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.
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
According to the Telegraph, the mother went inside to "do the washing up.
There appears to be no evidence of him being "lured away"
She pleaded guilty to ABH and 'perverting the course of justice' - ie making up a story to try and get herself out of trouble.
Apparently she was already in foster care.
Some people on this thread have way too much faith in prisons as a way of sorting out emotional disturbance..........
yes - but not indefinately!
I dont think so, most people know they are god awful places, but thats not really the point, if she is a persistant threat then she does need to be restrained some how.
Sorry bb, but what evidence is there of this child being a "persistent threat"?
The majority of kids I worked with after they had come out of secure units and detention centres tended to pose a persistent threat to themselves and others.
In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the institotions that "restrain" children are superb at the creation of "persistent threats".
I didnt say she was a 'persistant threat' I said if she is then restraint is about the only option we have. What form that restraint takes is obviously also up for debate.
I disagree. I think that their faith is in the detention preventing the person who is "disturbed" from hurting another person. There is little consideration of the "disturbed" individual.
On the other hand there appear to be people on this thread who think that a long term solution should be the only action taken. I'm not convinced that they are correct either. Until the "emotional disturbance" is addressed an treated (if it can be treated) then the remainder of the public should be protected. Bearing in mind that we cannot force sedative drugs into people, somtimes that protection mean incarceration. You may not agree, but then you do not have to tell a parent that their child has just been found hanging from a tree...
It's worth noting that in this case, there isn't just one child who is "emotionally disturbed" now...
She's 12. Some adults don't know what they are doing some of the time.
As for her being "disturbed" and this somehow "causing" her to injure the child, it doesn't scan for me. She's had a bad few months, but that doesn't mean anything. There are people who take life on the chin without muss or fuss. Perhaps we are too quick to delve into the various phsychological angles like they must happen.
What I think she wanted was to be left alone. If she really wanted to hurt him or kill him she could have finished the job once he was tied up.
She didn't. She also tried in her own way to make amends as soon as she realised something was wrong. I just see a confused youngster who has fucked up a bit. I think the magistrate got it exactly right.
(wow - that's a first)
I agree with klintock that psychological trauma is too often wheeled out as a catch-all excuse for any behaviour. Yes, she may very well need bereavement counselling, but that should be aside from any punishment she receives.
I don't think she needs punishment. Perhaps the boys parents need it, maybe the boy does. (need her to be punished I mean) that's not a good reason to punish her though. In fatc, it's the worst one i can think of.
I don't think counselling does a lot either. Let the past be the past and get on with things is the best way I have seen for dealing with things.
Utter fucking shite.
OK that's utter shite, but I believe that her actions are neither excusable nor any less horrific than those of the Bulger killers.
I think you're being unusually irrational Kentish.
What does "excusing the crime" actually mean to you? You are of course aware that the bench takes 'mitigating factors' into account when determining the sentence, are you not?
She was punished - she was given a 12 month referral order.
I don't see anyone arguing that that was too much.
Kermit is claiming that we should measure this against the 30 month sentence that an 11 year old buy got for setting fire fire to a wheelie bin. Except of course, that wasn't all the boy did - he also attempted to set fire to an occupied Working Men's Club and was already on referral, parental and supervision order for offences that include burglary of 5 homes.
There is no evidence that she attempted to kill the boy, so she admitted to ABH and 'perverting the course of justice' - and that is what she was sentenced on.
It is the hang em and flog brigade who believe the sentence is not appropriate in this instance. To write off a child of 12 who has recently watched her mother die is cold, callous and heartless.
So now she is two boys, and the boy is 2 and DEAD?
Why does kermit keep telling me that you speak sense?
I think that she should receive a punishment befitting a crime of the magnitude that she committed. She is older than the Bulger killers, did it without someone to egg her on, and victimised a much older child. These 3 things point to a dangerous individual and therefore I believe the crime is of the same magnitude.
So the child didn't die in this case - true - but not because she prevented him from dying. Hanging someone from a tree doesn't normally constitute playful adolescent antics.
Indeed a source would be useful.
According to the Telegraph article I cited above, she was cautioned in the past for assault on a child of her own age.
The Mirror tells us 2 other things that need to be taken into account:
The parents of the boy appear to have little justification for their outrage if there is any truth in that second claim.