless thing to do. What if i'm suicidal? You have no idea. You've just spouted off like an idiot and damn the consequences.

[woolley]

 

 

 

Maybe if we despatch them at a young age, we can breed it out of future generations. Even if we can't, at least we don't have to keep them and pontifcate endlessly about how to solve their "issues".

I think that was in "Mein Kampf".

 

Quite possibly. And as a result, because of those days, we were so horrified that we threw the baby out with the bath water and set a disastrous, over liberal course.

 

 

I think this can only be taken to mean that you think that one of the things the Nazi's should take the blame for is making eugenics beyond the pale.

 

Those damned Nazi's, screwing up our right to execute children!

 

I think you need to get your head examined.

 

Emotive language that liberals always use when cornered. Like "beating children" for mild smacking.

[woolley]

 

 

I am not interested in your liberal "experts" and their dangerous twaddle. 27% cut in reoffending? Impressive. Tell that to the victims of the remaining 73%. I dispute the 27% in any case. You cannot dispute the fact that execution cuts reoffending by 100%. And no, I don't care a jot about them. Exactly the same consideration as they gave their victims. You say you have been in the position of victim. I sympathise, truly I do. I would equate your views of empathy with the perpetrator of whatever it was with Stockholm syndrome. I certainly do not see it as as some form of heightened humanity or enhanced civilisation.

 

I contend that your views are brutal. You are putting the innocent in the firing line of your experimental socialising of the reprehensible wicked. It is lunacy.

 

You say that release into the community is the law and I don't have a constructive way of dealing with it. I do. It is not to accept bad law and to argue for sanity. The liberal period we have lived through is a moment in time in a part of the world. All manner of truths have been stood on their head so that wrong is seen as right and vice versa. Don't make the mistake of believing it will endure forever as members of all decaying civilsations throughout history have done. It won't.

 

 

You say we shouldn't bother to cut re-offending by even 1%, let alone 27%, because if it isn't 100% what is the point? You are like someone on the Titanic looking at the iceberg coming in to view and all you can shout is "WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE SET SAIL!".

I'm not rising to all your nonsense but I'll just say this with regard to your Titanic analogy. You see, you don't acknowledge other courses of action than those that you see as having no alternative. I would simply have equipped the ship with sufficient lifeboats in the first place.

[Ceaseless Change]

 

 

 

 

You say we shouldn't bother to cut re-offending by even 1%, let alone 27%, because if it isn't 100% what is the point? You are like someone on the Titanic looking at the iceberg coming in to view and all you can shout is "WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE SET SAIL!".

I'm not rising to all your nonsense but I'll just say this with regard to your Titanic analogy. You see, you don't acknowledge other courses of action than those that you see as having no alternative. I would simply have equipped the ship with sufficient lifeboats in the first place.

 

 

I do acknowledge other courses of action. It could have happened that laws had been passed that had criminals summarily executed, that could have happened, I'm not an idiot.

 

But I suspect you might be. Because we are *already on the titanic*, in my analogy. You can't wish more lifeboats on board. It's too late for that. We are where we are.

 

The question we now have to answer is, GIVEN that criminals are being released in to the community, and GIVEN that changing the law to stop that happening is a pipe dream, what do we do to reduce the damage these returning criminals do?

 

And you have repeatedly, over and over, refused to answer that question, instead just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh".

[Ceaseless Change]

 

 

 

 

Maybe if we despatch them at a young age, we can breed it out of future generations. Even if we can't, at least we don't have to keep them and pontifcate endlessly about how to solve their "issues".

I think that was in "Mein Kampf".

 

Quite possibly. And as a result, because of those days, we were so horrified that we threw the baby out with the bath water and set a disastrous, over liberal course.

 

 

I think this can only be taken to mean that you think that one of the things the Nazi's should take the blame for is making eugenics beyond the pale.

 

Those damned Nazi's, screwing up our right to execute children!

 

I think you need to get your head examined.

 

Emotive language that liberals always use when cornered. Like "beating children" for mild smacking.

 

 

I am not contributing emotive language, and i'm just repeating what you said back to you, using different, accurate words.

 

"Those days" you referred to were the Nazi days. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. You endorsed that as relevant.

 

"Maybe if we despatch them at a young age, we can breed it out of future generations" - this is eugenics. Breeding out bad traits is literally the definition of eugenics. And "despatching" them rather than simply selectively reproducing is how the NAZI'S did eugenics, which is surely why you took the Mein Kampf reference seriously, when it was clearly meant to be a satire on the extremity of your views.

 

Are you a nazi sympathiser?!