"Two brothers who were 10 and 11 when they tortured two young boys in South Yorkshire have been granted lifelong anonymity.
The victims were left close to death after being strangled, smashed with bricks, stripped and forced to sexually abuse each other."

Two brothers who were 10 and 11 when they tortured two young boys in South Yorkshire have been granted lifelong anonymity.

http://news.sky.com/story/two-brothe...ymity-10689193

More toe rags with the state fussing over them
They were 10 & 11 when convicted, now 17 & 19 they are already out

Has to be done to prevent further criminal action.

I doubt this thread will last long, but anyhow.

I was talking to a friend of mine today about this. I said that if either one of the two victims ends up being so traumatised by what happened to them, which is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility, and then go on to inflict a similar level of violence on another person because they got so upset that the two perpetrators were released, then what ?

Do we excuse their actions because they were traumatised due to what happened and due to their attackers being released ?

And, if so, does that mean we can consequently excuse the actions of the attackers because they had grown up in a violent, abusive environment where they, apparently, regularly saw their father violently attack their mother ?

Where do you break the cycle and try to "save" people to prevent violence breeding violence ?

It's a terrible, horrific case and I certainly hope the two victims can somehow get on with their lives, but i think it does prove in a way that a strictly binary approach to crime and punishment may not always be the correct way.

That is a very valid point. I also always worry in cases like this whether they are actually rehabilitated and cured. I don't think it can be fixed like peadophilia I think it's ingrained in your DNA from when you're born like if you're straight, bi or gay. And so if they're granted anonymity how is that fair or safe for anyone that comes into contact or has a relationship with or god help any women that may have kids by these kinds of people?

I read that they picked up a sink and smashed it over one boys head so hard it broke. Afterwards he reportedly told the other boy to run and save himself because he was in such pain he wanted to die.

If the public could be trusted not to take the law into their own hands and inflict violent retribution on offenders who, no matter what their crimes, have been caught, tried and punished according to law, then there would be no need to grant anonymity.

I do not condone, in any way whatsoever, the suffering they inflicted on their victims. Their crimes were heinous and deserving of punitive sentences. But now they are at liberty they themselves are vulnerable to attack, and regardless of the usual inflammatory rhetoric of "scumbags", etc, etc, two wrongs don't make a right and there is no room for vigilante "justice" in our society.

The fact that changes to the identity of former criminals is necessary at all says much about our society. It says that we....the ones who like to call ourselves 'decent, law-abiding citizens'..... might take brutal retribution, itself a violent criminal act. Those who do so are no better than the criminals they purport to despise.

Decent, Law Abiding Citizens let the law take its course.

If anybody feels the law doesn't punish individuals enough, then they can pursue their argument through the democratic and legal system. That's something else that real Decent, Law Abiding Citizens do.

Until that happens, then anonymity for former criminals will be necessary and probably, the courts will grant it in increasing numbers of incidences.

They've been punished and now need to be protected from vigilante criminals.


What do you want to happen to them?

i would like that they take this un- deserved piece of good fortune and reward us by living the rest of their lives without resorting to criminality, but you and I know that's not going to happen.

Flawed as kids, even more flawed as adults.

What do you mean fixed?

Like you, many of us remember the case and the horrific attack perpetrated on the victims.

But these two need to be protected from the public.

They have not been rehabilitated into normal citizens, they have and remain behaviour wise, problematic.

But they have a right to a 2nd chance.

But the two victims, the boys, they still suffer and all we can hope for is they receive as much support for however long they need it and their parents too.

It should be remembered these young attackers were under SSs care and were let down by them to, they tried to lie their way out of the growing public condemnation at the time.

As horrific, on the day of the attack both were supposed to me at a meeting with SSs to explain another violent attack they were involved in a few days earlier.

That is a somewhat sweeping argument which is impossible to support because you can't see into the future.

The justice system of this country has, as a core tenet the principle of Justice Tempered With Mercy. What this means is that everybody is entitled to a second chance. Just one, but with the exception of whole life tariffs, it is universal.

These young men are now on their second chance but that does not mean they get a completely blank sheet of paper.

