I really came to respect Mrs Justice Butler-Sloss when I represented our Church in the High Court at a very sad family case. The court sat in private so I am not at liberty to disclose the nature of the case. One of the things that is often not appreciated is the sheer complexity of the issues that a good church can face.
Nevertheless we sat for three days in court. Each eveniong we had a prayer meeting and we prayed togther outside the court. The stress before the case was unbearable, it really was, and we had to work very hard to contain the situation.
Our judge was Mrs Butler-Sloss. It was really remarkable the way in which she put us all at ease, drew out the full story, and then delivered her judgement. She described the representatives of the church "as most impressive witnesses" which we felt was a vindication of our efforts and a good witness for a Methodist Church.
So I was a little disappointed this morning to read Mrs Butler-Sloss's comments about the age of criminal responsiblity. The more I read about the Bulger case the more convinced I am that those two children should not have been tried in an adult court or been identified. So on this occasion I have to differ with the judge, much as I know her to be a humane and caring person. My feeling is that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 13 as was the ancient Hebrew tradition for the definition of an adult.
Which does remind me. About 12 years after the court case, a political enemy (someone who loathed me and what I stood for with an absolute passion) approached me with a very sketchy outline of the case and a completely false interpretation of my role and that of the church. He was going to "expose" me. He didn't care that his information was wrong, nor that it would seriously damage other people, nor that I would be able to challenge his version of events. We had absolutely no defence except prayer. I shared the issue with a handful of close friends I know to be prayer warriors. We prayed and prayed. We never heard another word.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I have hesitated to comment on this, but I think I disagree with you.
I was horrified at the brutality of the offence, but also at the hate directed at the offenders - grown men attacking the vans on the way to court; what would they have done if they'd got hold of the boys? There was far too much desire for vengeance, not enough desire for justice, and virtually no desire for healing or rehabilitation. Whether that would have been different if the court was juvenile, I doubt. The public response did not reflect very well on our society.
But then, neither did the offence. I am not persuaded that the offenders did not know exactly what they were doing. They were not infants. They were old enough to understand that the pain and suffering they were inflicting was grievous, and eventually that they were killing the toddler. The abduction itself, of a crying child, was cruel. Now, it is obvious that children can be cruel, and often that cruelty has been learnt from their parents and community, so that itself doesn't reflect well on us. But they decided to do what they did, and it did have consequences which they must have known about.
Children seem to grow up much more quickly than when I was a child. It seems that childhood is replaced by a kind of pre-teen teenage. I don't see that moving the age of responsibility to 12 or 13 would really make such a difference - especially when the variation among individuals can be so marked.
Rather than change the legal age, I suggest some work on the attitudes of our society, and on the care of offenders and victims. The angry reaction of the Bulger family shows that it was necessary for the killers to be seen to be punished: if they had not, on the grounds of their youth, it would have suggested to that family that their loss was somehow less important because it was children who did it.
I share your discomfort, but I don't think this is the solution to our problem (and, yes, I do think it is our problem as a community).
Rev Tony B said :Children seem to grow up much more quickly than when I was a child. It seems that childhood is replaced by a kind of pre-teen teenage. I don't see that moving the age of responsibility to 12 or 13 would really make such a difference - especially when the variation among individuals can be so marked.
I say that it is not that children grow up more quickly; they need the same amount of time to mature mentally and emotionally as they did many years ago. It is that society exposes them to things they are not ready for too quickly, such as violence in video games and tv.
There should be some in between ground in terms of charging them as children vs. adults. They are in between these two categories and should be treated as such.
I also think we need to teach people that the outcome of a trial, etc. does not reflect at all on the value of a life; recognition of that can only help to bring about healing.
I'm in agreement with Rev Tony B even though I can see the point of view Methodist Preacher is presenting.
What most people do not know is that our bodies and brains do not ocmpletely matuere until we are approx. 25 yrs. old. At thirteen we are only half-way there. Does that make a difference?
Last Sunday, I preached on Luke 15. lost sheep knew that it was going where it should not, but the grass was greener, or the dogs frightened it - what ever. Sheep got itself into a situation it could not get out of. The sons had much more autonomy.
Children are still children. They will grow up. The state has failed Venables and Thompson as the state is not a Christian, loving family. They are not prodigals or elder brothers. James Bulger was a lost coin. Adudlts failed him. Venables and Thompson are lost sheep and sheep are awkward and wilful, try shepherding some, but they never knew what it was to sons in any meaningful way.
I have taught many children of their age and I am persuaded that pre-teens and teenagers do NOT know exactly what they are doing. They may know it is wrong but they rarely understand consequences, and even when they do, they often lack a proper empathy. It comes with time and maturity.
Too many adults escaped responsibilty by demonizing these children, failing to recognise the principalities and powers and the spiritual wickedness in high places that young minds find hard to resist; and some more fragile minds cannot resist at all.
'The angry reaction of the Bulger family shows that it was necessary for the killers to be seen to be punished: if they had not, on the grounds of their youth, it would have suggested to that family that their loss was somehow less important because it was children who did it.'
A question. Is the death of any loved one less important because the killer was cancer, or lightning, or flood, or a child, an adult....? Is the death of my friends who died of old age less important? Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus. Did this make Lazarus more important?
Arguments can seem logical, but are emotional.
Like David, I am appalled at the blood-lust and like David, I prefer to look to scripture for guidance. One could not choose death in battle until one had lived twenty years. Should we choose death, or lifetime incarceration, for others on a shorter scale?
One last thought. Life is the life you have lived. For a ten-year-old child that is a maximum of ten years, less if we exclude the earky years. Do we really want to sentence a child to seventy years or more in prison?
Apparently, the answer is 'Yes'.
Post a Comment