Tried as an adult, the James Bulger murder

(13:09:06 CDT)

Tried as an adult, the James Bulger murder

I am always weirded out by the logic behind trying children as adults. Normally, it comes down to the severity of the crime. The principle seems to go like this: if a child steals, he or she is practically innocent since how could they know what they were doing; but if a child kills someone, they were obviously about their wits. That sounds something like the opposite of logic, but how do you work with this? Most every kid steals something: from a yard sale, from a comic book store, candy shop, digital music, etc. Most every kid manages not to kill. It could be a case of the vast number of ex-thieves who have become members of society (who restrict themselves to maybe stealing a couple of grapes from the green grocer) versus our imagining that once a murderer, always a murderer. This logic also prevails in rape cases, the idea that once someone rapes, they will rape time and time again. It even prevails in "rape" cases where it is actually a teenager having sex with a teenager, leading the boy (almost always the boy) to have a record for life to protect all the other innocent, consenting adults who might like to have sex with him.

How many times have you been told that once a dog or other pet tastes human blood, they can never be trusted? If you think about it, that argument is obviously bollocks. Think of attack dogs who are trained to do such. Think of all the cats and dogs who bite their owners while being groomed or given a shot or something. It's a fiction, a concept of genetic warfare.

But what about cases like the murder of James Bulger? In this case, you have two kids who would be in frakking grade school (ten years old) taking a three year-old off and beating him to death. Then, to make it even more lovely, they tossed his body on a railroad track in such a way that it looked like he was hit by a train, or at least to make it look like the train killed him when one came around.

Is this TV that did this? When, where, how does a ten year-old get the idea to not only lead a three year-old away from his mom, but to beat him to death, and then disguise the killing? Unsuccessfully. This is why it has to be TV. You have a pre-teen thinking about things like hiding evidence, but failing to realize the sheer number of witnesses who saw them (note that they did lie about who the kid with them was) and not understanding that forensics would be able to find out the lie. They were even spotted on camera scoping out children. They spent some time picking a victim. If not TV, then what the hell is this?

I found out about it through a chain letter sent to me by one of my nieces. I noted some bits about the dates seemed off (the letter is apparently a few years old) and so was curious what the true story was. For some reason, the chain letter felt the need to include sodomy (batteries pushed into the boy's anus) and bodily mutilation (fingers cut off by scissors) which are untrue facts but are calculated to make people even angrier at the murderers. It makes you wonder, what chain letter writer was unsure that the brutal bludgeoning death of a small kid wasn't enough to get the ire up, and so felt the need to lie in order to make people take notice? Did they go home and pat themselves on the back?

I guess the outcome was that they were released, after eight years (much like what would happen if a minor committed a "jailable" offense here in the States and was sent to Juvie), and they were given what I guess are new identities in Australia. At any rate, details about them have been held down by an injunction.

The chain letter called for public outcry, as said, even to the point of faking details to include concepts of homosexuality and satanic-like desecration of the body, and makes the point that since they tried to hide what they did, they obviously knew what they were doing.

My issue with this is the same as it always was: it is one thing to someone knows what they are doing is wrong, and another to say they understood they were hurting some other living soul and what life and death means. With that being said, Jesus Christ. I personally would hate to find out my next door neighbors were these people (now aged twenty-five or so). On a logical level, I can reason that these kids probably did not actually know what murder meant, despite the severity of their crime. On an emotional level, I'm not sure they should ever see light of day again. However, is this me thinking that a dog that once bites a child will make a habit of it? Or is this a reasoned response in the least? I do not know.

Si Vales, Valeo