BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 07:19 AM

A small correction or two. We have a legal system, not a justice system. There are several theories about the purposes of criminal sentencing, and while one is reform/rehabilitation, another is punishment, another is retribution, another is protection of the public from repeat offending, and yet another is the negation or balancing (in a Hegelian way) of the wrongdoer's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 07:29 AM

Yes indeed. But what the legal system as it exists in any particular jurisdiction is NOT there for is to satisfy prejudices and demands for vengence to be wrought. It is not there to dispense anybody's idea of "justice" (unless it be that of the statue on top of the Old Bailey.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 10:24 AM

I can only agree with Michael White writing in the National Press on March 8th that while -

"Everyone remembers the blurred CCTV camera image of Venables and Robert Thompson holding little James Bulger's hand as they took him off to his death in 1993.
It was a chilling one, most people agreed at the time.

BUT the redtop-led thirst for renewed vengeance after Venables was taken back into custody for unidentified transgressions last week is pretty disturbing too, isn't it?"

He points out that the reason that a 'cover' was provided for both defendants on their release was that -

"The original trial judge, Mr Justice Morland, succumbed to public pressure and allowed Child A and Child B to be named, despite their being only 11 years old at the time of their very public trial.

Michael Howard, the then-home secretary, stoked that mood by exercising his power – since abolished – to raise the tariff on the pair's detention to 15 years after Morland's eight-year minimum had already been raised to 10 years by the then-lord chief justice, Lord Taylor."

In her Daily Mail column Melanie Phillips, was careful to condemn mob justice but also complained that Venables was let out to face adult life too soon.

She states that Venables and Thompson hold up "a mirror to society,"

No, they don't. argues White
"They hold it up to a small section of society, which is exploited by not-quite-so-small sections of the media.
No names mentioned.

We know why newspapers, TV and even stately wireless (Radio 4 led its bulletins on this tale) behave as they do in these situations.

It interests the customers and allows those so inclined to luxuriate in a sense of prurient outrage"


I cannot support the excellent rehabilitation programmes for the child soldiers who have committed such terrible atrocities in other countries without also supporting the possibility that children in this country convicted of serious offences, even murder, should have the opportunity to be "rehabilitated".too and not be consigned to an adult prison for life as Denise Fergus demanded.

Erwin James, who served 20 years of a life sentence in prison before his release in August 2004 and author of A Life Inside writes

"But what are we to make of the return to prison of Venables?
We know little about his life and that of his co-accused in the years since they were convicted of murdering Bulger.
At the time when they killed the toddler they were both 10 years old.
It was obvious to anyone who read about their lives before the crime that their formative years had been abusive and damaging.
These were not two well brought up little boys who went to a posh school.
They were rough kids who had experienced more of life's degradations than any child should.
They knew about life on the streets.
Perhaps "feral" would have been an appropriate adjective to describe what they had become.
But those in power used more potent words.
The popular press labelled them beasts, bastards, evil, brutal, cunning, freaks.
Three days after Bulger's body was found, the then prime minister gave an interview to a Sunday newspaper calling for society to "condemn a little more and understand a little less".
And that is what we did.
Lynch mobs gathered outside the court where the two boys first faced charges. The van transporting them to "secure accommodation" was attacked with stones and bottles.
People in the street called for them to be hanged.
But whatever we feel about what they did, they were still only children.
Yet we tried them as adults and sentenced them to be detained at "Her Majesty's pleasure", the juvenile equivalent of life imprisonment."

full article

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 11:47 AM

"As to the topic of the thread: this silly woman Atkinson seems to imagine that 10-year-olds are incapable of recognising that beating a little boy to death with a brick and leaving his body on a railway line to get cut in half by a train is a verryveryveryvery NAUGHTY thing to do. I knew that when I was 10. Didn't she? Didn't you? Didn't everybody?" I wrote 2 days ago ==

to which Virginia replied

"Yes I knew it was naughty. But I bet the neighbour kid who beat up my baby brother didn't know it was naughty to do so, because he was alternately ignored / beaten by his parents.

