Born evil?

[Maxinquaye]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-torture-scene-that-left-a-veteran-policeman-in-tears-1876255.html

One of the inspirations for my novel 'Council brats' was a Sun-article about a "vicious yob" of some sort or other. I have no knowledge whether the actual inspiration was true or not, but I couldn't get rid of the question 'what would happen if an innocent kid got caught in a situation like that?'.

Anyways, the inspiration-case may very well have been objectively described, and the kid portrayed in that article, as well as the two boys in the article I've linked, may very well be truthfully depicted.

I guess it's kind of back to the question: are there people that are born evil?

[dolores haze]

These boys weren't born evil. The article describes a brutal childhood, where their earliest memories were of their father beating their mother. Abuse is all they've ever known. They were made into what they've become.

[Maxinquaye]

THat's what I believe too... but sometimes my convictions about it falter...

[CACTUSWENDY]

After reading the account I believe that if you spent 10-12 years being trained up a certain way that you would indeed behave in the way you were trained. Do I think the boys were born evil....? No. But I believe that their up bringing has 'programed' them to act and re-act this way. It's no surprise at all. If fact, if they had been caring and wonderful boys that would be mind boggling. It's such a shame the they fell through the cracks all the other times that those in power could have stepped in and removed them from that family. I doubt if they will ever be able to change now. This is so sad and such a waste.

[Fran]

I agree with dolores - what chance did they have? I heard on BBC news that the younger brother has been classed as a psychopath, which I don't think is a helpful label for a child of that age. Psychopathy isn't treatable (at least in terms of how our justice system views it) and I can but hope they're young enough to be rehabilitated.

[Shakesbear]

The boys are victims of a neglectful society. Other reports I have read said there were 31 - yes, thirty one, opportunities for the authorities to intervene - the attack on the two boys need never have happened. The attackers, when removed from their home, were placed with elderly foster parents who were not able to prevent the boys' awful behaviour. I really hope that they now get a better chance at having a life.

The two victims have recovered physically but still have psychological scars for which they are getting help.

I keep thinking about the Lord of the Flies - how easily children can become wild with out guidance.

[Fran]

It's such a shame the they fell through the cracks all the other times that those in power could have stepped in and removed them from that family. I doubt if they will ever be able to change now. This is so sad and such a waste.

The authorities' failures are legion, depressing and inexcusable. Nobody bothered their arse. Another boy was attacked by the brothers and the police didn't believe him. Social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't, so I have a little more sympathy with them, but the police have a duty to investigate every complaint whether they bloody believe it or not. And ultimately Doncaster Council needs to be cleared out completely and started again.

[CatSlave]

I won't comment on these particular boys, but I posed this question to a practicing child psychologist: did she believe that some children were born evil?
She told me -without breaking confidentiality- about a five-year-old girl she treated who came from a loving, well grounded family, who was the most evil creature she encountered in her practice.
She said to look into that girl's eyes was to see someone with pure intelligence and no soul.
Her story still disturbs me greatly.

[Maxinquaye]

I think the worst things I've ever read in national media was the lynching-atmosphere around the Bolger-case, where people actually showed up to take justice into their own hands.

It's weird, when you read things like this. Still, Jamie Bolger was murdered horrifically, by two boys. Now you have this case.

Makes me depressed.

[Fran]

I think the worst things I've ever read in national media was the lynching-atmosphere around the Bolger-case, where people actually showed up to take justice into their own hands.

It's weird, when you read things like this. Still, Jamie Bolger was murdered horrifically, by two boys. Now you have this case.

But the BBFC banned Child's Play 3 after the Bolger case because there was a slim possibility the killers might have watched it. How could such a thing ever happen again? :rolleyes:

[Plot Device]

The Bad Seed at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Seed_%28film%29)



The Bad Seed is a 1956 Academy Award-nominated horror/thriller film directed by Mervyn LeRoy. It is based upon a play (of the same name) by Maxwell Anderson, which in turn is based upon William March's 1954 novel The Bad Seed. The play was adapted by John Lee Mahin for the screenplay of the film. It stars Nancy Kelly, Patty McCormack, Henry Jones, Eileen Heckart, Evelyn Varden, William Hopper, Paul Fix, Joan Croydon and Jesse White.

