The Socratic Scribe

After posting about the James Bulger case, I received a bit of feedback, calling it "absolute rubbish." It was also assumed that this blog was written by a man, which I am not, thank you very much. I am more than happy to have any comments, be they agreements or conflicting opinions, as they bring more to the table, so I am posting that comment as well as my response to it.

"This blog post is absolute rubbish. He uses the very exceptional Bulger case to make a general point about the British/Western justice system. Only four criminals in the UK have ever been given new identities. It is by no-where means normal practice. Do we really think that a 10 year old child has a proper conception of the effects of their crimes or indeed the indecency of their crimes? Some psychologists do indeed believe that some criminals can never be rehabilitated. This is why we leave these decisions up to the experts in the judicial system, who can look in fair and impartial way at all the factors in a criminal’s case for parole etc. We do not leave these decisions to an uninformed mob or armchair judges like this blogger.

He further undermines his argument by quoting the Daily Mail as a reliable source. This is the paper that recently said that Facebook gives you cancer (for which it is being sued) and should not be used to back up any argument by any person who wants their argument to be taken seriously.

Sorry for the rant. Hope your well!..."


Now, my response:

"First, I find it funny that the blogger was assumed to be male, as this is in fact my blog. Secondly, I do realize that only 4 criminals have been given new identities in the UK. Thirdly, if the link to the Daily Mail is a bother, then I can provide a million more sources from more "respectable" newspapers, textbooks, research papers, etc that state the same thing. I chose that link only as it had come up when searching the news lately.

As far as whether 10 year olds have a proper conception of their crimes and consequences, it can be argued that many adults don't have that either. Every day we make decisions, good or bad, without fully thinking through all of the outcomes of those decisions, and of the full consequences of them. Someone may decide to drink and drive and only think of the possibility of getting arrested, not that they might go out and kill an innocent person on their way home. Because they didn't think of that, does that mean they shouldn't be accountable for that? When you know that something is wrong, you know that you will get in trouble in some way if you are found out, and that you are doing something that is wrong. When I was three, I remember I stole a toy airplane from a friend of mine. I knew it was wrong. I lied to my mom about where it had come from, because I knew I would get in trouble. I didn't know what the full punishment would be, but I knew there would be punishment if I was found out. I argue then that if a 3 year old knows that stealing is wrong, and that they will get in trouble if they are found out, then two 10 year olds know that abducting, torturing, and murdering a toddler is wrong, and knowing that trouble was to follow if they were found out, they placed his body on the railroad tracks to look like an accident. They knew what they did was wrong and they knew that if they were caught they would be in trouble. So they did know there would be consequences to their actions.

As far as leaving these decisions about whether a criminal can or cannot be rehabilitated, or whether or not they should be paroled, up to "experts," the argument is an enthymeme. It is missing an important premise before drawing the conclusion, and for good reason...the premise it lacks is utterly false and would therefore invalidate the argument. The premise that is missing is that those in authority know what it best. I seriously doubt that anyone lives fully believing such a statement, as I'm sure that we've all believed at some time or another that our parents, our teachers, our government, our judges, etc have made incorrect decisions. Hence the reason we protest the war in Iraq for example, or we argue for a better grade on an exam, or we try to talk our parents into not grounding us for the weekend. People are imperfect, which means that those people in authority are imperfect as well. They will sometimes make incorrect decisions. They may believe they are doing the right thing, but part of living in a free society is the ability to voice your opinion about their decisions. I believe their decision to let Venables and Thompson out, as well as give them new identities, was an incorrect but well-meaning decision. And obviously quite a few people feel similarly or there wouldn't be the commotion there is about the case. My point in all of this is that this case is one of those odd scenarios where more justice was given to the perpetrators of the crime than to the victim's family, and the safety of public was overlooked in favor of the safety of the criminals. So many judicial cases are made based on precedents. By that I mean, as rare as this case might be, other similar cases could use this one to sway the judge in favor of ever increasing leniency for their criminal clients.

I only chose to write about this case as it has always disturbed me, both the crime and how the justice system played it out, and because it has been in the news recently. In the USA, we have so many cases constantly of where violent criminals have been released before serving their full sentence and then they commit the same crime again. This is a quite common occurrence with sex offenders especially. Every week on the news you hear about a sex offender who had been "rehabilitated" and who had abducted and killed yet another person. My problem is with the leniency that we give these antisocial criminals. Anyone who's taken any psychology classes at the university level can tell you that antisocial behavior disorder is a disorder that at least at the moment you can not rehabilitate. My problem comes with our justice system, who "knows best," unleashing these people back into society with little interest in protecting the innocent public and more interest in giving the violent offender a second chance. We have people who are in prison for drug possession serving longer sentences than sex offenders. That seems a bit messed up to me. So while I am aware that the James Bulger case was a rather odd and exceptional case, we are seeing more and more of that type of thing in America (children on children crime), and we are seeing more and more leniency being given to dangerous criminals who constantly reoffend. I see a problem, and I want to address it, and because I am a free citizen, I have the right to criticize decisions that I deem to be unjust. I want to point out problems with the philosophies that we are using in the justice system that I feel are hurting the public, because I would love nothing more than to see the trend of releasing dangerous criminals in America reversed."

