Can a 10 year old be a cold blooded murderer?

Cloud

Such a silly boy kisser
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Messages
1,935
Location
North West
And do they deserve to be tried as an adult?

Came across this in my Google feed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50763713

Must admit I've never been comfortable with the Bulger case. One life lost, 2 ruined

Thinking back to being 10, I certainly knew that killing was something you don't do! But you just don't know what's going on in a kid's mind especially if there are any factors like abuse, and how easily they can be overcome with stupidity. Sometimes as a 10 year old I was smart. Sometimes I was a fucking idiot. Never murderered thank goodness but still...

I think I'd rather see a young person given a chance to redeem themselves and become someone better. It's too early to write them off IMO (even 12 really). If a 10 year old murders and develops any sort of conscience they would still have to live with that memory and be tormented by it for the rest of their lives which I think at that age punishment enough. Obviously it's different for the victim's family which is totally understandable.

I think it should at least be looked at.

Thoughts?
 
A 14 year old murdered two ransoms round these parts a few years ago. Although the difference between 10 and 14...
 
What mental gymnastics are required to have any sympathy for a killer.
 
I think VERY exceptionally yes, but it's hard to visualise it thinking of 10 years old kids I know.
 
Yes, I guess they could be cold blooded murderes, but no, I don’t think they could be tried as adults.
 
No, ten year old children shouldn't be tried as adults as a general rule but I think each case should be reviewed for what it is and some cases should be tried in a more serious manner. @Cloud 's link story is quite different to what happened with Jamie Bulger. Kids killing an abuser is not the same as kids planning to kidnap a child, originally to just push them into traffic and murder them. Venables and Thompson made plans to kidnap a child, staked out a shopping centre waiting to find a suitable one, found one, walked him a couple of miles away, tortured and mutilated him (sexually and generally) then, when they'd had their fill of torturing and mutilating, arranged his body on railway tracks in an attempt to cover up their crime as an accident. Both received a good education and were put through a programme to help them deal with and overcome any problems they might have and were provided with extensive rehabilitation. Venables is a paedophile, consistently being returned to prison for child porn allegations in the years after his release and having to have subsequent new identities because he likes to tell friends who he really is. Thompson has never shown any remorse for what they did to Jamie.

Venables and Thompson are both evil in their own way and were both evil when they were 10 years old. Hindsight is always a benefit but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
I certainly understand the very different context - there's no excuse for the evils they committed.

I just wonder whether if this hadn't been such a high profile case (like say, if child prosecution didn't get publicised at all) and focus had been on trying to get into their minds and understand and undo whatever brought them to that idea (were they trying to impress each other in some way and it went way way too far for example?) whether they'd have turned out differently. A 10 year old brain seems like one that can easily be corrupted being at such a stage of development but maybe with an opportunity to set it right. Indeed that might be exactly what was attempted, but imagine pretty much the entire world knows who you are and hates you... and I know they have the right to as what they did was evil... but just thinking from their perspective, would you think "well everyone hates me so I'm a write off anyway" and just continue down the path of darkness, double down on what you did etc. I don't know if I would or not (and don't intend to do anything to find out) - doubt it but it seems like one of those things that's hard to say without actually being in that position.

Or were they just plain evil cold blooded people and the "leopard never changes its spots" argument applies? I don't know. It's not easy trying to think of the potential for good in someone who's done the most awful things and it goes without saying that thoughts first and foremost are with the family of the victim and the heartbreaking things he went through. Just....makes you think I guess.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom