Revelations in the trial in Sheffield of two brothers who tortured another pair of young boys have shocked everyone.
The attackers, aged 10 and 11 at the time of the crime, have been sentenced to serve an indefinite term with a minimum of five years.
It is the savagery and apparent opportunistic nature of the crime which has outraged most people.
Edlington, the boys' home
The victims were lured into the woods with the only goal being to inflict harm on them. The attack itself lasted 90 minutes with the boys, who cannot be named for legal reasons, even filming part of the attack which was shown in court.
Many have pointed to their “toxic family life”, asking how social services had not seen this coming. Their violent and obsessive father and drug-dependent mother meant they grew up in an environment of routine chaos and destruction.
Allegedly when left unsupervised they often drank alcohol and smoke cigarettes and cannabis when visiting their father. This coupled with exposure to violent and pornographic films has been blamed for the sadistic and sexual nature of their crimes.
Both attackers had been in trouble with the police for violent crimes before including attacking both children and teachers at school, leading to many demanding the review into the incident be made public. The review claims the attacked were ‘preventable’ and has forced the council to apologise to the victims although the full report will probably never be published.
This bears striking resemblance to the Baby Peter scandal last year where Haringey Social Services were heavily criticised for failing to pick up on the signals before his tragic death.
In the aftermath of this verdict it now looks as if the parents may also face some kind of criminal prosecution although it is unclear on what charges.
Many have already criticised the 5-year-minimum the boys will receive claiming the sentence is to lenient and a 10-year-minimum would be more appropriate as they would then not be released until they were in their 20s.
Others have pointed out the success rehabilitation for violent young offenders has had citing the Jamie Bulger case in 1993 as an example.
Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who when 10 abducted and killed the 2-year-old, left custody in 2001 equipped with A-levels and the ability to speak fluently about the case and show remorse.
Whether or not the same can be achieved with these two remains to be seen, however sentencing children remains a difficult topic.
Conservative leader David Cameron has spoken of a “broken society” in the wake of this trial and has regularly talked of “Broken Britain”.
After the Jamie Bulger murder in 1993, then Home Secretary Tony Blair talked of the “moral vacuum” paving the way for “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.”
It could be argued 15 years after Blair’s speech we have clearly not moved on. Anti Social Behaviour Orders have become badges of honour for misbehaving youngsters and the rise in knife crime and this case in particular show youth violence is still a problem.
At the same time it could be said this modern concept of “Broken Britain” is not a modern concept at all but an interchangeable phrase used to describe the problems with the younger generation.
Is a limit to how many times you can blame drugs and alcohol and violent films for these problems?
If Social Services had taken them into care would it have made a difference? Or would they just have committed this crime when they were 18 years old and spent the rest of their lives behind bars, rather than being given a second chance?
Punishing parents is not a new idea. Many areas have tried to combat truancy in this way and criticising Social Services is an often heard excuse.
Something needs to be done and whether it is an overhaul of Social Services or an encouragement of family values there is no guarantee of success.
Colin Rowe
]]>