I'm sure we all realize that there are times when the justice system fails. After all, nothing we can ever set up will be perfect. But what so many people don't realize (or maybe what so many people ARE starting to see after the recent Chelsea King case in California) is that the established philosophy that permeates throughout the Western system of justice has created a state of chaotic absurdity! Let me draw on one case in particular from England. If you've ever lived in the UK, and most likely even if you haven't, you might have heard of the infamous murder case of 2 year old James Bulger by two 10 year old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, in Liverpool in 1993. The toddler was shopping with his mother when he had gotten away from her for mere seconds before he was abducted by the two boys. They led him around the city, tortured and beat him, and then killed him, leaving his body on nearby railroad tracks to be cut in half by a train in order to make the murder look like an accident. James' body was found a few days later by a few young boys who happened to be walking near the area.

After a short while, Thompson and Venables were found, arrested, and eventually sentenced to 10 years' detention. The sentence was lengthened to 15 years, but a European court overruled and decreased it again. The were released in 2001 and given new identities, paid for with tax dollars, and resettled in a witness-protection type of program. They were officially on life license, and were not allowed near Liverpool or to contact the Bulger family. The British government put an injunction in place on the press to prevent them from releasing the boys' identities. This was all to protect the two child murderers from anyone who might want to do them harm for what they had done to little James Bulger.

Now, it's 2010, and guess who's back in prison...Jon Venables, on charges of possessing a massive collection of category 4 child pornography (category 4 child pornography consists of images of brutal penetrative sexual abuse forced on children). The public is understandably angry, as the James Bulger case was probably the most infamous murder in England's recent history.

Here we have two murderers, who have shown no remorse, either while in court or while in juvenile prison, released, given new identities at the public's expense, given a clean slate, with no employer, school, acquaintances or intimate partners ever warned about who they are letting into their lives. Also, a man from Liverpool who looks similar to Venables, has recently, for the second time in his life, been receiving threats because of mistaken identity. He has pleaded with the government to release Venables' identity so that he and his family would no longer be threatened. The government's only response is that this is precisely why they are not releasing Venables' identity, so that Venables doesn't become a victim.

Let me tell you something you ignorant bastards...why care so much about what happens to Venables, and why put this convicted murderer's safety and interests over innocent citizens. Liberalism can be taken too far. This idea that every person is capable of being rehabilitated, and that we should just always give everyone, even the most heinous criminals, chance after chance. It doesn't work!!! It hurts the victim, it is a denial of justice, and it creates the opportunity for more crimes to be carried out. And many psychologists argue that certain offenders are incapable of rehabilitation. That is the reason so many sex offenders reoffend. And these types of crimes grow ever increasingly violent. The sex offender who at first is satisfied with just exposing himself then needs to touch, then needs to rape, then needs to rape and murder. It is the same trend that is seen in pornography addicts. What once gets someone off no longer does so. They need something more extreme, and more extreme, and more extreme! There are people who should never be released from prison. There are people who should spend the rest of their lives locked away from society. They are dangerous, antisocial beings whose only happiness comes from hurting others.

Where do we get off calling ourselves a responsible society when we irresponsibly release hordes of violent offenders to live amongst the public just in order to "give them a second chance" or just in the hopes that they won't strike again. There are certain crimes that humans commit that should invalidate their rights as free citizens. They need more than a slap on the wrist. They need shackles and chains. We are punishing victims and creating the opportunity for more crime by releasing these criminals. We have truly lost our minds when we are so concerned for the well being of two boys who tortured, molested, and murdered a small toddler and not at all concerned for the justice of the victims and for the safety of the general public. I have heard people say that they were only 10 when they murdered James, that they didn't know what they were doing was wrong, that they shouldn't be held responsible for the crime. If you think that, then you missed a very important point of the story that I related to you. They intentionally positioned James' body on the railroad tracks to make his murder look like an accident. You can listen to the audio from their interrogation, and they know right from wrong. They know they shouldn't have murdered James. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but they decided to do it anyways. They went to that shopping center with a plan to abduct a child and murder him. And I am sure that when you were 10 you understood that it was wrong to steal or lie, let alone murder someone. You just most likely never even imagined committing murder. That is why it is hard to believe that these two could know what they were doing, but it shouldn't reveal ignorance of moral laws, only their blatant disdain for them and for the rights of others. Wake up people! When it is in a person's nature to hurt and torture and kill, all of the rehabilitation in the world can not stop it. We can carry out justice by stopping this insane pandering to criminals and their cries to be treated with more mercy than they showed their victims. They knew that their offense was wrong. They offended. They are undeserving of further consideration. Let God show them grace if he so chooses, but our duty is to protect the innocent against the criminal and to let a fair justice be carried out. Let's screw our heads back on straight folks.

I'm posting some links related to the James Bulger case, updates on Jon Venables, and an article about rehabilitating some violent offenders.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1256779/Some-offenders-like-Jon-Venables-Peter-Chapman-CANT-rehabilitated.html

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15663332

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8560951.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger