Reactions

[Walsingham]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/c...icle6821037.ece

 

I'm genuinely interested to hear what the various people on the fora think, given the variety of different people we have reading this.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'll write more later -I have about three-five minutes before class starts and I have to get to another building before that - but I can sum up my opinion in this simple sentence: As someone who has experience with individuals like these, two semi-distant relatives adopted a child who turned-out to be a sociopath and he was eventually, after a long series of incidents and attempts to help him, put to death for murdering a police officer in cold blood, I would say that the best thing for all parties would be a life sentence.

[Gorgon]

I dunno, 10 and 12 is awfully early to give up on two kids. You would think it still possible to turn them around. psychopaths and sociopaths know what the concept of empathy is, they just don't have any. Kids this young however, can maybe still learn.

[Purkake]

Kids are mean?

 

I'm certainly not surprised.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Purkake

[Aristes]

I would have to balk at giving up on two children 10-12. There would have to be more information, but that's my gut reaction.

 

The premeditated nature of the crimes, combined with the fact that they did cause bodily harm to their victims, means that they must be punished, but life in sentence for a 10 year old child is a long time. It's quite doubtful he'd receive such a sentence for a single murder.

 

This is one of those times I'm just glad someone else has to make the decision, because it would be terrible. I could sentence a child to life in 'prison' if and only if there were sufficient evidence that he was beyond any hope of rehabilitation and that he was a danger to him or the community. Otherwise a lesser sentence would be warranted.

 

What I'd really like to know is what happened in their past.

[Hurlshort]

Well, there is probably a leader between the two. The trick is finding out who it is, because he is most likely never going to be anything but trouble. The follower can be rehabilitated.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

psychopaths and sociopaths know what the concept of empathy is, they just don't have any. Kids this young however, can maybe still learn.

 

Meh, class is review so I thought I would pop back in here for a few seconds.

Nope. Once a child has dissocial personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder they cannot be cured. You might be able to teach them how to interact with others -id est you throw a sink on someone you get put in jail- but you cannot ever make them normal. Ever. The couple I mentioned in my other posting, my distant relatives, adopted the child when he was two or three -if that- and even then it was too late - he was already a Psychopath (also known as a Sociopath). You just cannot fix this disorder at the present time. It's not genetic, it's not curable, but it is horrible.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What I'd really like to know is what happened in their past.

 

No, you really do not want to know.

 

 

The follower can be rehabilitated.

 

Possibly, but most likely not.

[Walsingham]

I'm glad it has got you chaps thinking, and just this once I'm going to leave my own reaction at that.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...and just this once I'm going to leave my own reaction at that.

 

Oh, come on, we want to know what you think!

[Walsingham]

...and just this once I'm going to leave my own reaction at that.

 

Oh, come on, we want to know what you think!

 

I just think that it is possible to catch disfunctional kids long before they destroy another's life. Something, and I'm not sure what, ought to be done about them before that point.

[LadyCrimson]

I'd agree that if they actually are socipaths, there is no hope of rehab. Rehab largely just teaches the sociopath how to hide themselves better. There is not enough info (in that article) for me to say they are sociopaths, altho it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Beyond that, they did something heinous, and a life sentence is not out of line. Since they're so young, I'd assume they'd go to some kind of juvie prison...my wild guess would be if they are sociopaths, they'll do more stuff (to other juvie inmates) while in there...and thus when they reach 18, after review they'd be put in a max security adult prison etc.

[theslug]

Having been a child and doing some truly wacky ****, many times involving fighting I can say this isn't something you just do for no reason. Smashing a sink on someones head (if it's porcelain) is way over the top but still something I can easily imagine. Taking a sharpened stick to someones throat and putting out a cigarette on someone's wound are entirely different matters though. That type of behavior isn't something you just get out of the ether. These kids, I'm guaranteeing, were either/both sexually or physically abused for a prolonged period of time and while I'm not an expert that type of trauma at such an early age never leaves. I've listened to way too many loveline's to tell you that even when people get into their 20's and 30's, decades after such abuse with years and years of therapy, the trauma is still there.

 

I have to agree with Deadly. There is no hope for these kids. If there's anything I've learned in my short amount of time on this earth: once you're broken, you're broken. There are varying degrees of recovery but you will never, ever be the same again.

 

Is it wrong to put two children away from the rest of their lives? Yes. Is it necessary? Definitely.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

What about their parents? Those kids are aged 10 and 12, parents are responsible for them and they should face some consequences for all that happened.

 

Are those kids guardians sociopaths too? None of the social workers,teachers or even neighbours knew about that kids being crazy? They certainly showed some signs of their illness at school.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

What about their parents?

 

They should be tried and jailed (unless the are not the abusers and knew nothing).

 

Those kids are aged 10 and 12, parents are responsible for them and they should face some consequences for all that happened.

 

You are correct.

 

Are those kids guardians sociopaths too?

 

Not necessarily, they could just be abusive - and there is no doubt in my mind about that, one or both will have been responsible for massive trauma.

 

None of the social workers,teachers or even neighbors knew about that kids being crazy?

 

Most likely they hid themselves so as not to get in trouble - if you read the article they, the attackers, admit that they lured the other children to a secluded spot intentionally so the screams would not carry to where others would hear them.

 

They certainly showed some signs of their illness at school.

 

I have not heard about that, but then again I have only read the BBC article and not any others at the moment.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Arkan]

Why does the title state: "Edlington horror: boys aged 10 and 12 admit torturing children?"