He had an utterly different view of what "wrong behaviour" was compared to me, who's parents taught me that you don't pick on smaller and weaker people. They taught me that bullying is wrong. The neighbour kid's parents taught him that bullying is right.

Geddit!?!?"

SLOWBURN RESPONSE ···· apologies for delay --

Virginia, what exactly are you suggesting I ought to have "Got"?

regards ~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 12:17 PM

If you ask me (I realize nobody did) the whole system of juvenile justice if f—d up.

Of course, in the US, this is one of the things that vary from state to state. I only know about Minnesota. If some other state has a better system, I'd like to know about it.

First of all, it is based on the premise that there are two kinds of people—adults and juveniles—and that a juvenile turns into an adult overnight, and this happens on his 18th birthday.

EXCEPT that if a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old is charged with premeditated murder, then the indictment retroactively converts him into an adult.

AND EXCEPT that if a 14- to 17-year old is charged with any kind of felony, then he MIGHT be an adult. The court has to decide. How they are supposed to decide is a mystery, but suffice it to say, that whenever a crime is widely reported in the media, so that people write letters to the editor saying how awful it was, there is a lot of political pressure on the prosecutor and judge to certify the defendant as an adult, and they usually comply.

—which leads to the paradoxical conclusion that people who commit more bizarre crimes—like stabbing someone 40 times with a pencil—are somehow more mature than people who commit more prosaic crimes, like shooting someone and stealing his money.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 12:20 PM

p.s. Is "highering" a respectable verb in the UK? Whatever happened to "raising?"

And they say Americans abuse the language!

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 05:25 PM

Never heard the word "highering" in my life before.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 10 - 10:58 PM

JimD & McGrath ==

The question of 'highering/raising' has been dealt with above more then once ~~ see e.g. 13 Mar 0625 AM et seq. Why not read a thread b4 rushing to add points which have already been exhaustively dealt with, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 04:15 AM

I've read the entire thread. I wouldn't describe the coverage as exhaustive, and "highering" still grates.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:45 AM

Oh, we're far from exhausting the subject. Although there has been some discussion of "highering" in this thread, it does not answer the question "Is 'highering' a respectable verb in the UK?"—which was, by the way, a sincere question. (I like to collect information of that sort.)

But the subject has exhausted me, for the time being. I hereby withdraw the question and request that the subject be dropped (at least in this thread).

What is far more frustrating to me is the fact that I wrote 200+ carefully considered (and researched) words about juvenile justice and only 20 somewhat facetious words about "highering," and what do people respond to?

C'est la vie, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 03:12 PM

I recall reading in a history of a certain king of England that he once went to a town to sit in judgement on matters in the local court. One case concerned parents who had brought a child accused of the murder of their child to the court, demanding he be executed. The king investigated what had happened - different in type from the cases above, it's true. A group of boys, including the victim, had been engaged in throwing large stones at each other, and one had unfortunately hit the victim in the head. The king, in giving judgement, pointed out that the boys had been behaving as boys, and that in slightly different circumstances, it could have been the defendant who died, and the victim before the court. It was not proper to try the defendant as an adult murderer. The parents of the dead boy were not happy, of course.












If King John can take a measured view of child responsibility - and it would be interesting to know what he would have made of the malice of the distorted minds of the recent cases - maybe we should not be so ready to throw around accusations of evil. And he would know about that.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM

It wasn't an accident, Penny. They weren't just 'behaving as boys'.
They stole a child, with the sole intent of killing him. They *were* going to take a child and push him into busy traffic.

They changed their mind.

They stole her little boy, tortured him, then tied him to a railway track, after smashing his head in. His little body was cut in two.

And you expect this mother to forgive? You expect her to say they were 'just being boys'?


EVERY day of her life, Denise has to live with that horrific scenario.
WE can turn off from it. We can come here, go "Oh my GOD!", then switch the screen to something else and redirect our thoughs...

She cannot.

She *never* will.

So if she feels those boys are evil, I can perfectly understand her emotions, because trust me, if some 10 year olds did that to *my* child, I'd feel *exactly* the same way.

