Two children sentenced to minimum 20 years for double murder.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:31 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/10/teenagers-jailed-for-at-least-20-years-for-spalding-murders-elizabeth-katie-edwards

"]A girl and boy aged 15 have been sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in detention for murdering a mother and daughter as they slept in their beds.
The teenagers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, stabbed and smothered Elizabeth Edwards, 49, and her daughter Katie, 13, to death at their home in Spalding, Lincolnshire, on 13 April this year. They then shared a bath, had sex and watched the Twilight vampire movies. Both were 14 at the time of the killings. They are believed to be the UK’s youngest ever double-murderers.
Sentencing both to life, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave told a packed courtroom at Nottingham crown court that the killings were “a terrible crime with few parallels in modern criminal history”.
The murders had been “brutal ... almost in the form of an execution”, the judge said. He told the pair: “Both of you are perfectly intelligent and knew exactly what you were doing – either of you could have backed out at any time but you were selfishly determined to do it together.” They had “revelled” in their actions, the judge added.
Neither the boy nor the girl reacted as the sentence was delivered. As the judge spoke, a family member wept quietly in the public gallery."

Is this a fair and just sentence?

by Guest Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:34 pm

If it was established that they understood the gravity of the offence but regardless willfully committed it then they must pay for their crime.

by eddie Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:35 pm

Absolutely a fair and just sentence, but I'd like to see them counselled and put into some psychiatric care for some of their stay, to find out why this happened.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:00 pm

I think it's fair.
Maybe one day they will have been rehabilitated enough to fit back into society.
The girl was said to be the ringleader in this crime, the boy was apparently a young violent thug, the two together were lethal.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:02 pm

It's always shocking when kids kill....this is the first double murder by children in the UK.

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:02 pm

It was an absolutely appalling crime, and I can't see how anyone can possibly excuse them or say that they need help. It was just pure evil.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It was an absolutely appalling crime, and I can't see how anyone can possibly excuse them or say that they need help. It was just pure evil.

What would you do to them then....just let them rot for 20 years?

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:05 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It was an absolutely appalling crime, and I can't see how anyone can possibly excuse them or say that they need help. It was just pure evil.

What would you do to them then....just let them rot for 20 years?

For longer than that.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

What would you do to them then....just let them rot for 20 years?

For longer than that.

No doubt some would agree with you, but they will probably be released at some point in the future.
If they have not been helped to come to terms with what they did and why they did it, and helped to fit back into society, they will be a bigger danger then than they are now.
They are kids....there must be some hope.

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:33 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

For longer than that.

No doubt some would agree with you, but they will probably be released at some point in the future.
If they have not been helped to come to terms with what they did and why they did it, and helped to fit back into society, they will be a bigger danger then than they are now.
They are kids....there must be some hope.

It's a shame there was no hope for the 13-year old girl they murdered before celebrating.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:41 pm

These two kids haven't been named because of their age. Did the law change after Thomson and Venables were publicly named after they were sentenced?

by Raggamuffin Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:45 pm

Syl wrote:These two kids haven't been named because of their age. Did the law change after Thomson and Venables were publicly named after they were sentenced?

A court can lift reporting restrictions. After the consequences of naming Thompson and Venables, perhaps it's not a good idea.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:These two kids haven't been named because of their age. Did the law change after Thomson and Venables were publicly named after they were sentenced?

A court can lift reporting restrictions. After the consequences of naming Thompson and Venables, perhaps it's not a good idea.

Probably a lot cheaper in the long run too.
If they are not named new identities don't have to be manufactured when they do come out in the future....in theory anyway.

by eddie Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:57 pm

Don't you think people can change, rags?

by Tommy Monk Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:59 pm

Truly shocking...

Sound like psychopaths.

I'm sure long term and intensive psychological investigations/assessments will be happening...

Named or not... both will still be given new identities if/when freed in 20 years...

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:28 am

eddie wrote:Don't you think people can change, rags?

Change? If they had never been caught, they probably wouldn't have murdered anyone else, so whether they can change or not isn't the point. The underlying sympathy for these two murderers on here is a bit disturbing IMO.

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:31 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Don't you think people can change, rags?

Change? If they had never been caught, they probably wouldn't have murdered anyone else, so whether they can change or not isn't the point. The underlying sympathy for these two murderers on here is a bit disturbing IMO.

If you had the opportunity, would you execute them yourself?

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:13 am

They might have carried on murdering other people until they did get caught...

If there should be a death penalty then these two are the type who should get it...

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:13 am

Bae wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Change? If they had never been caught, they probably wouldn't have murdered anyone else, so whether they can change or not isn't the point. The underlying sympathy for these two murderers on here is a bit disturbing IMO.

If you had the opportunity, would you execute them yourself?

As you know, I don't approve of the death penalty. Perhaps I should ask if you would have executed the two victims yourself if you'd had the opportunity, the way these two killed them?

by eddie Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:24 am

They're two very young kids, almost teens, there could be many underlying causes for their behaviour.

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:38 am

They are psychopathic murderers!!!

Not 2 naughty little children caught bunking off or nicking some sweets etc...

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Truly shocking...

Sound like psychopaths.

I'm sure long term and intensive psychological investigations/assessments will be happening...

Named or not... both will still be given new identities if/when freed in 20 years...

I'm not sure how the law works re underage children and crimes. If it's up to the judge I think they could be named now, if not I think they can be named publicly when they reach the age of 18.
Yes they will be given new identities, they will have to be, just as other children who have murdered in the past have been.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Don't you think people can change, rags?

Change? If they had never been caught, they probably wouldn't have murdered anyone else, so whether they can change or not isn't the point. The underlying sympathy for these two murderers on here is a bit disturbing IMO.

I don't see sympathy for them on here, I definitely feel sympathy for their victims and their families....how could anyone not, an innocent mum and child slaughtered in the most horrific way.

There can be no sympathy for the kids who carried out the crime, but trying to make them understand why, then to come to terms with what they have done, and ultimately feel remorse, seems to be a far more humane way of treating a youngster than simply letting them rot and disintegrate for 20 plus years.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:They might have carried on murdering other people until they did get caught...

If there should be a death penalty then these two are the type who should get it...

So you would hang children then?

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:04 pm

No... I would shoot them...!

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No... I would shoot them...!

No you wouldn't. Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:11 pm

Bloody well would!

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:17 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Bloody well would!

How could you justify sentencing two children to death?
Would you wait till they were 18?....by then they could be completely different people.

I do believe in the death penalty for the worst of crimes, if a person has no chance of ever being freed, Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, Huntley etc....but not kids....never.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:29 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Bloody well would!

How could you justify sentencing two children to death?
Would you wait till they were 18?....by then they could be completely different people.

I do believe in the death penalty for the worst of crimes, if a person has no chance of ever being freed, Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, Huntley etc....but not kids....never.

PC crap! What the fook do you have to justify? They killed two people. It's like you people close your eyes and dream of children playing in a playground on a spring day?? The are fookin' bloody murderers. No dreams...no PC. If you are gong to have the death penalty, there could be no better candidates. Shoot 'em, fcs.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

How could you justify sentencing two children to death?
Would you wait till they were 18?....by then they could be completely different people.

I do believe in the death penalty for the worst of crimes, if a person has no chance of ever being freed, Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, Huntley etc....but not kids....never.

PC crap! What the fook do you have to justify? They killed two people. It's like you people close your eyes and dream of children playing in a playground on a spring day?? The are fookin' bloody murderers. No dreams...no PC. If you are gong to have the death penalty, there could be no better candidates. Shoot 'em, fcs.

PC crap because I would find it abhorrent to sentence 2 kids to death??....I also find it pretty abhorrent that so called civilised people could see any justification in doing it.

No one is looking at these kids through rose coloured glasses....they are murderers and I don't see anyone saying differently.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:03 pm

eddie wrote:They're two very young kids, almost teens, there could be many underlying causes for their behaviour.

They were 14. Do you think that's too young to know that you shouldn't murder anyone, let alone a girl who's even younger, and then celebrate doing so? You could say there are underlying causes for the behaviour of any murderer. How about Brady and Hindley? Perhaps there were underlying causes for what they did too, and they should have been given a chance and been "rehabilitated". After all, the possible underlying causes don't suddenly go away once one reaches adulthood.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:09 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Change? If they had never been caught, they probably wouldn't have murdered anyone else, so whether they can change or not isn't the point. The underlying sympathy for these two murderers on here is a bit disturbing IMO.

I don't see sympathy for them on here, I definitely feel sympathy for their victims and their families....how could anyone not, an innocent mum and child slaughtered in the most horrific way.

There can be no sympathy for the kids who carried out the crime, but trying to make them understand why, then to come to terms with what they have done, and ultimately feel remorse, seems to be a far more humane way of treating a youngster than simply letting them rot and disintegrate for 20 plus years.