 

Should it just be: "Edlington horror: boys aged 10 and 12 admit torturing peers?" It's not like they were torturing 4-6 year olds. These kids were roughly the same age.

[213374U]

These kids, I'm guaranteeing, were either/both sexually or physically abused for a prolonged period of time and while I'm not an expert that type of trauma at such an early age never leaves.

And I'm not an expert but I think you just made that up on the spot. There's just no way to know from what the article says. Psychopathy isn't always a result of childhood abuse.

 

 

What about their parents? Those kids are aged 10 and 12, parents are responsible for them and they should face some consequences for all that happened.

 

Are those kids guardians sociopaths too? None of the social workers,teachers or even neighbours knew about that kids being crazy? They certainly showed some signs of their illness at school.

Yep. That's an important question, I think. But if these kids are truly psychopaths as opposed to simply self-taught hooligans, what are the odds that their parents could actually detect it? To what extent can they reasonably be held accountable?

 

We simply lack the means of dealing with people with aberrant personalities, as they aren't truly mad and therefore can't be confined just because of what they might do. Unfortunately these people are walking time bombs, and even though only a portion of them is violent, they are all dangerous. Sadly, all one can do is hope not to run into one.

 

Wals, you have some sort of psychology background, don't you? Surely you must have more to say than that?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

These kids were roughly the same age.

 

The attackers, in my mind, are, frankly, no longer children - they are monsters in the form of children.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Psychopathy isn't always a result of childhood abuse.

 

However, that is the case in the vast majority of cases and thus a reasonable supposition until some evidence to the contrary emerges.

 

...they aren't truly mad and therefore can't be confined just because of what they might do.

 

Incorrect. Sociopaths can be held in situations such as this one as they have proved that they are a danger to others.

[213374U]

However, that is the case in the vast majority of cases and thus a reasonable supposition until some evidence to the contrary emerges.

Unfortunately, in this case, assuming that these children were abused entails criminal liability for their parents. Are you familiar with the concept of presumption of innocence?

 

Also, where do you get this "vast majority" fact from, and what exactly constitutes a "vast majority"?

 

 

Incorrect. Sociopaths can be held in situations such as this one as they have proved that they are a danger to others.

You know, it's bad form to jump "incorrect" at what somebody said when you actually failed to understand what he meant. Just sayin'.

 

We lack the means to deal with psychopaths as psychopaths. Of course, when they have broken the law, they can be dealt with (albeit rather ineffectively, as the penal system focuses heavily on rehabilitation), but then the circumstance that they have a personality disorder is secondary to the fact that they are criminals, which makes the point moot.

Edited September 4, 2009 by 213374U

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Unfortunately, in this case, assuming that these children were abused entails criminal responsibility for their parents.

 

If that is true the inquest will find out about it, just as they will discover if some other reason was behind the boy's condition.

 

Are you familiar with the concept of presumption of innocence?

 

We're not in a court of law and thus do not have to be constrained to its rules.

 

Also, where do you get this "vast majority" fact from...

 

I forget exactly where but I'm sure I can look it up again - it's been awhile.

 

...and what exactly constitutes a "vast majority"?

 

If I remember correctly 70% or so.

 

...but then the circumstance that they have a personality disorder is secondary to the fact that they are criminals, which makes the point moot.

 

No it's not as the condition most likely led to the crime in the first place.

[213374U]

We're not in a court of law and thus do not have to be constrained to its rules.

This is irrelevant. Presumption of innocence isn't simply a legal precept, it's also a useful consideration in informal discussions.

 

What I'm trying to say is that it's bad to assume these things. There is a burden of proof that must be dealt with before establising culpability, without that there is no causality. It may be intellectually appealing to assume that these parents were abusive as it makes it easier to understand, but that may or may not be the case. If you just want to start proclaiming guilt left and right, go ahead. But that's the point where the discussion loses all meaning, as your guess is as good as mine.

 

 

I forget exactly where but I'm sure I can look it up again - it's been awhile.

Please, do so. It's always interesting to see how people come up with these numbers, as this isn't hard science by any means. Also keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation.

 

 

No it's not as the condition most likely led to the crime in the first place.

What? If anything, then being a psychopath would have to be a mitigating circumstance, as psychopaths do not choose to be so, and according to you, it's their condition that "most likely led them to commit the crime".

 

Or are you suggesting that being a psychopath is a crime in and by itself? What's your point, exactly?

Edited September 4, 2009 by 213374U

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It may be intellectually appealing to assume that these parents were abusive as it makes it easier to understand, but that may or may not be the case.

 

Oh, I thought we were talking about the attackers. My mistake. In that case I agree with you, we can only assume about the parents.

 

 

If anything, then being a psychopath would have to be a mitigating circumstance...

 

In one way yes, in another no.

[theslug]

Our penal system has a very poor focus on rehabilitation. Which is why our jails are over crowded and people get let out for no other reason than they don't have any room.

 

Also assumptions are not bad. Assumptions are educated guesses and we (myself and anyone who isn't a toaster) make assumptions every day. Just like when I walk outside to get the mail, I assume the sky isn't going to fall leading to an agonizingly horrible death. Assumptions are great. Is it easy to assume the children were abused? Of course. Is it a plausible and very likely probable cause for violent behavior? Yes. It's common sense. Of course it's entirely possible they weren't and they were screwed up from birth or some other reason or perhaps they didn't have a reason at all. People are screwy but that doesn't negate the fact that my reasoning was fairly sound.

[213374U]

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm afraid I can't accept that. It seems your license to make up random **** has expired.