The Bad Seed was nominated for four Academy Awards for Best Actress in a Leading Role (Nancy Kelly), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Eileen Heckart and Patty McCormack, separately) and Best Cinematography, Black-and-White.




The Bad Seed at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxisjomvvSY

The creepy thing about this little girl is she reminds me of Holly from The Land of the Lost.



The Bad Seed at imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048977/plotsummary)


Colonel Kenneth and Mrs. Christine Penmark are a loving couple, which makes it difficult in their lives when the colonel is transferred to Washington D.C. While the colonel is gone, Christine is left to take care of their eight year old daughter, Rhoda, on her own. Rhoda is a little princess of a girl, always wearing pretty dresses and with her hair always in perfect pigtails. Rhoda strives for perfection and feels she deserves whatever nice things comes her way, since she is continually asking for gifts beyond what people are already willing to give. Although Christine loves her daughter as does the colonel, she feels that Rhoda perhaps is a little too mature for her age, not displaying those typical tendencies of most eight year olds. The one person who doesn't seem to like Rhoda is Leroy, the seemingly simple handyman of the apartment building in which the Penmarks live. Tragedy strikes when one of Rhoda's classmates, Claude Daigle, drowns in a lake while at a school picnic. Claude was recently discussed in the Penmark home as the boy who won the class penmanship medal, the medal which Rhoda felt she herself deserved. Rhoda shows no emotion about the tragedy. As the authorities and the parents discuss what happened, Christine increasingly believes that Rhoda knows more about Claude's death than she is willing to divulge. Although prone to the same dream for the better part of her life, Christine begins to wonder if that dream, which outlines an alternate childhood for herself, is really a dream or a repressed memory. That dream leads Christine to find out more about what Rhoda's true involvement in Claude's death is as well as the cause of other tragic deaths that have occurred around them.





or, if you prefer a more recent film ....




The Good Son

at imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107034/)

at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Son_%28film%29)



.

[Ciera_]

I guess it's kind of back to the question: are there people that are born evil?

No.

[Plot Device]

No.


I believe it's possible to be born "damaged." And if the outcome of your damage is behavior that is culturally described as "evil," then yes.

By "damaged" I mean something is just plain WRONG with your brain, your perceptions, your priorities, your capacity to make decisions, and your ability to inhibit (or to even care to inhibit) your actions. I think that the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" both cover such behavior to varying degrees.

Google the word "sociopath" under "I'm Feeling Lucky" and the web page you land upon will astound you.




.

[Dommo]

I agree with Plot.

A person who is born without the capacity for empathy(sociopath), while not necessarily evil, has a very strong tendency towards it. Not all sociopaths are necessarily evil, and I'm sure that some of them live their lives, peacefully, and probably even have successful family and home lives.

However, for a lot of them, the inability to empathize combined with a neutered conscious , means that they're far more willing to do things the majority of us wouldn't consider.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I guess it's kind of back to the question: are there people that are born evil?

Yes.

[Ninjas Love Nixon]

I guess it's kind of back to the question: are there people that are born evil?

Owing to the vast and random acts of chance involved in the realisation of a new child, it's inevitable that outliers are going to emerge from time to time. The base wiring of those beings may predispose them toward behaviour that, by the normative standards of society, is considered aberrant.

I think early conditioning must play a role too, but it's not impossible to imagine a mind that perceives the world in extraordinarily different terms from the rest of us, and which may be beyond integration into society no matter what (even if it functions at a high level of intelligence).

There may be minds that can go either way, and are tipped one way or the other by early experience. There may be minds that are exposed to appalling experiences but still remain normatively functional. Ultimately I suspect that we have much less control over who we are than we suspect, but evolution's not much of a friend to anyone, and it plays a much longer game.

[Don]

If you believe the bible, isn't everyone born evil? Original sin, and all that?

[DavidZahir]

No. "Original Sin" is not something described in detail by the Bible nor do all churches adhere to the belief that we all somehow "born guilty". My own church, generally known as Eastern Orthodox, takes the view that Original Sin was a specific act, whose repercussions are felt to this day, but in no way impose guilt upon any individual. We are born "into" original sin in the same way we are born into a world that has atomic weapons.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we are all somehow born guilty, as do many Protestant churches (especially any with Calvinist origins, which views all humanity as irredeemably corrupt by definition). But this is a far-from-universal view.

