An unforgivable crime?

Yes, that's some of the differences. Then we have the understanding of the pain it would cause others, the concept of 25 year in prison (almost three times the amount of life they already had), how it would affect them and their family and their friends, how it would affect their own lives in total. Of course they did, and nobody is saying otherwise - indeed that is why they were convicted in the first place. Pre-meditation is disputable. When they kidnapped him, they only wanted to get him lost as a prank. When they did the first injury (dropping him on his head), they walked away from the whole thing only to return a little while later. Nobody is refusing to see that, Legend. That would be stupid. What we are discussing is how should we deal with them?

I'm sure they are aware of the immediate consequences but I do not think they are fully aware of all the ramifications.Think of the boy who cried wolf. He knew the cry would bring him attention (an immediate consequence) but he didn't know the false alarms would ruin the real one (a full ramification).I don't think children are experienced, or wise, enough to consider the full ramifications, or assume full responsibility, for thier actions.As far as fooling the legal system into letting them out, I'm pretty sure, with all the hype, that their evaluation was complete and accurate. They didn't trick people into letting them out. You can't claim these. Way too much speculation.
This is your opinion on what they did. The legal system had a different one and let them out.Instead of imagining the scenario where they should not be let out, can you at least imagine the scenario where these boys should be let out??

Look, I get that their decision seems obviously wrong to you.But that's what children do. Make wrong decisions. Their brains aren't even all there, yet.It just seems obvious to me that a 10-year-old doesn't have the same kind of moral culpability for their actions.

I think that what I would want to know is if any psychiatric treatment and/or evaluations have led to the boys showing eventual remorse and understanding of why they did what they did.If society simply locks them up forever, they will themselves continue to negatively influence others who, locked up with them, interact with their mutated consciences on a daily basis.OR...Perhaps the lesson of such a tragedy could be that only one young life was lost instead of three.

quote:

---

Then we have the understanding of the pain it would cause others, the concept of 25 year in prison (almost three times the amount of life they already had), how it would affect them and their family and their friends, how it would affect their own lives in total.

---

how is the lack of understanding of any of the above a mitigating factor for what they did ?

quote:

---

Pre-meditation is disputable. When they kidnapped him, they only wanted to get him lost as a prank.

---

so, there was pre-meditation to cause harm and distress even if it initially was just to get him lost.

quote:

---

When they did the first injury (dropping him on his head), they walked away from the whole thing only to return a little while later.

---

Which shows intent. That was no accident, no 'I pushed him for a prank, he fell, hit his head and died' kind of thing. They came back to finish him off.

quote:

---

Nobody is refusing to see that, Legend. That would be stupid. What we are discussing is how should we deal with them?

---

Yes, but some posters argue that they should be let out early because when they committed the crime 'they were only 10'.I say that, in this particular case, their age shouldn't be a mitigating factor for their actions and therefore they should serve a much longer term than they did. The fact that they didn't is a mockery of the term 'justice' and an insult to the victim's family.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I'd argue that. That's a respectable opinion to hold. The legal system thought otherwise though. Another valid opinion. Kinda the point of the thread.Is it the severity of the crime and the apparent premeditation, to you, that makes you think letting them out is injustice?I think that they were kids and should not be punished as adulta. I think the legal experts would make the right decision in this case and they decided to let them out. I also think they won't do something like this again and aren't bad, innate, and should be allowed out.Would you feel better if the parents of the victim made a statement that they forgive the boys and wouldn't mind them being let out?

The adult would (or should) also think of himself as a member of society, and think in terms of his responsibility to society. A 10 year old is unlikely to think that way. That doesn't sound much different from any other 10 year old boy. They took it to extremes where most 10 year olds wouldn't. I had to deal with some of those 10 year olds when I was in elementary school. As I recall, I used to hang around a small group of friends and avoid being in the schoolyard alone, so as to not give them an opportunity.You are describing what is actually somewhat common among 10 year olds. At that age, they haven't been fully socialized yet. There is still some of the wild jungle beast in them.