They already understand why they did it. They planned it, and they hung around long enough afterwards having a bath and watching some films. They didn't do it by accident, or in a panic, or anything like that. The girl even tried to claim diminished responsibility! Why does it matter that they're young? They showed no remorse at all, and they'll be out when they're 35 - young enough to have a life, unlike the two people they tortured and murdered.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:09 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

For longer than that.

No doubt some would agree with you, but they will probably be released at some point in the future.
If they have not been helped to come to terms with what they did and why they did it, and helped to fit back into society, they will be a bigger danger then than they are now.
They are kids....there must be some hope.

I'm not sure about that. The nature of the crime was appalling, and their cavalier attitude even worse. You know, psycho's are born as well as made.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:10 pm

Bae wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Change? If they had never been caught, they probably wouldn't have murdered anyone else, so whether they can change or not isn't the point. The underlying sympathy for these two murderers on here is a bit disturbing IMO.

If you had the opportunity, would you execute them yourself?

if they'd slaughtered your wife and daughter, would you?

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:13 pm

They should be shot.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

They should be shot.

That solves nothing though. It doesn't bring the victims back and contrary to your knee jerk statement would do little to assuage the grief of the victims' loved ones. It would just create more savagery and negativity. Life for people like this should be life. They should be made work in compassionate situations, and do some good. If that fails, then they're probably beyond redemption.

by Tommy Monk Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:41 pm

No... shooting is quicker, easier and cheeper... after a few years left rotting that is...

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:47 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

No doubt some would agree with you, but they will probably be released at some point in the future.
If they have not been helped to come to terms with what they did and why they did it, and helped to fit back into society, they will be a bigger danger then than they are now.
They are kids....there must be some hope.

I'm not sure about that. The nature of the crime was appalling, and their cavalier attitude even worse. You know, psycho's are born as well as made.

I don't know that psycho's are born.
I think people will develop the personality they are born with, but I also think the way a baby or child is treated can influence greatly how they will act whilst they are young.
I also think the people they come into contact with can have a great effect....if these kids had never met and fed off each others fantasies they possibly would never have killed anyone.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:56 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I don't see sympathy for them on here, I definitely feel sympathy for their victims and their families....how could anyone not, an innocent mum and child slaughtered in the most horrific way.

There can be no sympathy for the kids who carried out the crime, but trying to make them understand why, then to come to terms with what they have done, and ultimately feel remorse, seems to be a far more humane way of treating a youngster than simply letting them rot and disintegrate for 20 plus years.

They already understand why they did it. They planned it, and they hung around long enough afterwards having a bath and watching some films. They didn't do it by accident, or in a panic, or anything like that. The girl even tried to claim diminished responsibility! Why does it matter that they're young? They showed no remorse at all, and they'll be out when they're 35 - young enough to have a life, unlike the two people they tortured and murdered.

I know they did all that, it was horrendous and evil. They showed no remorse but that doesn't mean they never will.
They may not be free when they are 35 either, IF there is no hope for them they should never be freed, but if they are helped to understand the reasons why they did what they did so they can undo the evil (or whatever it is inside them) maybe one day they will be fit to re enter society.

Remember Mary Bell? She acted in the most horrendous way murdering 2 little boys.
She was freed after serving her sentence and has never committed another crime.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:59 pm

It's not just the murder though is it? Even if you excuse them murdering someone as part of some kind of weird fantasy, surely you can't excuse their behaviour afterwards. Surely you would expect even a disturbed individual to feel some kind of guilt, or panic, or distress. These two didn't, and that's what's sick about the whole thing. The girl tried to excuse herself right until the end, but luckily the jury saw right through her.

by Guest Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:02 pm

Surely you would expect even a disturbed individual to feel some kind of guilt, or panic, or distress.

Nope, disturbed individuals show that they are disturbed by not exhibiting any of those emotions, that's what makes them classed as disturbed.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:03 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They already understand why they did it. They planned it, and they hung around long enough afterwards having a bath and watching some films. They didn't do it by accident, or in a panic, or anything like that. The girl even tried to claim diminished responsibility! Why does it matter that they're young? They showed no remorse at all, and they'll be out when they're 35 - young enough to have a life, unlike the two people they tortured and murdered.

I know they did all that, it was horrendous and evil. They showed no remorse but that doesn't mean they never will.
They may not be free when they are 35 either, IF there is no hope for them they should never be freed, but if they are helped to understand the reasons why they did what they did so they can undo the evil (or whatever it is inside them) maybe one day they will be fit to re enter society.