They will be monitored and supervised for the rest of their lives by the State who will not hesitate to stick them back behind bars should they step out of line. They will be subjected to constant reviews of, not only the level of risk they pose to society, but also assessments of their level of, what is called, 'dangerousness'. They will feel a police presence in their lives.

I hope they take their chance. Truly I do. Mostly because I don't want anybody to be harmed by anyone, But I would weep no tears for them if they give cause to be put back behind bars. They've got their second chance and if they blow it they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Just give them that chance, fair and square.

"If the public could be trusted not to take the law into their own hands and inflict violent retribution on offenders who, no matter what their crimes, have been caught, tried and punished according to law, then there would be no need to grant anonymity."

Simple answer, keep them away from the public. Don't let them out

Perhaps a properly severe sentence would satisfy the public. Such a short sentence is ludicrous considering the horrific nature of the crime. The same situation arose in the Bulger case - one of the boys seems to have gone on to make something of his life, the other not, continuing in very nasty behaviour.
A 50-50 chance of success isn't good enough considering the threat to children these two pose.

I think sexual orientation is certainly something that you're born with, but I think everything else is learned behaviour.

I know the argument was always there that if "Baby P" had survived the abuse he went through that he would have likely gone on to commit similar violence himself because he would have been raised thinking it was normal to do that sort of thing.

But it's a fine line though. You need to balance appropriate punishment with a need to try and prevent it from happening again.


It's a slippery slope when you start using the law to satisfy the public, but i certainly get what you're saying though.

How do you work that one out (bib)? How long do you think it takes a care system to try to overcome the previous developmental issues that these children had from their history?

Justice though needs to be seen to be done

If you remember, the two brothers in this case were reported as being brought up with similar violence from their own family members. They were in care at the time of the utterly awful crime and all agencies involved have admitted they failed.

I would like to think that 5 years of proper help and ongoing help will reverse the damage done to them by their families.

I absolutely agree. That's why I said it's a fine line between appropriate sentencing and making sure that the situation is, effectively, "contained" so that it doesn't then go on to cause knock on effects of more violence.

My friend i was talking to was saying the two perpetrators were "rewarded" for their crime by being taken out of their environment, but how is being removed from a violent, abusive environment being "rewarded" ?

Obviously it should be taken as an absolute certainty that i'm not trying to excuse or condone their horrific actions, but I think if rehabilitation is an option to alongside and appropriate sentence then it must be considered.

I don't know how these two managed to get away without an attempted murder charge though.

There was a study I read many years ago, the gist was that it was approximated that it takes 2.5 times the abuse/poor experience period to enable 'recovery' IF all the factors are right, ie the care thereon is consistent, matched well with the child, accurately assessed therapeutic input, needs centred education etc etc, so if a child is taken into care aged around 7 lets say, you can hope for some degree of 'normality' (whatever is meant by that) by the age of mid twenties.

Not quite the same thing but I was, somehow, reminded of this


Not sure who took the video nor why but is this right?

They were let down first and foremost by their parents as were the perpetrators. Social services do a bloody amazing job under incredible pressure , they pick up the bloody pieces of deeply broken and flawed family circumstances most utterly hideous.
Damage limitation is the best that can be hoped for .

Unbelievable. Actually, the longer I live the more I find this very believable unfortunately.

After the original convictions Doncaster social services publicly admitted its litany of failure to do its job had led to the crime and launched a internal investigation into how and who were to blame for its failures.

Human rights is for the perpetrators not for the victims.

Going by UK government stats on reoffending rates. Regardless of if you go off their original sentence, type of offence or age there is a over 20% chance of reoffending within the first year of release alone.

It centered on not being able to put adequate services into place prior to the children being accommodated. Reading between the lines its about not being able to accommodate the children earlier. However social services as an entity did not cause these children to attack the children.

Failure to make a record of reported incidents, failure to take action, incompetence, lack of communication, leading to a completely predictable outcome due to the utter failure of the shambolic social services. The various reports are utterly condemning of the litany of failure of Doncaster social services to do its job over a period of many years. The blame for the horrific outcome is placed at the failure of social services and that blame publicly accepted by social services.