James Bulger Reason For Punishment
What was the most important reason for punishing the killers of James Bulger?
The James Bulger case was the trial of the two boys, John Venables and Robert Thompson who in Merseyside, Liverpool, on the 12th February 1993 abducted and Murdered a 2 year old boy named James Bulger. The two boys were 10 at the time, however, in court were charged and convicted as adults due to the wickedness of the crime and the detectives believing that the boys were simply innately evil, and couldn’t have possibly learnt such behaviour. The boys were originally given a sentence of 15 years however it was shortened to 8. But what was the most important reason for punishing the two killers?
One of the reasons that the boys were punished was too to protect society. Personally I think that protection was an important reason to punish the boys, because they were clearly unstable, meaning that it was highly possible they could do a similar crime again. I think that …show more content…
not many people would disagree, and I think that parents of young children living in Merseyside would agree strongly, as they would feel their kids were highly unsafe knowing that there were people like them in their neighbourhood.
Another possible reason for the punishment of the two boys was deterrence, or to put others off doing a similar crime by making an example of the boys.
I generally think that deterrent is an important reason for punishment as it stops others from doing the crime. For example in Singapore you are fined for chewing gum, meaning there is a lot less gum on the streets, however in this case I think that deterrence should not have been one of the most important reasons for the punishment because it was an extremely unusual crime as most 10 year olds do not have the mind set to kill another child, therefor there would be almost nobody to put off from doing it in the first place, however if the court were trying to make the boys a deterrent; I don’t think they did a very good job, as the boys were only given 8 years (which I personally think was to little considering the nature of the crime ). I think some people may disagree with me and say that they should be made a deterrent as other kids might be influenced by their
actions.
Another possible aim for the punishment was to rehabilitate the boys and make them into contributing members of society through giving them one to one teaching ( paid for by tax payers ) despite it being better than most normal children’s education. Personally I think that they did not deserve a good education for committing such a horrific crime, many people agree with this as at the time people said “they were living a life of luxury”. I think some people might say that it was good to rehabilitate them so they could become normal members of society and get jobs. Which could be true as it has been proven that there are not enough genes in us to program behaviour. However I don’t think that the boys could have picked up that kind of behaviour, also the fact that they showed no remorse for what they had done after the trial, only strengthens my argument.
One of the main aims of punishing the boys was retribution. The boys had to pay for what they had done. Personally I think that had they been given a longer sentence that would have been enough, however some people had more extreme views for example Ralph Bulger said he would hunt down the killers, and others admitted they would be willing to pay the price for revenge. However a lot of people would disagree especially the government, as they would not what people to take the law into their own hands.
The final possible aim for the punishment was vindication, meaning the law must be upheld. I think this is important because they had to be punished because of their crime, if they had gone unpunished other people might think they could get away with it. I don’t think anybody would disagree with me.
In conclusion I think that the most important reason for punishing John Venables and Robert Thompson was retribution, due to how horrific the crime was. Personally I think that they were pure evil, as they didn’t even try to help their own case by showing remorse for their actions.
The James Bulger case was the trial of the two boys, John Venables and Robert Thompson who in Merseyside, Liverpool, on the 12th February 1993 abducted and Murdered a 2 year old boy named James Bulger. The two boys were 10 at the time, however, in court were charged and convicted as adults due to the wickedness of the crime and the detectives believing that the boys were simply innately evil, and couldn’t have possibly learnt such behaviour. The boys were originally given a sentence of 15 years however it was shortened to 8. But what was the most important reason for punishing the two killers?
One of the reasons that the boys were punished was too to protect society. Personally I think that protection was an important reason to punish the boys, because they were clearly unstable, meaning that it was highly possible they could do a similar crime again. I think that …show more content…
not many people would disagree, and I think that parents of young children living in Merseyside would agree strongly, as they would feel their kids were highly unsafe knowing that there were people like them in their neighbourhood.
Another possible reason for the punishment of the two boys was deterrence, or to put others off doing a similar crime by making an example of the boys.
I generally think that deterrent is an important reason for punishment as it stops others from doing the crime. For example in Singapore you are fined for chewing gum, meaning there is a lot less gum on the streets, however in this case I think that deterrence should not have been one of the most important reasons for the punishment because it was an extremely unusual crime as most 10 year olds do not have the mind set to kill another child, therefor there would be almost nobody to put off from doing it in the first place, however if the court were trying to make the boys a deterrent; I don’t think they did a very good job, as the boys were only given 8 years (which I personally think was to little considering the nature of the crime ). I think some people may disagree with me and say that they should be made a deterrent as other kids might be influenced by their
actions.
Another possible aim for the punishment was to rehabilitate the boys and make them into contributing members of society through giving them one to one teaching ( paid for by tax payers ) despite it being better than most normal children’s education. Personally I think that they did not deserve a good education for committing such a horrific crime, many people agree with this as at the time people said “they were living a life of luxury”. I think some people might say that it was good to rehabilitate them so they could become normal members of society and get jobs. Which could be true as it has been proven that there are not enough genes in us to program behaviour. However I don’t think that the boys could have picked up that kind of behaviour, also the fact that they showed no remorse for what they had done after the trial, only strengthens my argument.
One of the main aims of punishing the boys was retribution. The boys had to pay for what they had done. Personally I think that had they been given a longer sentence that would have been enough, however some people had more extreme views for example Ralph Bulger said he would hunt down the killers, and others admitted they would be willing to pay the price for revenge. However a lot of people would disagree especially the government, as they would not what people to take the law into their own hands.
The final possible aim for the punishment was vindication, meaning the law must be upheld. I think this is important because they had to be punished because of their crime, if they had gone unpunished other people might think they could get away with it. I don’t think anybody would disagree with me.
In conclusion I think that the most important reason for punishing John Venables and Robert Thompson was retribution, due to how horrific the crime was. Personally I think that they were pure evil, as they didn’t even try to help their own case by showing remorse for their actions.