[Maxinquaye]

Evil is intentionally causing grievous harm to other human beings. It needs to have no religious connection. It need to have no connection with "sin", which is a grouping's arbitrary rules for governing the behaviour of an individual. In that light, wearing mixed garments is a sin, but it's certainly not evil.

[Prozyan]

I think that the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" both cover such behavior to varying degrees.
.

Sociopath and psychopath are the same thing, really, just used in different eras.

Is someone born with sociopathy? Doubtful, but it is imprinted extremely early, usually within weeks of birth.

[aadams73]

I think the worst things I've ever read in national media was the lynching-atmosphere around the Bolger-case, where people actually showed up to take justice into their own hands.

It's weird, when you read things like this. Still, Jamie Bolger was murdered horrifically, by two boys. Now you have this case.


The Bolger case is the one that sprang to mind when I read the thread title. Yes, some people are born evil. They're broken right out of the box. One of my cousins is like that. At four you could look at him and see it in his eyes.

[Zoombie]

I'm with Dommo on this one: No, not born evil. Just damaged.

That does not mean they're not dangerous, and I'm sure that these kids could have come out perfectly fine if they hadn't had two shit-awful parents.

[blacbird]

As much as I philosophically want to say No, I can't avoid thinking of the biographies of:

Kenneth McDuff
Ken Rex McElroy
Ted Bundy
Dennis Rader
Dean Corll
Randy Kraft
Albert Fish

Hard to find much evidence in any of these guys to support my philosophy.

caw

[TerzaRima]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the phrase "born evil" and everything it implies. I do think that there are some outliers, as Ninjas points out, who are congenitally missing or underendowed with empathy, although this is really rare and most so-called bad seeds, IMO, didn't start out that way.

When I started working with kids I would have bridled at this notion, but at this point it's hard to discount a genetic factor in such people. Very often there's a blood relative who has similar problems.

[GeorgeK]

Were These particular boys born evil...probably more of phychological damage.
Are some people physically brain damaged or malformed to the point that they are more animal than human...yes. Evolutionarily people have been both prey and predator. Those with more predator will be labelled psycopaths and wall street tycoons. Those more wired for prey will be saints and social workers.
Are Some people born evil in the sense that they very early on, despite appropriate life circumstances made a concious choice to become evil...yes.
Souls are not subject to genetics, only bodies are. Souls transcend the body. Evil is a conscious choice, so since an infant is not yet cognizant, it can't be evil yet. That choice isn't possible until probably age 2-3 (assuming normal development).

[benbradley]

I won't comment on these particular boys, but I posed this question to a practicing child psychologist: did she believe that some children were born evil?
She told me -without breaking confidentiality- about a five-year-old girl she treated who came from a loving, well grounded family, who was the most evil creature she encountered in her practice.
She said to look into that girl's eyes was to see someone with pure intelligence and no soul.
Her story still disturbs me greatly.
I suppose some sort of physical brain damage is a possible culprit in such a case, but I'd want to take a closer look at what went on in the family. The overwhelming majority of "evil" people grew up in problem homes, and some may have experienced problem peer influences.

Alice Miller wrote many books on how child abuse and neglect affects people later in life, and how society dismisses and ignores this as the cause of adulthood behavior, starting with "The Drama of The Gifted Child."
I believe it's possible to be born "damaged." And if the outcome of your damage is behavior that is culturally described as "evil," then yes. .
I like seeing that word in quotes, as it does often seem to have religious or "spiritual" connotations, that such a person has turned away from God, or even aligned himself with the Devil. I don't find that to be a useful concept.
By "damaged" I mean something is just plain WRONG with your brain, your perceptions, your priorities, your capacity to make decisions, and your ability to inhibit (or to even care to inhibit) your actions. I think that the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" both cover such behavior to varying degrees.