Remember Mary Bell? She acted in the most horrendous way murdering 2 little boys.
She was freed after serving her sentence and has never committed another crime.

I don't think it's relevant whether they might commit another crime or not. Brady and Hindley probably wouldn't have committed another crime if they'd been released either. I'm talking about this crime, and it was so horrendous that seeing people talk about "hope" for these two is a bit icky. You don't seem to have any comprehension of the evil behind it, how they planned it, and how they celebrated afterwards.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I know they did all that, it was horrendous and evil. They showed no remorse but that doesn't mean they never will.
They may not be free when they are 35 either, IF there is no hope for them they should never be freed, but if they are helped to understand the reasons why they did what they did so they can undo the evil (or whatever it is inside them) maybe one day they will be fit to re enter society.

Remember Mary Bell? She acted in the most horrendous way murdering 2 little boys.
She was freed after serving her sentence and has never committed another crime.

I don't think it's relevant whether they might commit another crime or not. Brady and Hindley probably wouldn't have committed another crime if they'd been released either. I'm talking about this crime, and it was so horrendous that seeing people talk about "hope" for these two is a bit icky. You don't seem to have any comprehension of the evil behind it, how they planned it, and how they celebrated afterwards.

Well it is relevant Rags. One day they will most probably be freed, it will be relevant then.

Brady and Hindley were adults. I don't think you can compare the two.

Thankfully child killers are rare, but has there ever been a child murderer in this country that has not had a horrendous upbringing? It's not an excuse to say these kids had useless role models but it's one reason why they were so disturbed.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:17 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's relevant whether they might commit another crime or not. Brady and Hindley probably wouldn't have committed another crime if they'd been released either. I'm talking about this crime, and it was so horrendous that seeing people talk about "hope" for these two is a bit icky. You don't seem to have any comprehension of the evil behind it, how they planned it, and how they celebrated afterwards.

Well it is relevant Rags. One day they will most probably be freed, it will be relevant then.

Brady and Hindley were adults. I don't think you can compare the two.

Thankfully child killers are rare, but has there ever been a child murderer in this country that has not had a horrendous upbringing? It's not an excuse to say these kids had useless role models but it's one reason why they were so disturbed.

It's not a good reason to murder someone. It's a good reason to be upset, or to feel inferior, or to feel isolated, but it's not a good reason to stab someone several times and then celebrate doing so and try to excuse yourself. It's just not.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:18 pm

I don't really get why people make such a distinction between a murderer who is over 18, and one who is 14, for example. Unless someone is literally too young to understand death, ie, a kid of two or three, I just don't see a difference.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well it is relevant Rags. One day they will most probably be freed, it will be relevant then.

Brady and Hindley were adults. I don't think you can compare the two.

Thankfully child killers are rare, but has there ever been a child murderer in this country that has not had a horrendous upbringing? It's not an excuse to say these kids had useless role models but it's one reason why they were so disturbed.

It's not a good reason to murder someone. It's a good reason to be upset, or to feel inferior, or to feel isolated, but it's not a good reason to stab someone several times and then celebrate doing so and try to excuse yourself. It's just not.

I didn't say it was a good reason to murder, I said it was one reason why they were so disturbed.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:20 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not a good reason to murder someone. It's a good reason to be upset, or to feel inferior, or to feel isolated, but it's not a good reason to stab someone several times and then celebrate doing so and try to excuse yourself. It's just not.

I didn't say it was a good reason to murder, I said it was one reason why they were so disturbed.

You don't know anything about their upbringing though, or do you?

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:23 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't really get why people make such a distinction between a murderer who is over 18, and one who is 14, for example. Unless someone is literally too young to understand death, ie, a kid of two or three, I just don't see a difference.

A child of 14 cant consent to have sex, or vote, or drive a car, marry, drink and so on, a person over 18 can.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:25 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't really get why people make such a distinction between a murderer who is over 18, and one who is 14, for example. Unless someone is literally too young to understand death, ie, a kid of two or three, I just don't see a difference.

A child of 14 cant consent to have sex, or vote, or drive a car, marry, drink and so on, a person over 18 can.

So what? A person of 14 still knows what murder is, and they can commit murder. You're still defending those two, and I have no idea why. I think it's a bit sick.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I didn't say it was a good reason to murder, I said it was one reason why they were so disturbed.

You don't know anything about their upbringing though, or do you?

As much as anyone who read the reports.
The judge took into consideration that "Both had troubled upbringings"

by Sponsored content