The first part of where the maths don’t add up too easily here is that, whilst what North says is true, he seems to be suggesting that the system in place really respects this fact, and actively rehibilitates the criminal. In most of these cases, the culprits do not become so emblazened on our memory that in years down the track, upon their release, they are instantly recognisable and trapped by their past (as triggered by the memory of these images). Our memory just isn’t that good – to suggest that this is what affects the lives of those put through the prison system is convenient in itself, and also tries to pass some blame. Prison ruins people – we know that. Firstly, the experience of prison, quite naturally, is a psychological experience that clearly does not rehibilitate people, but destroy them. Being treated like an animal in a cruel environment of other criminals being treated like animals, is hardly rehibilitating, or pivoted around the psychological treatment of these offenders. It isn’t. The battle to regain a changed life, post-prison, is partly a psychological battle, and these criminals are thought mostly to be 17 – so they’re going to spend most of that sentence in the adult prison system. The experience of punishment itself will ruin their lives, not someone remembering them from a newspaper report (particularly in group crimes, where we do not become familiar with iconic images of an individual). The system does make the distinction with minors, when it comes to a criminal record, yes. But it still does not in any way outweigh that neither will the “record” left behind by media be the thing they battle, in years to come.

Furthermore, there is a more obvious reasoning to the public shaming – it is a large part of finding them. If those faces weren’t in papers across the country, there would be no pressure other than a conscience (which has a funny habit of disappearing, when faced with a future in prison). The obvious mindset of those involved in the attacks clearly suggest that a conscience is too much to ask for, anyway (if they had anything resembling one, they not only wouldn’t have committed the crimes, but certainly wouldn’t have made a public product out of them). As for the parents? Well, as we’ve heard, it has been suggested that some of them initially justified the behaviour – but even those who no doubt understand what is so wrong with what their child has done, are being placed in a tough position in respect to giving their children up to likely jail. I’ve got to be honest, if my child had committed a crime that would send them to prison, I wouldn’t be too forthcoming in handing over my child to that future. I bet you’d be the same. If your brother, or sister, or mother did something crimial – even though you are appauled by the act – would you effectively be responsible for placing them in prison? I think the parents “should” give them up – but that’s all very well for me to say, from this position.

But, of course, we do need these little bastards caught, and in reality, without the revealing of their identity putting external pressure on them (and basically meaning that if they didn’t give themselves up, they’d simply be caught, anyway), we would never be in the situation we’re in today, with the group starting to turn themselves in (and be turned in by their parents). If you’ve raped somebody, and your face is in every paper in the country, then somebody, somewhere, is going to recognise you, and they’re going to turn you in. Any idiot knows that in this event, you’re better off doing that, yourself.

So it’s a difficult situation, but I must say, I personally – on this one, at least – feel the revealing of their identity is justified. I do understand where the ideology around privacy comes from, but each case is particular. And we do know, after all, that they did it, and, in fact, they wanted the notoriety – that was part of their behaviour. Karma’s a bitch. I’m completely against the revealing of identity (whether minor or adult) when someone is only accused, and not proven guilty. But these boys are there, on their own DVD, committing these acts. They wanted to be seen, and in the end, this is what apprehended them. It’s fine by me.

But North also said something else that caught my attention, today. He sighted the fact that the boys committed a crime on film – something that so many of us would seem so logically dangerous for one’s own safety – evidenced “how immature, how easily-led some of them might be, and that is the distinction the law makes for children and adolescents. Some of these people might be quite young and some of them might be quite easily led by stronger peer group pressure.” I disagree in regards to what the role of the filming suggests, but we will go into that, later.

 