Because these are the things that shape morality and deterrent. If you are unable to grasp the full ramifications of your actions, should you be punished as if you are? And? Does the fact that they wanted to get him lost mean they should serve more prison time? Nobody is arguing that the killing was an accident. I was pointing out that they did not kidnap with the intent of killing him. That's very different from what I was replying to. You said that people were refusing to see that there are 10 year olds that enjoy causing suffering. I don't think that anyone refuses to see that. And what we need to know - is why? Why shouldn't their age be a mitigating factor? You are once again trying to convince us that preteens should be tried as adults under certain circumstances. I'm happy for you to try and do this if you like. However, you must realize that they are still serving their term - it is indefinite. That means it doesn't end - ever. Not unless something insane happens like the Queen herself grants them a pardon.All that has happened is that they have been taken out of custody, and they can be put back in again at any time. Do you think that justice can ever be served by humans in this case? What would be just? Should we torture them to death over the course of several hours? Would that be justice? Do you think that putting them in prison for fifteen years (what the Bulger's thought was reasonable), is more just? Is it just enough?In truth - there is no punishment that fits their crime. It all boils down to whether or not we should treat preteens as adults. If you want to build a case for it, by all means do so. So far I've just seen emotive pleading to the horrors of their crime (which I have agreed would warrant a greater sentence had they been adults). The only case I have seen with any merit is for fifteen years rather than eight.Given that their trial was deemed to be unfair, I think eight years custody and a life licence is enough.

Logically, the loss of life will not be payed for equally. That is, no matter how long the sentence for the criminals, they still don't have to undergo the suffering they inflicted upon the victim.For this reason, I fail to see why any leniance or bias in favour of the criminal, should be observed.The loss of life is potentially an eternal loss for the victim, if the universe is atheist, and thus can never be replaced.I would say there are two important factors that must be recognised;1. To make sure the crime is not commited again, (which happens a lot because of leniant sentences).2. To make sure that the family of the victim, is adequately served some form of justice, by detaining the criminals as long as is fair and is possible.In this case, how could one argue that life in prison is unfair, when the criminals still get to live in a comfortable state?There are starving people, millions, who don't get fed and housed, like criminals do.These two factors must always have the most weight, IMHO.

quote:

---

Look, I get that their decision seems obviously wrong to you.
But that's what children do. Make wrong decisions. Their brains aren't even all there, yet.

---

this isn't about their decisions, this is about our decisions as a society to allow kids to get away with murder (literally) because punishing children is not "the right thing to do".

quote:

---

It just seems obvious to me that a 10-year-old doesn't have the same kind of moral culpability for their actions.

---

that's just another way of saying 'come on...they were only 10'

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I agree with you because even if we are very different as adults, we still can know right and wrong at ten years of age, anyway.I remember a lot of things I done at that age and I knew that it was wrong and so avoided capture (obviously, infinitely smaller mischief, such as throwing my dinner in the bin etc), but nevertheless, my point is that if we know it is wrong, then surely we should pay.When I done wrong, I was spanked accordingly, according to the righteousness of my Father's wrath.I think the, "their brains aren't formed" argument is weak, because children are obviously mischievious, and therefore, mindful somewhat. A babay isn't mischievious, because it has not formed mindfully, but certainly a child of even ten years old, is somewhat mindful and conscious.

Are you arguing that mitigating factors should not be considered when sentencing somebody?

No. I apreciate your points raised, and think you have some valid concerns, but I personally as a hypothetical judge, would probably observe those factors to an extent, but within reason of the enormity of the crime.I'd also enforce a system that means what it says. For example, if you get fifteen years, then that's how long the imprisonment lasts. Or if you get "life", then that means life in prison.The factor of "leniancy" is understandable in many circumstances/crimes. But there seems to be a general rule in place, which enforces this factor to it's full, across the board.Is our justice system good, in your opinion?

quote:

---

Is it the severity of the crime and the apparent premeditation, to you, that makes you think letting them out is injustice?

---

It's the old 'crime should fit the punishment' adage. The fact that, IMO, there were no mitigating circumstances, i.e. no provocation, no momentary 'red mist' or lapse of reason, makes this old saying even more hard-hitting.

quote:

---

I think that they were kids and should not be punished as adulta. I think the legal experts would make the right decision in this case and they decided to let them out. I also think they won't do something like this again and aren't bad, innate, and should be allowed out.

---

that's fine and that's what happened. I just don't think it was just.As per the re-offending factor, I can't see how it can even be taken into consideration in a crime of this nature. This was cold, calculated torture not a heat-of-the moment manslaughter.

quote:

---

Would you feel better if the parents of the victim made a statement that they forgive the boys and wouldn't mind them being let out?

---

No, I still wouldn't fell that justice had been served.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Our sentencing system does mean what it says. In this case the boys were given an life sentence and an 8 year tarriff. The question is ambigious. It is not perfect. Nor is it as bad as many people would say. I wish a lot of sentencing was tougher than it is. However, I do think that age is a major mitigating factor. Emotive cases like this can blind us to this established legal precedent. An absurd way of looking at it: 'kids you can't make informed choices about the full ramifications of sex, but you can make informed choices about the ramifications of torture and murder'.