Google the word "sociopath" under "I'm Feeling Lucky" and the web page you land upon will astound you.
I recall when the book and movie "The Silence of The Lambs" was popular (haven't read it or seen it, though I have the book around somewhere), 60 Minutes had an episode that started off with a man who had spoken with and studied many serial killers saying "Serial killers aren't born. They're made by emotionally and physically abusive parents." Feeling a bit borderline at the time and not wanting to be pushed over the edge, I turned off the TV.
No. "Original Sin" is not something described in detail by the Bible nor do all churches adhere to the belief that we all somehow "born guilty". My own church, generally known as Eastern Orthodox, takes the view that Original Sin was a specific act, whose repercussions are felt to this day, but in no way impose guilt upon any individual. We are born "into" original sin in the same way we are born into a world that has atomic weapons.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we are all somehow born guilty, as do many Protestant churches (especially any with Calvinist origins, which views all humanity as irredeemably corrupt by definition). But this is a far-from-universal view.
Well, that appears to cover the vast majority of Christians, but it's interesting to know there are some Christian churches who don't see "original sin" as the mainstream sees it.
I'm with Dommo on this one: No, not born evil. Just damaged.

That does not mean they're not dangerous, and I'm sure that these kids could have come out perfectly fine if they hadn't had two shit-awful parents.
Rewording this to avoid that word, I agree that they were not born to inevitably commit heinous acts, but are products of their environment.

[Rarri]

Evil isn't a word i'm all that comfortable with but that aside, i doubt these boys were born 'bad' but may quite easily have been born damaged. If there were drugs and alcohol around whilst their mother was pregnant, that could have considerable impact on the developing brain; abuse of the mother too, in terms of raising stress levels doesn't seem inconceivable in having an affect on the developing foetus.

From that article, it also states the elder child was using cannabis from a young age, potential predispositions aside, a young brain is going to suffer if it's exposed like that. Predisposition is important too though; two people can be exposed to the same trauma and 'react' differenting, especially in the long term; concerning abuse, one abused person may have no particular psychiatric repercussions, another may develop PTSD, another may develop BPD. The brain's a weird thing.

I guess, yes, they're products of their environment as has been suggested but that the environment extends as far back as conception (essentially) and that predispositions may have come into play too.

I hope they remain detained, not in the sense that they should be locked up in prison until their dying day but i find it hard - even with the most intense therapy and help - that after everything they've been through, that they could ever be considered safe to be out in the world.

[maryland]

As Rarri points out, this goes back to the emotional state of the mother while she was pregnant. Add the violent father. Add a permanent tension running through the house, with the alternation between violence and depression, never knowing what is going to happen next. Your environment is chaotic and unstable.
Cry yourself to sleep until you don't even react any more-it's the only way to survive. The children had to adapt. (It's unusual for young children to run away,isn't it?)
I see many adults responsible in this chain of events- the writers, photographers, actors in the violent videos. The staff of video shops. The people selling drugs. The people selling alcohol. Do they not see the consequences of their actions? the police who did not take up neighbours' concerns to a higher level.
Then bring in some social workers who are too wary of getting really involved by separating the family. In this case it obviously happened too late and the foster parents could not cope. The NSPCC have not been mentioned, by the way... (= National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Childen.)

[DavidZahir]

A tiny plug--the Eastern Orthodox Churches are actually the second largest denomination in the world.

[blacbird]

A tiny plug--the Eastern Orthodox Churches are actually the second largest denomination in the world.

Well, except for the fact that they're not really a single "denomination". Russian Orthodoxes are not particularly fond of Greek Orthodoxes, and vice versa. They're about as far apart in doctrine and organization as are Roman Catholics and Lutherans. And there are Bulgarian Orthodoxes and some others.

caw

[CoriSCapnSkip]

But the BBFC banned Child's Play 3 after the Bolger case because there was a slim possibility the killers might have watched it. How could such a thing ever happen again? :rolleyes:

Obviously, they watched a rental copy, just like the Bolger case perpetrators.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Another case often examined which may never be fully answered. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/10/48hours/main660314.shtml

[eyeblink]

Obviously, they watched a rental copy, just like the Bolger case perpetrators.

The BBFC didn't ban Child's Play 3. And the Chief Constable in the Bolger case discounted any link with it.