First, let's think about how this aspect presents a fascinating duality in such a case, in the question of the double standard we have between an offender being technically an "adult" (over 18 years), or a "child" (under 18 years). The boys involved are now reported to be 16 and 17 years old. Children are, it goes without saying, innocent creatures of external forces. They are, to a great extent, what they are made by their world, and so, the idea is that we eleviate blame from them, so that responsibility can be passed onto those forces that “created” them. It’s important that we do recognise human beings as products of influence – it’s important to just so very many aspects of our lives, and our society. But in the legal system, we decide that 18 is some magical age, where suddenly – even though surely you are still the same creature “made” by the same forces as you were at five to midnight, when you were still 17 - one finally becomes autonomous and responsible. And admittedly, while there certainly isn’t a specific moment in time, in all fairness to the idea of law, it has to start somewhere. But the line is blurred, most certainly, and it’s an interesting question as to what constitutes that responsibility, and why we must suddenly be held accountable – even though it is conceded by the same system that we are products of influence, who are “made” as children. And I don’t have the answer to that. I am someone who has empathy for many that most people wouldn’t, and my position in psychology is that we do not comprehend the cause and effect of our nature – in fact, I think it’s connected to our lack of empathy and mankind’s horrible nack for being so inhumane to one another. But, that said, there has to be something done about those acting destructively to others. It’s a difficult confound.

But regardless of this law, do people actually understand the nature of these teenagers’ crime in regards to being a product of environmental influence? How can we understand the adult self as a product of a childhood when we were, yes, effectively “fashioned” by our guiding influences of life, if we cannot understand it in children who are being fashioned?

And the law may be in place to try to (however unsuccessfully, ultimately) “protect” children as excused on that basis, but society often cannot look into the real truth of that dynamic. We know it is the system’s belief, we know it’s an element – but this is why we see all this finger-pointing, and (as is the case already in this instance with the schools who have spoken out) declarations of innocence as a governing part of those boys’ crime. People cover their asses, and nobody likes very much to understand what is producing such behaviour in our kids – not if, heaven forbid, we could be part of the problem (and when we do lay the blame, we usually find some "other" to take it). As it is, one of the ironies of the legal system dividing children from adults is that it has only been in recent times that we have seen children – everyday children – starting to commit the kinds of crime that once would not have come up against the debate of minor versus adult law. Kids haven’t been raping each other for very long, that’s very new to our society. There has always been crime in adolescence, but the sexual explicitness and the violence of these crimes is increasingly severe. It’s the standard generational gap, in one way; except, it has now escalated – in a frightening burst of evolution – into something well and truly out of control. Once, kids didn’t go to school and shoot their schoolmates, and they didn’t take mentally challenged girls to the park and video them forcing her to perform oral sex, before urinating on her. Something is going on. Will we take a good look at what, exactly, that is?

And it’s many things, of course. But at the core of it is that children are living in a reality that is violent, sexual and – important, though sadly overshadowed by the nutty conservatives who argue for some things I agree with, but only through default – commercial, to an extent we’ve never seen before.

Part of this is technology. Technology is in some ways, a cause – it has allowed children to be influenced by things that could never reach them, before. When we were young, getting hold of a porno was rare and difficult. If we saw a handful over our adolescent lives, we were doing well. And those pornos were – even if they were “hardcore” – extremely “normal”. Now, kids jump online and bombard themselves with explicit beastiality, midget sex, depictions of rape, and so on. You can also watch violence – real violence. You don’t even have to be looking for it – but most are. And it is so easy, and so readily available, they are becoming dangerously desensitised to something they shouldn’t be. Teenagers are thrill-seekers, as much as they are experience-seekers. When they have access to a world whereby experiencing the more bizarre - the chance to experience extreme acts - becomes a game (and more importantly, a kind of addiction), then the bar is eventually raised so high, they arrive in a dangerous area. Every hit has to outdo the last - otherwise, what's the point? 

 

On filesharing programme, Limewire, you don’t even have to be looking for it, specifically. Spamming has now hit filesharing, and results – whether you like it or not – will offer you a smorgasboard of extreme, often illegal choices. Right now on Limewire, the most active downloads (up to and over 60 people downloading at a single time) feature charming videos such as;

“Older man fucks virgin teen in car anal rape!! XXX”

“Mom wakes to rape son – tabboo”

“Girl fucks horse! Sucks animal’s cock! XXX”

“Vanesa collection – rape 2 (illegal preteen underage rape!)”

“Street bums fighting (we gave bums $5 to kick shit out of each other!!)”

“Man inserts his head in a vagina! A MUST SEE!!”

“RAPE – a secretary raped by her boss – mass hardcore”

“Fantasy rape – 2 preteens gang raped in garage”

“I beat up a homeless man and steal his money! HILARIOUS!”

“Faces of death – snuff – a soldiers arm is ripped off! Real army footage!”

“SNUFF – vagina torture!”