Subject: BS: Wizadry Words
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 04:18 PM

Highering.... :0)

As in.....'to make higher'...as in....a person putting a pole higher into the air.



Lowering....'to make lower'...as in...the opposite to Highering.



This is from my Dictionary. The one inside my head that is written in pictures, not words....so when I wrote 'Highering' in a recent thread, it was the image of a pole going higher into the air, with the age of criminal responsibility changing upon it, the further it went into the air.

That bloak wot rote the dikshuneri didunt 'ave a cloo.

;0)


It's OK, guys, it's a free world out there, and unless you're a legal secretary or a lawyer you can write 'outside' that box...Honest!

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 04:35 PM

Oh...I put the above message into its own thread called 'Wizadry Words' to stop this one from being continually taken off course.

Also, I thought it was somewhat light-hearted for a pretty heavy thread..but it's been moved into here.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:17 AM

I think you misspelt Wizardry.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:30 AM

No, I didn't. That's the whole point.

(and it's also the point of why I put it into a seperate thread, rather than this one, so it wouldn't take this off course)

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Folkiedave
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:36 AM

Highering - perfectly acceptable word.

Tennyson used it.

"In ever highering eagle circles."

I don't see it as unusual at all....................

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 06:50 AM

Ah, but you did, intentionally or not. BTW, where is this "seperate" thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 08:13 AM

Found it

Landmark ruling opens door for bullying compo
By Kellie Lazzaro

Updated March 10, 2010 20:22:00
Bullying in schools

A landmark ruling by the Victorian Supreme Court has paved the way for victims of young bullies to seek compensation.

The court has overturned a decision by a Victims of Crime tribunal, which refused to compensate a girl who had been bullied because her attackers were under the age of 10.

But the victim's case for compensation will now be reheard after a Supreme Court judge ruled that young bullies can act violently with intent.

The bullying began in the form of swearing and insults when the girl was eight years old and in grade two at a state primary school in country Victoria.

But over the next four years it worsened when the main offender - a classmate known to the court as K - started threatening to kill her victim and threatening to have her uncles kill her.

She was menaced with scissors and a broken bottle and frequently punched, kicked and pinched.

At least three other girls would join in the abuse. She was chased at lunchtime and spat on, and injured her back when she was pushed off the monkey bars in the gym.

Her parents reported the bullying to police and, as a result, officers attended the school and gave an anti-bullying presentation.

But it was not until her parents withdrew her from the school in grade six that the bullying stopped.

They then sent her to a private secondary school that they struggled to afford.

The Victorian Supreme Court heard the girl - referred to in court as BVB - was in great fear, suffered nightmares, and did not want to go to school.

In evidence, a psychologist said the girl suffered significant anxiety and emotional distress as a result of the abuse.

A claim for compensation was lodged, not on the basis of bullying but on the grounds of allegations of threats to kill and assault.

The Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal knocked the claim back because under Victorian criminal law, children under the age of 10 years cannot commit a criminal offence as they are presumed too young to form criminal intent.

But Supreme Court Justice Tony Cavanough ruled that in BVB's case there was no suggestion that any of the incidents occurred accidently and that the main bully, K, fully intended, by her threats, to put her victim in fear of her life.

The president of the Crime Victims Support Association, Noel McNamara, says bullying is a significant problem in schools and society.

"We think that where there is violence and things committed or threatened then there should be a case to take it to the crimes compensation," he said.

He says this ruling will open up avenues of compensation for other victims.

"And of course then people will start to take it seriously," he said.

"It's sort of treated as a bit of a joke, I think, at a lot of places in the schools and that. But it has a big effect on the victims of these bullies and it needs to be stamped out one way or the other."

The Chairman of the National Centre Against Bullying and former chief justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson has applauded the decision.

"These sorts of things are very serious to the recipient of them and a seven or eight-year-old girl could be quite terrified," he said.

The compensation claim will be reheard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Subject: RE: BS: Highering Age of Criminal Responsibility
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 11:39 AM

At least in Alaska, schools post signs affirming "Zero Tolerance for Bullying" and every teacher will follow up on any such reported incident.