The BBFC *did* delay certifying The Good Son (before passing it 18),because of perceived similarities to the Bolger case - one of several examples under the then secretary (the late James Ferman) of their being cautious.

[Rarri]

This is another interesting case, considering the age of the boys involved and also how it was handled: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/803151.stm

[Fran]

This is another interesting case, considering the age of the boys involved and also how it was handled: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/803151.stm

I read about the Norweigan case the other day in The Guardian. It's interesting, but I don't think the media, population or government of the UK would stand for that kind of resolution. There were even "String 'em up!" comments on The Guardian's website so heaven alone knows what the tabloids would make of it.

And I do think there's a big difference between a six-year-old's and a ten-year-old's capability of understanding what they've done.

[Maxinquaye]

Children that kill frighten most people. I think the thirst for revenge is also very strong. You can clothe that want for revenge in rational words, but sometimes - like it did in the Bolger-case - the veil of rationality comes off.

I may be odd, but I sort of feel sorry for those two boys. Yes, they do need to be punished, and they do need to be monitored because they've clearly shown that they are a danger to other people. But I don't want anyone taking revenge on them. It's better that they try to fix these kids, if it's possible.

That's why I think it's so counterproductive now when people are starting to clamour for them to be named, and for the records to be made public.

ETA:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pressure-grows-for-full-report-on-torture-boys-to-be-published-1877354.html

[Fran]

He (one of the victim's father) said the two brothers "should never be allowed to hide from what they've done" and warned they could "do this again" if their identities remained secret. "People should have the right to know if there are people like that are living near them," he told the Mail on Sunday.

If their identities are made public, they'll be given new ones when they're released. I understand the man's anguish, but I don't see how naming the perpetrators would protect anyone.

[Priene]

If their identities are made public, they'll be given new ones when they're released. I understand the man's anguish, but I don't see how naming the perpetrators would protect anyone.

The problem is that the law of the land isn't being upheld. Tabloid editors are going after naming those boys because it sells newspapers and panders for a demand for revenge. If the editors who exposed Mary Bell had been prosecuted, their successors might think twice in the future.

[HJW]

Children that kill frighten most people. I think the thirst for revenge is also very strong. You can clothe that want for revenge in rational words, but sometimes - like it did in the Bolger-case - the veil of rationality comes off.

I may be odd, but I sort of feel sorry for those two boys. Yes, they do need to be punished, and they do need to be monitored because they've clearly shown that they are a danger to other people. But I don't want anyone taking revenge on them. It's better that they try to fix these kids, if it's possible.

That's why I think it's so counterproductive now when people are starting to clamour for them to be named, and for the records to be made public.

ETA:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pressure-grows-for-full-report-on-torture-boys-to-be-published-1877354.html

You're not odd at all - it's called compassion, something the Great British Public seems to be sorely lacking in at times. As you say, it's possible for these boys to be helped and for them to go on to become decent adults.

[Fran]

The problem is that the law of the land isn't being upheld. Tabloid editors are going after naming those boys because it sells newspapers and panders for a demand for revenge. If the editors who exposed Mary Bell had been prosecuted, their successors might think twice in the future.

Absolutely, but the victim's father is talking about naming the boys as a matter of public protection, and I was responding specifically to that point. I don't think it affords any protection. Also I think if the boys are named it jeopardises the victims' anonymity as well.

No one seems willing to take on the press. I've seen quite a few newspaper headlines about cases that are sub judice which in my opinion should have been prosecuted. If they get to name the boys, hooray for their circulation figures, but it doesn't help anyone in my view, perpetrator or victim, and neither does it protect the general public.

[Rarri]

These boys will be named regardless of the law; look at the Baby P case, the people involved were named relatively easily. I don't see the purpose in naming these boys though, what does it achieve? It only gives ammunition to vigilantes, fuels problems for those who are related and brings about the possibility of mistaken identity.

I do think the Norwegian case is interesting because the difference in age brings up the question of responsibility; a ten year old can be held responsible and know right from wrong, that doesn't seem as certain for a six year old. Though, it is also worth noting that the crimes were somewhat different (from what i gather, there was no 'torture' in the Norwegian case).

