Summary

A 15-year-old boy was sentenced to life in prison for fatally stabbing a stranger, Muhammad Hassam Ali, after a brief conversation in Birmingham city center. The second boy, who stood by, was sentenced to five years in secure accommodation. Ali’s family expressed their grief, describing him as a budding engineer whose life was tragically cut short.

  • @Nuke_the_whales
    link
    English
    2518 days ago

    Sure but what’s even the point of a youth Justice system if you’re gonna say that and try every kid as an adult?

    • @CoffeeJunkie
      link
      English
      9518 days ago

      Youth justice is for the many nuanced & lower stakes scenarios. Stealing a car, breaking windows, shoplifting/petty theft, getting into fights, drug abuse/addiction, arson, criminal mischief, etc.

      Not stabbing strangers to death.

      You can’t equate the two.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      30
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      A youth justice system is for dealing with kids and teens who shoplift, or break noise ordinances, or run away from home, or abuse illicit substances, or any number of “boundary exploring” behaviors.

      A youth justice system is not the appropriate venue for dealing with “kids” so lacking in moral fiber as to deliberately and maliciously kill another person.

      The tolerance we have for “youthful indiscretion” does not and should not extend to this degree of violence. A youth justice system is not an appropriate venue for those determined to be fundamentally irredeemable.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1818 days ago

        You got the purpose of juvenile justice completely wrong: It is focussed more on rehabilitation and less on deterrence than the adult one because juveniles are still way more formable. Psychologists will descend upon him, and they’ll do the job his parents and neighbours didn’t (or couldn’t) do, a job which, at 15, noone is able to do on their own.

        those determined to be fundamentally irredeemable.

        That’s vile. Of course they’ll be unredeemable if you don’t give them the chance to redeem themselves.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1017 days ago

          My decision to give or withhold a second chance for this kid is irrelevant.

          He can try as hard as he wants to dig redemption out of his victim’s grave, but it’s simply not possible. Unless you’re alleging this kid is some kind of necromancer, he is fundamentally incapable of redemption.

          Save the pshrinks for kids who can be saved.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            717 days ago

            Even if you now demand a life for a life, which isn’t your call to make, it very much is possible: He might save a life that, in prison or dead, he could not have saved. He might save twenty, even a million.

            You’re plain and simply out for blood. An eye has been struck out, and you hide your desire to see the whole world blind behind “well, we don’t have to poke it out, we only have to sew it shut” (put him in prison vs. executing).

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              216 days ago

              There’s virtually no crime that can be physically redeemed, except for property crimes. Literally any other criminal offense creates an irredeemable injury. But that is exactly why nearly developed country, except for the USA have a redemption-type penal system. How do you measure redemption? Is r*pe redeemed after 4 or 50 years? It will never be for the victim.

              But what you can do is try to help everyone to not become criminal again. Because for one, guess what, they’re human too. They weren’t born criminal and aren’t criminal by nature once they’ve committed a crime. They have the right to live their life as much as the guy they killed. Once you have them forfeit their right to a free life, you commit a similar crime. One that in this case is done by objectifying them as an object rather than a subject.

              This thinking is the result of hundreds of years of philosophical thinking and seeing the result of your mindset being used by tyrannys.

              If they do not pose a danger to anyone anymore and have reformed then they are to be let go. Also in dubio pro reo.

              As for minors, their mind is still developing, they may have cognitively known that killing someone is wrong, but they have not yet accepted it as their own moral. Not knowing even the basics of cognitive development of children, I feel like there’s not even a point to discuss with you

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                116 days ago

                As for minors, their mind is still developing, […] Not knowing even the basics of cognitive development of children, I feel like there’s not even a point to discuss with you

                Are you sure you replied to the right guy because that’s an argument I made from the start.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              117 days ago

              He might save a life that, in prison or dead, he could not have saved. He might save twenty, even a million.

              Sure. He might save more lives than anyone who has ever existed. The chances of that happening are as good as winning the lottery, but hey, it could happen.

              He might also take another life. Or twenty. Or a million. The chances of that are substantially higher: far more people lose the lottery than win anything at all.

              The lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math. The best approach to playing the lottery is to lock up the money you would have used, and never let it out to buy a ticket.

              • Not a replicant
                link
                English
                316 days ago

                I find interesting that there’s a lot of “might”, “maybe” and “possible” when talking about rehabilitation, but not as much attention is paid to the “absolute” of another person’s death. Possibilities and potentials won’t bring that victim back to life.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                117 days ago

                If only he was now in a situation where he can be dealt with by specialists who can increase the odds substantially, and only be released if another set of specialists evaluate his mental state to have, as you put it, won the lottery.

                Throw away the keys and you worsen the odds. Also, break the European Convention on Human Rights, which demands that there be a light at the end of a tunnel for everyone: Because denying it, no matter how far away it may seem, amounts to taking away his freedom to free development of personality. In other words, he has a right to work towards redemption. To, if not arrive, at least begin to learn to walk into the right direction. Everybody does.

                Who are you to make a judgement on the future of his life while the blood on the knife hasn’t even dried yet? Can you predict the future? Make a judgement for the here and now, instead.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  017 days ago

                  In other words, he has a right to work towards redemption.

                  He can study necromancy for the rest of his life, and attempt to raise his victim from the grave. That’s his right. If he accomplishes it, we can talk about clemency.

                  His right to seek redemption isn’t being infringed upon by locking him up permanently. It is the permanence of the death he caused that is denying him redemption.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    217 days ago

                    One comment earlier you seemed to have accepted saving a life as possible repayment for a taken life, now you don’t, any more. What happened?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        A youth justice system is for dealing with kids and teens who shoplift, or break noise ordinances, or run away from home, or abuse illicit substances, or any number of “boundary exploring” behaviors.

        A youth justice system is not the appropriate venue for dealing with “kids” so lacking in moral fiber as to deliberately and maliciously kill another person.

        If you’re distinguishing by the type of offense instead of by age, you don’t have a youth justice system, you have a minor offense justice system.
        Distinguishing by the severity of the offense is already part of the justice system.
        Youth justice systems explicitly consider the age and maturity of the offender, not just what they did.
        Also I’m not sure why a 15-year-old is a kid in one of your examples and a “kid” in the other.

        The tolerance we have for “youthful indiscretion” does not and should not extend to this degree of violence. A youth justice system is not an appropriate venue for those determined to be fundamentally irredeemable.

        This is not about tolerating behavior, it’s about reforming people to become members of society instead of lifelong burdens for the justice system.
        Despite the severity of his action, brandishing kids as “irredeemable” not only throws away their entire future but also burdens everyone else with keeping them contained forever.
        That profits nobody.