If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Where is your proof that she hung him? Where is your proof that she didn't prevent him from dying? She untied him and phoned for an ambulance.
I've just cited a claim that she had a mental age younger than the Bulger killers (in fact it raises genuine questions of legal capacity, does it not?)
You seem to have little understanding of traumatised kids, and a real desire to traumatise them more.
Punishing the culprit surely prevents more traumatisation of other kids?
Source please?
Can I ask why you think this is?
Theres been some scary programming you have been subjected to I can see that much.
What effect DID it have? Does anyone know? Did anyone ask?
Hows about she is made to:
1) Do specified activities
2) Attend counselling where she will be confronted with the awful reality of what she did
3) do some form of community service such as picking up litter as well?
Why are we so horrified by this case? Not only is it because such young people are involved, but because we fundamentally know that the action was wrong - more than that, we UNDERSTAND it to be wrong - it is more than having it instilled in us morally, it affects us emotionally on many levels - we relate it to our own children or those we know, and just a downright abhorration of mindless violence in any form.
When I was working with children I just saw more and more that have become sort of what I called "morally blank" - they just did not have a concept of what right and wrong even was, so it was impossible for them to be disciplined, because their parents had not instilled it in them yet or had ambiguous ideas themselves. If they couldn't see right or wrong then they did not fully understand punishment.
That is to say, I think punishment - in a way judged most suitable for the crime (which is up to a child psychologist) should come after a breakthrough in understanding with the child, when they can appreciate the severity of their actions - otherwise it is just like shouting at a brick wall
This begs the question, why bother punishing them then?
That's where we all start from. There is no morality, just what you can get away with. This is always true. Morality is just lazy thinking about events.
Just someone else's opinions, forced onto others through violence. No morality there either.
Please explain this comment, why shouldn't they be outraged?
I can understand that, however you are again talking about something which can only be resolved in the long term. What therefore is your proposed short-term solution to protect the public from someone who doesn't understand right from wrong?
I don't recall saying they shouldn't be outraged.......
Back a couple of days and already avoiding a simple question, Mr Pedant.
Can you explain the comment you made? Why would the parents of the boy have "little justification" for their outrage?
Well, I see no reason to accept you misrepresenting what I say..... and I think you'll find its one day actually.
Heres the quote again:
He was 5 ........
And?
Is that supposed to be a serious question?
Yes.
You think that its okay to leave a 5 year old unattended?
Define unattended, define the "area" he was supposed to wander.
And regardless of those aspects, why shouldn't the five year old be left unattended. Should the parent be expecting him to be abused?
Funny how you seem to excuse the physical abuse and yet imply contempt for the freedom of the victim.
5 year olds have freedom?
Thats amazing!!!
I don't have freedom and I'm quite a lot older than that.
5 year olds need supervision.
If he ran into the path of an oncoming vehicle on a blind corner, would you be calling for the driver to be hung by the balls?
If the driver was speeding or using his phone then yes, actually.
But that's not the point, really.
If this girl does not understand right from wrong to the extent that she ties a boy to a tree by his neck, and has him seconds from death, simply because he's irritating her, then she is a danger to the public. Simple fact.
Tying a boy by his neck to a tree and almost killing him is a deliberate act. Not being able to avoid a collision is not a deliberate act.
Using the same logic you are applying to this case, the parents of Sarah Payne have no right to be aggrieved that their daughter was raped and murdered.
I would suggest that charging this girl with a s47 was an act of great leniency too. Anyone else and it would have been a s18, no questions asked.
So, Mummy won't let you walk down the road on your own? You poor lad, I'd call Childline if I was you.
They need supervision to ensure that they don't put themseleves in danger, I agree. That does not mean that they need watching 24/7, you have to give them chance to make mistakes as well. Now, if the parent is happy that the child walks in an area which is "safe" then I am happy for a child of that age to be left to their own devices. In fact, I do it myself with my children.
However, that does not excuse, mitigate or remove any responsibility from a person who seeks to harm them. It isn't the parents who abused this boy, it's the girl. She is responsible here and you can make as many "excuses" as you like about her upbringing but the fact remains that she nearly killed him - of her own violition.
Whilst it's laudible that you always seem to champion the underdog, sometimes I think you need to accept that people are responsible for their own actions. Where they have acted criminally, they should accept the serious punishments which may follow rather than try to excuse themselves. It's easy to find excuses, it's not easy to face up to responsibility.
No. But then the driver isn't acting with the intention of causing harm, is he?
You see, she might have understood that it was wrong, but not understood what damage it could have caused to him. Our children live in a world of make-believe where anything is possible and it all gets sorted out (in the heroes favour) within a nifty half hour time span.
How does punishing her get her to find a sense of right and wrong?
It obviously has the opposite effect.
I don't see what the victims families feelings have to do with being just. The whole point of having a "justice system" is so that we don't hang people from the nearest tree when we are upset, surely?
I thought the whole point of the exercise was to get people to modify their behaviour in future and make amends for the past. This is why prison doesn't work.
This but mystifies me totally. How does taking responsibility away from the girl do this?
Why though? It doesn't work and doesn't make amends either.
Having a "criminal" system just puts power into the hands of people who are far far worse than any serial killer or rapist and more mad than any sociopath.
That`s what I was thinking .. where were the parents in the first place?
Are you suggesting that a five year old should never be out of a parent's sight?
... including when they do something wrong there is always someone areound who will point the finger of blame elsewhere... it's TV, Music, Education, the Parents etc...
Erm...isn't this a basic for of rearing children... even in the animal world a "nip" will soon tell an offspring that they have done something wrong...
Because you cannot see that accepting a punishment is part of accepting responsibility.
I just wanted to know where were the parents?
And where did the girl get the string to tie him up in the first place? I reckon there`s loads of pieces of info missing on those reports.
But why is that even relevant? It wasn't his parents who abused him, let remember where the blame for that little act lies...
We don't know, and perhaps that is an interesting question - although it's not beyond the realms of possibility.
Just a thought though, what are you suggesting, that she had some help, that perhaps the parents were involved some way?
Well I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't go from blissfullignorance to total responsibility, criminalisation etc all in one go either.
This isn't a "nip". This is showing the child that external forces will come and "do things" when she fucks up. What happens when she fucks up and those external forces don't notice? Hello, and welcome to the world of the career criminal. It also shows her at exactly the same time that her own (admittedly feeble) attempts to make amends are of no consequence.
It's a "punishment" unconnected to the original offence in any but the most abstract way. Children, like Klintock, don't do abstract very well. As well as this, the being interviewed etc were probably just as traumatic as the actual "punishment" but are supposed to be seen as not part of it. Again there is a disconnect between what happened and the "punishment" that's just not healthy.
If I wronged someone and then no matter what I do to make amends a great big bully comes along and locks me away for it, I fail to see how that makes amends to the person I have wronged. I would just seek to avoid the bully in future, as any other logical person would. This is the lesson that's being tsught, and it's a bad one.