Maxi_77 said:
Jenny_Dabber said:
The 2 boys involved in this case were put into 'rehabilitation'; when it is possible, the government/prison system will place people into a rehab program, in hopes that they can return to some sort of normality.
To do this, the offenders were given new ID. Releasing that identity will only cause more issues and could inevitably relapse the offender. If the 'system' felt that these two males were not safe to society, they would not release them.
That's not me making excuses, that's what the system will say.
BBC news are running this story at the moment.
My own view is that the more dominant boy, should have been kept inside but then that's my own personal opinion.
Tartan_Army_Sailor, no need to get verbal.
Sorry Jenny whilst I agree with much of your sentiment I and many others have little faith in the justice systems ability to determine when a convicted person is no longer a risk to society, particularly since Mr Blairs human rights laws seem to favour the criminals rather than the victim.
That's basic Psychology and what correctional facilities are about. The low point of this was how those boys parents had brought them up, age old argument for fault - 50% genetics and 50% environment. The lead boy (dominant one), came from a bad home, mind you the other boy did too but this Jon was the dom one out of them two.
Not any excuse but when a child has not been given the correct start in life, it effects them. They were young enough to try to turn them around and put them back out to society.
Their attack was pre-empted, well not on Jamie but they had it planned for another child. It was unlucky for Jamie that the child they originally went to target, became 'unattainable', so Jamie was lit a last min adjustment.
I personally feel that Jon shouldn't have been released and that he should have been left in jail.