[Priene]

We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality. - Lord Thomas Macaulay

[Maxinquaye]

We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality. - Lord Thomas Macaulay

Mostly, that is a very endearing quality in the british public. Sometimes it is not. At least, if you ask me. As one of the cool (cold?) swedes who are always trying to be so damned rational about everything, it is kind of fun being in such a passionate kind of contry. Well, to a Swede the brits are full of sound and fury ;)

But sometimes the passion veers off into what appears to be short-sightedness, or even sometimes - dare I say it - an emotiveness that is tinged with cruelty.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

In the Norwegian case, the children were thought to have been badly influenced by Power Rangers, since that involves a lot of kicking and what was done to her was mainly kicking.

"Violent crime in Norway is rare, crimes against children are almost unheard of."

Well, I am IMPRESSED. AS. HELL! What do these people know that people in other countries don't and what can be learned from what they are doing right? Children's literature, let alone childhood itself, is almost impossible as I knew it, because a child is never out of a parent or teacher's sight until at least age 15, and with great precautions even then.

[Priene]

The novelty will probably wear off. Every couple of years, the British public goes ballistic over something. Sometiemes it's justified, sometimes ridiculous: paedophiles, murderous children, necrotising fasciitis, illegal immigrants, sex-obsessed MPs, vicious dogs, salmonella in eggs, the Poll Tax, Measles-Mumps-Rubella injections. Everyone gets in a tizz, bad legislation is passed, everyone forgets about it. We're a fundamentally ridiculous country.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

The little bastard who did this was let back in school where he was not particularly wanted: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-this_family_shouldn_t.htm

He is unnamed, but here's a hint: he had the same name as his father.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Here is a fascinating look at how a young murderer was dealt with, or not, in an American court back in the day: http://books.google.com/books?id=SaXAOdBJJc8C&lpg=PA74&ots=Vl6hlajMfg&dq=Nelson%20Mowatt%20murder&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=Nelson%20Mowatt%20murder&f=false

If anyone can offer ANY further information on the case or contact information for the author, I will :Hug2::hooray::e2cloud9::e2arms::e2cheer::Hail: :Hail: :Hail: because I live for this stuff. If it's long enough ago, I can't get enough. That's the kinda sick sucker I am.

[Fran]

The little bastard who did this was let back in school where he was not particularly wanted: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-this_family_shouldn_t.htm

He is unnamed, but here's a hint: he had the same name as his father.

Horrible. At least it's not as easy for someone to get hold of a gun in the UK or I've no doubt we'd be seeing things like that here.

This is why the question about violence on TV and films intrigues me - violence served up as entertainment. Violence is usually the conflict resolution. No one sits and 'talks about their problems' they shoot whoever disagrees with them. I don't think it affects most, or even the vast majority, of children, but growing up in an abusive environment seems to go hand-in-hand with watching material that's inappropriate for children. Of course if parents can't be arsed to feed, clothe and raise their child properly they're unlikely to care what they're watching. I don't know if there is a causal link between children watching violent entertainment and becoming violent, but I find it interesting that in the American case and this case the kind of television and films the perpetrators were watching is thought to be relevant enough to warrant mention.

[Priene]

I find it interesting that in the American case and this case the kind of television and films the perpetrators were watching is thought to be relevant enough to warrant mention.

Video nasties and computer games. That's two more mass panics I'd forgotten about.

The truth is that child-on-child murders in the UK (or torture in this case), once teen gangs have been discounted, are incredibly rare. There are over 12 million children in the UK. Cases like this come up every couple of years, and have done for a long time.

[Exir]

I've started watching films with "grownup" content at a fairly young age. I don't think it ever affected me in a negative way at all -- my parents were always ready to talk about the issues of violence, etc. that would come up, so in fact I'd say it was a positive experience, not negative.

How a child is brought up, what kind of place he lives in, is EVERYTHING.

[emilycross]

It isn't Nature versus Nurture - its more Nature via Nurture.

Perhaps if these boys were born into a loving family - they would either be still psychological disturbed but would be treated etc. or parents would be aware of the issue and gotten help.

Still just because the 'boys were born evil' the abusive environment shouldn't be discounted either - the parents should be held as responsible as well when its obvious that theres been abuse/neglect.

[RobinGBrown]

The 'public outrage' and 'mass hysteria' is reported by the mass media. They're not exactly honest and it's the sort of headlines that generate sales.

Genuine outrage and hysteria is actually rather limited as far as I can see.

People aren't born evil. They are born without morals and it's up to their parents to instill them. Evil parents give rise to evil children.

[Rarri]

The 'public outrage' and 'mass hysteria' is reported by the mass media. They're not exactly honest and it's the sort of headlines that generate sales.

Genuine outrage and hysteria is actually rather limited as far as I can see.

People aren't born evil. They are born without morals and it's up to their parents to instill them. Evil parents give rise to evil children.

Parents aren't always to blame though; a good parent may have a child who is 'bad' and a bad parent may have a child who is good, in the longterm.

There is a lot of outrage, have a look at the big parenting sites and with all cases like this (IE a child being killed or seriously harmed), you'll see an outpouring of rage. Parents happily suggesting that they'd like a few minutes in a locked room with the perpetrator or that they'd happily be part of the mob that lynches the people involved (whether that be perpetrator or professional involved in the case - especially notable during the Baby P case).

[Fran]

There is a lot of outrage, have a look at the big parenting sites and with all cases like this (IE a child being killed or seriously harmed), you'll see an outpouring of rage. Parents happily suggesting that they'd like a few minutes in a locked room with the perpetrator or that they'd happily be part of the mob that lynches the people involved (whether that be perpetrator or professional involved in the case - especially notable during the Baby P case).

And this is why, in my view, we can't have Sarah's Law. The general public can't be trusted and the tabloids can't be trusted not to incite violence. Then the angry mob might go and beat up another paediatrician.

[Priene]

Not to mention the dozen or so women beaten up for looking like Maxine Carr.

[Plot Device]

We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality. - Lord Thomas Macaulay


Om my god! too frickin' funny!

QUOTABLE!!!

[IdiotsRUs]

And this is why, in my view, we can't have Sarah's Law. The general public can't be trusted and the tabloids can't be trusted not to incite violence. Then the angry mob might go and beat up another paediatrician.

*Note: is slightly biased here because some of Sarah's clothes were found in my road and her body was found half a mile from where I worked.

Then again, my local council tried to put my mate and his four kids in a house next to a convicted paedophile. He went to the police to ask if the rumours were true. Police said 'Sorry mate, can't say'. One of them turned up, ahem, incognito at his house later to tell him 'Don't take that house if you value your kids, guy's got a record long as your arm. He is a danger to all children, But I didn't say that.'

Council refused to take 'convicted sex offender living next door' as a valid excuse for turning the house down and pushed him to the bottom of the queue ( leaving him living illegally in a one bedroom council flat with four kids). That isn't even getting into the fact the sex offender was living next door to a school and was known for the telescope and photography equipment in his back window.....

ETA: this is the same council that tried to build a half way house for sex offenders...that overlooked the playground and outdoor pool in the park.

[Fran]

Then again, my local council tried to put my mate and his four kids in a house next to a convicted paedophile. He went to the police to ask if the rumours were true. Police said 'Sorry mate, can't say'. One of them turned up, ahem, incognito at his house later to tell him 'Don't take that house if you value your kids, guy's got a record long as your arm. He is a danger to all children, But I didn't say that.'

I'm sympathetic to the worries of parents. There's a big difference between the polis having a quiet word and The News of the World splashing photographs on its front page. Since I don't have children and nor am I likely to it's not something I have to be suspicious of, but I'm sure if I did have children I'd be much more wary.

And if this paedophile is so dangerous (and I don't doubt at all he is) shouldn't he be in the jail?

[IdiotsRUs]

There's a big difference between the polis having a quiet word and The News of the World splashing photographs on its front page.Oh too right, huge difference. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that was the nub of Sarah's Law - not to splash their faces but so that if say my mate were to go to them again saying he was moving and had heard rumours about the guy next door, the police could tell him ( officially that is) rather than be hamstringed and watch a family of young kids move in with and make friends with a known nonce.

I know that the offenders have to live somewhere. But councils putting young families in next to them and / or placing them right next door to a school without warning anyone is like putting a pint of vodka in front of an alcoholic and expecting him not to drink it and no one else to mind when he throws up on their carpet...

And if this paedophile is so dangerous (and I don't doubt at all he is) shouldn't he be in the jail? Seeing as he re offended not long after the said incident, yes, he's in jail again.

[Fran]

Oh too right, huge difference. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that was the nub of Sarah's Law - not to splash their faces but so that if say my mate were to go to them again saying he was moving and had heard rumours about the guy next door, the police could tell him ( officially that is) rather than be hamstringed and watch a family of young kids move in with and make friends with a known nonce.

I'm sure your mate is a reasonable adult and wouldn't go firebombing/lynching the paedophile. Some people would, and I don't know how such a list could be kept from the media. Surely it would be obtainable under FOI? Sadly some sections of our media are so irresponsible as to make the list known nationally and that's NOT the purpose of Sarah's Law. It's supposed to be so local people know who and where the paedophiles are, and in principle I have no argument with that whatsoever. It's the practical application of it that worries me.

I'm glad that man's back in jail at least.

[IdiotsRUs]

Sadly some sections of our media are so irresponsible as to make the list known nationally and that's NOT the purpose of Sarah's Law.

If I recall correctly there are penalties for misuse of the information ( or that's what Sarah's Law proposed, not sure if it is enshrined). Possibly it would come under that?

[Rarri]

If I recall correctly there are penalties for misuse of the information ( or that's what Sarah's Law proposed, not sure if it is enshrined). Possibly it would come under that?

Even with that threat, it wont stop people sacrificing themselves in order to have the information out in public.

[Fran]

If I recall correctly there are penalties for misuse of the information ( or that's what Sarah's Law proposed, not sure if it is enshrined). Possibly it would come under that?

I'm sure it would. But I'm equally sure the media would argue publishing certain details about certain paedophiles is 'in the public interest' and that's a whole legal can of worms. As I said upthread I've seen plenty the tabloids should have been prosecuted for and it's never happened; I don't have any confidence they'd be held to account for publishing the information.

[IdiotsRUs]

You're probably right. There must be some way around it *sigh*

When I were a lass, the parents all knew who were the dodgy peeps. I was told which houses not to go around etc. It was only years later I worked out why. But if my parents hadn't have known and not told me to stay away from X's house or bloody else, who knows?

[jilly61]

What I find difficult to comprehend is that the two boys were moved into a foster home nearer their father. That's the same father who was violent and fed his son cannabis. I'd have thought a little distance would be a good thing in this case.

[Fran]

What I find difficult to comprehend is that the two boys were moved into a foster home nearer their father. That's the same father who was violent and fed his son cannabis. I'd have thought a little distance would be a good thing in this case.

From what I've read their father was with them when the police talked to them just after the attack, so they still had contact with him. I don't think there's any point in putting children in foster care and then allowing them to return to the environment or associate with the person that's put them there in the first place.

[Maxinquaye]

There is a lot of outrage, have a look at the big parenting sites and with all cases like this (IE a child being killed or seriously harmed), you'll see an outpouring of rage. Parents happily suggesting that they'd like a few minutes in a locked room with the perpetrator or that they'd happily be part of the mob that lynches the people involved (whether that be perpetrator or professional involved in the case - especially notable during the Baby P case).

I think there will always be people that want instant gratification by beating up what they don't like.

I see that in the comment fields in the articles I read, where the consensus is that taxmoney shouldn't be wasted on "monsters like these", and that punishment should be punishment, and not coddling.

But that's just revenge talking. The reason advanced societies have a judicial system is to remove the element of revenge from society, or we would all have vendetta cultures with no moral or legal hindrances.

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Video nasties and computer games. That's two more mass panics I'd forgotten about.

Some teachers have also noticed a connection with children exposed to hunting at young ages. Queen Elizabeth was criticized for letting Charles see a fox hunt as a small child and look how he turned out. ;)

[CoriSCapnSkip]

Alice Miller wrote many books on how child abuse and neglect affects people later in life, and how society dismisses and ignores this as the cause of adulthood behavior, starting with "The Drama of The Gifted Child."

Wow, a fascinating body of work, thanks for pointing it out.