Hard time may be the only deterrent for young offenders

DD Ball says:

11:11am | 09/07/10

Steve, that argument is too simplistic. The feriles in our society have been fostered by the community. Not everyone can be raised to be that violent, but it is possible to do to enough to make it bad. The answer does not lie with jailing children, but raising them correctly. The privacy laws don’t help either. Protecting adults who were raised badly doesn’t help. An answer lies with responsibility, which is something some never achieve.

Freeman says:

10:43am | 11/07/10

why is it that some parents fail to teach their kids value’s these days?people often refer to the 50’s as the dark ages but the quality of parenting was obviously better. it’s also hard to argue that the softening of the juvenile justice system in past decades is not partly the reason
for the increase in child crime. (which some would argue has not happened)

Nafe says:

09:56am | 09/07/10

Sterilization should be a good punnishment for child multipal offenders. We don’t need them breeding another generation of criminals.

Bitten says:

10:01am | 09/07/10

Jeremy, the other options are failing. Suspended sentences, community service, juvenile detention, readily granted bail - these aren’t leading to a safer community. The criminals (sorry, we should call them juvenile offenders shouldn’t we, sounds less judgmental) don’t respect the law because civil obedience and social cohesion has no value to them.

Remember that those who debate on these topics and those who administer justice are generally well-educated, reasonable and intellectual individuals who have an abiding respect for the law and the role that the law plays in a functioning society. Juvenile offenders DO NOT. So you are dealing with a population that does not respect the law and couldn’t care two hoots about how their actions affect you or your family. It is a different mindset. So the arguments that ‘prison time doesn’t result in general deterrence ergo prison time shouldn’t be used’ always falls rather flat for me. The people who break the law aren’t big into cost/benefit analyses of their actions - they just do what they do when they want to do it because that’s what they want to do. There’s very little thought involved. So deterrence isn’t really something juvenile offenders can understand or make use of.

And let us not forget (much as a variety of apologists would like us to) that the law and responses to breaking the law have two roles: to deter (which we’ve already seen doesn’t work no matter what means you use - juvenile offenders aren’t the brightest sticks in the bush so foresight isn’t high on their list of stuff to have) AND TO PUNISH. Ah, there’s a word we don’t like to hear, the often passed-over element of judicial sentencing - punishment. Yes sad as it is in our PC society, the reason you get to stand up in the court room before a judge is to be punished for breaking the law. For stealing another’s property. For assaulting another. For raping someone. For killing someone, a person’s father or mother or sister or brother or child. Criminal sentencing isn’t always about social policy or participating in a sociology experiment for a bunch of PhD students to research retrospectively. Sometimes it is about punishing this criminal, here and now, for this crime for which they have been found or have pleaded guilty.

I hope you never have to experience the judicial system as a victim of crime Jeremy. You will be abused and denigrated and forgotten - as a victim, no one wants to hear from you. You’re an annoyance, an inconvenient reminder that

“hey, this kid we’ve been hearing about with the sad childhood and the promises to be rooly rooly good from now on, well see that guy over there? He’s the one this kid beat to a pulp with a hammer.”

I have seen it happen so many times. Don’t get me started on victim impact statments - they’re nothing but a toothless mechanism to make the administrators of justice feel good, like they’ve done something about listening to victims. In actual fact, VIS are nothing more than an insult to anyone who has to go through the agony of completing one. It might be read out in court - they don’t care about what you feel though. They’re just ‘going through the motions’. This party is about the offender, not you. And not your family and their grief.

It is truly disgusting and shameful that there are so many who will speak on the part of the offenders and so few to speak for their victims. Jamie Bulger can’t say anything Jeremy. He’s dead and he’ll always be dead. His killers though? Well they’re still alive.  Would you like them to come and live with you? Is that what they ‘deserve’?

watty says:

11:07am | 09/07/10

And the SUCCESSFUL “option” is?

Tom says:

11:53am | 09/07/10

Ah I see Jeremy is upsetting your delusions of the criminal justice system. How dare he.

Everyone please take a deep breath and look at the facts. I’m not surprised that Mr Leith hasn’t (not sure how being on Australian Idol makes you a criminology expert)

Crime has been decreasing now for 20 years in this country. You wouldn’t read about it in the paper because it doesn’t sell. Despite what people have written, the rehabilitation approach does work. It leads to lower recidivism and is far cheaper than the ‘throw away the key approach.’ For example look at the success of the White Lion program in the Victorian system (for $10,000 per year per child) and leads to 90% of kids staying out of trouble.

On the other hand sending a kid to “juvi” costs the taxpayer $150,000 per year and there is a 3/4 chance the kid will be back inside in 2 years.

I am always appalled when people portray one or two exceptional examples as indicative of the norm. Mr Leith you draw on the Bulger murders, which by your own admission is an extreme example, to justify your own thoughts with basically zero emprical evidence.

This kind of reasoning only adds to the problem and is especially galling for people who actually know something aboiut juvenile justice. Do some research before spouting off next time.

Dark Rider says:

05:22pm | 10/07/10

Tom you should take that show on tour or at least offer it to the comedy channel. “Crime has been decreasing now for 20 years in this country”......“the rehabilitation approach does work”. That’s absolutely hilarious. What parallel universe are you living in ?

iansand says:

01:36pm | 11/07/10

Dark Rider - Where are the statistics that show crime is on the increase?  The stats I have seen show it is declining.

Dark Rider says:

07:21pm | 11/07/10

Oh, silly me. I thought the streets were more dangerous and burglaries more prevalent now than they were 20 years ago, but obviously you have an academic study to show otherwise. Knowing how most of your contributions to these pages are “studies” or statistics, you might like to take a look at the ABS website. A comparison of 2005 to 2002 for example shows violent crimes on the increase, and things like burglaries on the decrease. Read further though, and it reveals that less people report burglaries to police now as they don’t have any faith in the police doing anything. I have had first hand experience at that, and I ended up tracking the culprit myself after several weeks of inaction and disinterest from the police. Of course, they didn’t even have the courtesy to inform me of the outcome when the matter went to court. Bottom line - police are lazy, courts are weak and out of touch and academics have fooled politicians that the zero tolerance approach doesn’t work, despite eveidence to the contrary.

Steve says:

02:14am | 12/07/10

Option X……
The things that change society is programming we only need to look at the Howard government for the results of that. But that aside the common denominator here through out this whole process is education. We as a society have to understand that the long-term gains from such programmes are very beneficial to our social living standards and worth the effort to implement. It is far, far better to spend all those millions on compulsory education standards than to push the envelope on matters that have not produced a positive result from years and years of building monuments.

Sigfried says:

12:17pm | 09/07/10

I am slightly quizzical at the fact of which study or accredited paper you are to be quoting with these facts… ? Seems to me like you need to write a factual comment, iansand.

iansand says:

12:55pm | 09/07/10

Read further down the thread, young Siegfried. 

And why should I be required to provide an accredited study when none of Team Hysteria do?  At the very least the author of the piece should have.  Or he should have rung the Children’s Court to find out if there are any facts to support his inflammatory, inaccurate article.  And if he didn’t the editors of the Punch should have, and spiked this “story”.

Freeman says:

10:13am | 11/07/10

Iansand.
so these miracle offenders who never re appear in childrens court. is that because maybe next time they appear in court is as an adult?

iansand says:

01:37pm | 11/07/10

No Freeman.  They never surface in court again, anywhere.

DJ says:

03:56pm | 12/07/10

considering that juvenile records are sealed once they turn 18 it’s very difficult to say they never see the inside of a courtroom again, most of them probably do reoffend we just don’t hear about it, the only reason we are hearing about this one is due to the sensationalism of the crime and the re-offending

Lauryn says:

12:52pm | 09/07/10

Are you serious Retired Solder?? Being willing to put in the hard yards to deal with the cause of the problem and prevent recidivism rather than take a reactionary approach and punish unrelentingly so that society can “feel” safer yet not necessarily be safer, does not make one a ‘do gooder’. I have been involved in programs that specifically offer support to families where they have ‘problem’ children. You know what most of them need? A bit of proper caring direction. Someone to help them get on their feet and give them a hand up. Someone to treat them like CHILDREN. Which is what juvenile offenders are. Additionally, I have personally found that more often than not, the kids that act up and get in trouble at school, are actually the smartest ones in the class, that are bored and no longer find class stimulating enough - so they entertain themselves through misbehaviour.  Forgive me for being presumptuous, but since you refer to yourself as retired, I’m assuming you’ve lived a relatively full life full of the opportunities to learn from others, and learn from your own mistakes. I’m sure at 12 years old, you could hardly have been expected to understand the consequences of doing things that now you look at childish foolishness. I know I did a great many things when I was a child that were dangerous and stupid. I have since had the opportunity to grow up and learn from my mistakes. Treating children like criminals will only turn them into a criminal. Rehabilitation is the only way to help society in the long term. Taking a few outlying, extreme examples of juvenile crime (such as the jamie bulger case) does nothing to help the issue. All it does it bring out the reactionists that demand tougher penalties. Unfortunately, it is not just the very few jon venables and the like that suffer for these reactionist policies. It will also be the more common kid who’s not had the proper guidance and support - most who could become contributing members to a productive society.

mags says:

11:40am | 09/07/10

I don’t know which country you live in but to balme parent s for everything is outrageaou. parents these days are there to put up and shut up. All these PC bleeding hearts have taken away a parent’s rights to discipline their children but still blame them when things go wrong. They won’t let schools effecively discipline children either - they might hurt the poor little dears’ feelings. It’s time to get over the new age fad and get back to allowing teachers and parents to be the arbiters of what the children need.  It’s time that children were made to understand that their rights are limited and that bad behaviour will not be tolerated. It’s time the courts started treating young criminals as criminals and not victims. Jail should be so bad that they never want to be there again - they are not.

Seano says:

12:32pm | 09/07/10

@Mags - little more than lame excuses. Something I hear often from lazy parents who don’t want to think or take on the responsibility for parenting their child.

No one is preventing you from disciplining your children. The laws are their to protect children from abuse and neglect. All that beating a child achieves is to teach the child how to hate. Also it doesn’t teach the child to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing, it teaches it how to avoid punishment.

I very often receive compliments on how well behaved my children are and they reason that they are well behaved is because they have good examples and firm boundaries fairly enforced. I never hit them.

DJ says:

02:18pm | 09/07/10

Seano there is a major difference between beating the crap out of them and a small tap on their nappy clad bottoms, those don’t actually cause pain just the sound is enough and some kids need it, one tap on the rear then leave the room to avoid going overboard

Seano says:

04:05pm | 09/07/10

@DJ - you’re smacking kids still in nappies?  Seriously what’s the point, at that age they have no idea what they’re getting smacked for, it’s pointless and stupid. That you have to leave the room to “avoid going overboard” is the scaries thing I think I’ve heard. I really hope you don’t have kids and are just speculating.

On the issue of corporal punishment, even though I disagree with it completely the claim that you can’t smack your kids is fallacious. No court in the land is going to intervene for a small smack on the bottom or slap on the wrist.

People who claim to be hamstrung in the disciplining of their children by a PC society are IMO either lazy or stupid and should have kids in the first place.

DJ says:

04:17pm | 09/07/10

seano your hope is in vain, they are smacked in nappies when they do something dangerous to themselves, the older ones are smaked on the tush or back of the head as a wake up call, also flicking the ear lobe works a treat, hurts like hell and leaves no marks and you can do it where no one can see. I too have extremely well behaved children in public, in home well as they say “we can’t be good all the time”

I have never had to leave the room to avoid more discipline, that one was just in theory

Seano says:

04:51pm | 09/07/10

Like I said, smacking kids in nappies is pointless and stupid. I’d rather have kids who do things for the right reason rather than because they are scared.

DJ says:

05:48pm | 09/07/10

and that is your choice as a parent, I however have chosen a different way, it works for me and my kids, your way works for yours, no way is better, your way wouldn’t work with mine and probably vice versa

Seano says:

08:48pm | 10/07/10

Yes you’ve chosen your way and you seem to take such joy in it. My way works for any kids.

DJ says:

09:41am | 12/07/10

@Seano that’s a very broad statement, you way wouldn’t work with my kids, I tried the touchy feely way and it didn’t work so yes I take joy in everything to do with my kids, I hardly need to discipline them any more, the older ones keep the younger ones in line and it makes for a peaceful existence, they keep their rooms spotless or their things get tossed, they do their homework, even the ones not in school have devised their own ‘homework’ that they do with the older ones, they do chores (the ones they can reach) and I don’t punish them for general mischief so tell me how my way is bad when they are perfect little gentlemen and never throw tantrums in public?

Seano says:

03:36pm | 12/07/10

@DJ - parents who dismiss discipline styles that don’t use violence as “touchy feely”  simply don’t understand a more effective style and have opted for a lazy approach. Someone taking joy in the ways that are the most painful and therefore the most dread by children of disciplining them is sad.

DJ says:

03:44pm | 12/07/10

@Seano - we will just have to agree to disagree with that approach, as for lazy? I am a single parent to 5 boys I use whatever methods work and according to them I am the bestest mummy eva! so whatever, my way works very well, yours may work for your kids but to change the method of punishment now ouwld only confuse the poor dears, the flick on the ear lobe is a quick pain and leaves almost right away, there is no lasting damage or pain after a few seconds so I don’t rejoice in the pain that I can inflict on them, they don’t get the wooden spoon, they don’t get belted, all I have to do now is raise my eyebrow and they stop doing whatever I don’t like and they fear that more than the ear flick. And you can’t say your way is more effective when there are still shrinks and childrens shrinks still advocating the smack

Gavin H says:

11:14am | 09/07/10

“That sort of punishment will make anyone think twice about committing a crime and society will be saver (sic).”

Sorry, no it won’t. People have committed capital crimes where the punishment would be death if they were caught. They don’t intend on getting caught. They think they will get away with it, so therefore your 25 year minimum sentence idea will do no more to reduce crime than, well, anything.

Lauryn says:

11:45am | 09/07/10

That is actually the worst idea possible to stop crime. IAs Gavin said, even capital punishment isn’t a deterrent, but further, once you go putting assault in the same category as murder you’re going to find a lot more murders on your hands. If someone commits rape or assault and the punishment is the same for murder as for assault, or rape you have just removed the only incentive the perpetrator has to not kill the victim. If there’s only one witness, and they are dead, the chance of getting caught is minimised greatly. So how about you think about the consequences of a blanket approach to human actions. You’d think people would have figured out by now, blanket solutions don’t fix anything. Against the man, please think before you subject us to your ineffective, reactionary “solutions”.

Against the Man says:

02:46pm | 09/07/10

I have lived in Singapore/Malaysia/Taiwan where the crime rate is a fraction of what it is in Australia. Capital punishment is a gift compared to being put in prison and having them throw away the key. Isolation is a great punishment but like I said till you or someone you love is a victim of crime you will never understand. Even if the victim lives, the psychological trauma is not repairable. Pray you never have to understand what a victim feels…...

Lauryn says:

03:39pm | 09/07/10

Super! So, are you saying we should start legally murdering children now, because Singapore has a low crime rate? Until we have an infallible system, I will never understand how anyone can be an advocate for the death penalty. You are making a huge assumption that I or someone I love has never been a victim of crime… further to that, you are also mistaken in that assumption. My parents migrated from a 3rd world country where poverty is extreme, and instances of violent crime such as murder, rape and kidnapping is high. A close friend was raped and murdered in broad daylight; My aunt had to go into protective custody after witnessing a violent gang crime until the court case could be heard, so please don’t tell me that I don’t have empathy for victims, because that’s just insulting.  I just happen to take the stance that crimes are committed by human beings and that there are a great number of contributing factors as to how a person has ended up in a situation where they commit a crime. Each case should be weighed and judged on it’s own merits and punishment should not only be about retribution, but also what will benefit society in the long term; rehabilitation. To lump all people that commit crimes into the category of violent rapists and murderers is naive and dangerous. Taking away a criminal’s human rights because it makes the victim feel better makes us no better than the criminal.

Against the Man says:

08:44pm | 09/07/10

I agree crimes are committed by human beings and that there are a great number of contributing factors as to how a person has ended up in a situation where they commit a crime. However I don’t wish to live in a society of senseless crime. The death penalty is one thing, locking someone up is another. I happen to side with the human rights of victims and the other potential victims in society. You may believe in rehabilitation and giving people second chances. I believe human beings have the choice especially in our society to do the right thing and should be punished if they choose to do the wrong thing. How can murder or rape be forgivable in anyway? A life is gone, a life is ruined. If you believe criminals have rights then there should be no jails in this country, once they commit and have been found guilty of a crime they forfeit their rights - human or otherwise.

Lauryn says:

06:32pm | 12/07/10

“I happen to side with the human rights of victims and the other potential victims in society.” All humans have the same human rights. Rehabilitation is about doing the best we can to ensure the perpetrator does not commit the crime again, so there will be no further potential victims. You cannot imprison someone for a crime they have not yet committed.

“How can murder or rape be forgivable in anyway?” Ensuring justice by no means involves forgiving someone for an atrocious crime such as rape or murder. How can you equate turning someone from a violent criminal into a productive member of society with forgiveness? They are two completely different things. Further, the courts do not have the ability to ‘forgive’. The courts are designed to be the rational arbiters of the law. To take out the subjective emotions out of the equation and look at not only what is a fair punishment, but also what is in the best interest of society as a whole. Using only what will make a victim feel better is not going to ensure justice is best served. If it were, lynching would be legal. The courts are designed to take the reactionary impulse out of the equation.

“If you believe criminals have rights then there should be no jails in this country, once they commit and have been found guilty of a crime they forfeit their rights - human or otherwise. ”

Beyond anything else you have said, this is ultimately why your thinking is flawed. All humans have the same rights, and no man has the legal authority to deny another of his rights. It is a slippery slope to allow people to be denied of rights because the law says something is wrong. Homosexuality and adultery were, once upon a time, punishable by death. I’m not saying that rape or murder should, nor will, ever be considered acceptable, but I am saying that once we accept that some people don’t deserve rights, we open the door to our own being taken away one day too… “first they came for the communists…etc”. Perhaps I’m being idealistic, but I prefer to think that we’ve come further as a society than to forfeit our humanity just because somebody has suspended theirs.

Ryan says:

11:55am | 09/07/10

@Clare: well I guess you answered your question right there, the people at fault are CLEARLY the parents. The responsibility for raising your child rests ENTIRELY with the parents, the parents just need to be competent.
Perhaps we could have a qualification program, you attend the program on a one chance basis and the STRICT evaluators decide whether you pass or fail. If you fail.. no baby bonuses for you and a listing on the register for DOHCS to keep a close eye on you.

PW says:

04:53pm | 09/07/10

Allow teachers to administer legal thrashings of children…..what a fine idea, why didn’t we think of it before. That is sure to turn out well adjusted, authority-respecting young adults. And you’d have to wonder a bit about those who would choose to be teachers and administer these floggings, I’d suggest. There is one science master from high school that I remember well. I will never so long as I live forget the look in his eyes as he caned you.

DJ says:

05:57pm | 09/07/10

PW - that is ridiculous, she is not suggesting caning or anything violent, parents are gettin irate if their kids get detention or taken from the classroom, no where does it say caning is best

Ryan says:

10:23am | 11/07/10

@PW: I got the cane at school on many an occasion, I also recieved a bloody good hiding when it was required from my parents. I, like my brother and all of my counterparts at school are well adjusted CONTRIBUTING members of society with respect for the law.
Clearly your hypothesis is based on nothing more than your opinion and not the real world of results that have been acheived for hundreds of years before one scum bag, pot smoking, hippy generation had the arrogance to claim they know better than hundreds of years of proper parenting.
The results speak for themselves.

Freeman says:

10:26am | 11/07/10

umm, that’s not at all what damien said. (moron)
he did suggest , though, that serious offenders have a stint in gaol.
at twelve years old you know right from wrong and enough about consequences.

Lauryn says:

05:52pm | 12/07/10

Ummm ... yes it is. Juvenile detention is jail. It is jail for children - to suggest that children go to an adult prison, is to suggest treating them as an adult. No one is saying that a 12 year old doesn’t understand right and wrong, and yes, a 12 year old will understand consequences, to a degree, but not to the full extent that an adult does. If children could comprehend consequence and analyse situations as well as an adult, then there would be no need for a minimum voting age, minimum age of consent, to get married, to work, or to obtain credit. Serious offenders do get sent to jail. It’s called juvenile detention.

Ryan says:

11:56am | 09/07/10

@Steven: why have a food drop at all?

DJ says:

12:24pm | 09/07/10

why not just have them sent to military school?

James1 says:

02:41pm | 09/07/10

DJ, because compared to Steven’s suggestion, watching kids at a military school would be boring.

James1 says:

02:42pm | 09/07/10

DJ, because compared to Steven’s suggestion, watching kids at a military school would be boring.

DJ says:

04:21pm | 09/07/10

James1 - I apologise profusely, I wasn’t thinking about viewer entertainment.  Although if you filmed it could be funny kind of like the biggest loser, those fatties are funny with their crying and hating the trainers for their pain and frustrations when they knew what they were signing up for.

Think about it could be funny, wake these ‘bad ass’ kids at 0500, no video games or mummy coddling, PT, KP, realising they had it really good at home and shouldn’t have pushed the issue

James1 says:

05:07pm | 09/07/10

You have won me over DJ.  That would indeed provide for some hilarious moments.  I recall a show on ABC doing similar stuff - taking awful teens and making them live in the middle of nowhere on limited toilet paper, and with no cigarettes or alcohol.  Needless to say, shenanigans ensued.

iansand says:

01:30pm | 09/07/10

The only problem with this is that there is no evidence to support it.
http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/pdf_htm/publications/research/RecidivismJuvenileOffendersNSW.pdf

You don’t have to read the whole thing - go straight to pages 2 and 3.

JC says:

04:11pm | 09/07/10

are you kidding me? the singaporeans are basically robots with no free thought or free will and the Japanese are mostly hermits these days.
Australia has its problems, but who wants to live like that?

DJ says:

04:28pm | 09/07/10

on the other hand the anti-smacking brigade have the opinion that children are little adults and are able to understand what we want without a small smack, if they can do that then they can understand the difference between right and wrong and what they should and shouldn’t do, they should also be fully aware that their action have consequences.
Ask Texas how they deal with youth offenders youngest age for the electric chair is 10 (not that I condone this) but if a 10 year old kills his entire family he knew exactly what he was doing. over 6 children are well aware of what is going on around them and can and should be held accountable if they cross that line

Michael says:

05:45pm | 09/07/10

But Texas is still a few centuries away from Medieval enlightenment. Poor example.

DJ says:

03:51pm | 12/07/10

Not really a poor example, at least I didn’t compare children to fish, I don’t see the connection

Dave says:

03:03pm | 09/07/10

Well put, simply placing a blanket statement about punishing youth ignores the fact every person is different.

What I think Damien would prefer to say is that prison be made an option for those deemed irreparable before they turn 18.

DJ says:

06:07pm | 09/07/10

on the other hand no punishment at all and what does that teach him?

iansand says:

10:16am | 10/07/10

According to the study to which I have already provided links, possibly quite a lot.

DJ says:

03:54pm | 12/07/10

yes it teaches them they are gods and don’t need to worry about punishment of any kind

Gavin H says:

05:50pm | 09/07/10

Yes….or just further ignite their rebellion and wonder where we went wrong.

Damocles says:

05:17pm | 10/07/10

@Gavin H…......Yes…..or do nothing, further feed their selfish, self centred nature and KNOW where we went wrong.

Ryan says:

10:32am | 11/07/10

@Gavin H: children are only rebellious when they feel like they are able to get away with it. I can promise you that a bit of love and zero capitulation on your boundries will crush any rebellious spirit in a very short time.

Damocles says:

04:57pm | 10/07/10

@ Emma, yes well it’s so nice that the two murdering schoolboys who abducted the 2 year old and smashed his innocent little body and stole his life and tore his parents lives and his families lives and his friends lives apart were able to continue on to lead a full, long and productive lives…........so pleasing, so fair, so right…................SO WRONG!

Bubba Ray says:

08:48pm | 10/07/10

And everybody knows that the USA is just the safest country on earth, with the very lowest crime rate.

iansand says:

11:05pm | 10/07/10

Don’t let evidence disrupt your rant

http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/pdf_htm/publications/research/RecidivismJuvenileOffendersNSW.pdf

NotSue says:

02:55pm | 12/07/10

An extremely thought ful and interesting post, Gregg. I agree with your conclusion (and that of many of us) that preventing the cause of the violence is paramount. However, there’s the rub. When, such as with these boys, violence, abuse and neglect are generational, combined with the “sanctity” of the home and our perceived parental right to raise our children as we see fit , increased policing of the home environment beyond those anti-abuse laws now in place, seems extremely problematical. A co-ordinated approach between agencies, if it doesn’t already exist, sounds like a good first step. However, short of introducing draconian meaures such as parental aptitude testing before people are allowed to procreate (as if! ), just how we monitor the home environment more closely and ensure that intervention happens in a timely fashion, (and that the interventions are successful and appropriate) must drive social workers and academics nuts! Not to mention the lack of funding and willing staff to undertake such impossible work. I know the burnout rate is already incredibly high for such workers, often because they are unable to remove children from damaging home environments, and the problems that arise when they do.

I also agree with your statement that the successful rehab of violent criminals must be difficult to assess. However, it’s a judgement that professionals MUST get right, and if any doubt is present, surely erring on the side of caution is the best approach. Mistakes happen, I guess, and some people are probably incorrigible. I don’t envy them their task in deciding who is who.

As a society, we must be willing to pay the cost of such measures. Sadly, it’s a political hot potato, when tougher sentencing and ‘throwing away the key” has much more appeal to many people.

Katherine says:

03:06am | 16/07/10

Those two policemen (Kirby and Roberts) have treated this poor boy’s death as a gravy train.  For years they have been running to the media at every tiny renewal of interest in the case - for cold hard cash.  One would almost be inclined to think they had no real motivation to leave it alone or hope that Thompson and Venables might be rehabilitated.  It has proved a pretty good earner for them.  Their conduct has been unprofessional to say the least.  Their involvement should have ended when the two were convicted - they have no right to make comments on their sentences or their personalities (Roberts is the one who keeps using the terms ‘evil’ and ‘freaks’ despite having no background in child psychology or no knowledge of the boys since they were 11).