Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)aaapublished in(发表于) 2013/12/12 9:30:03 Slam the infant girl was not subjected to any coercive measures in Chongqing hot
The angels are Natural Born Killers
More recently, in Chongqing's "10-year old girl beaten 1 half years old boy and be dropped from the 25-floor causing serious bodily injury" events, people in this chaotic feeling "why are children so crazy right now."
Afterwards, involving a girl is only 10 years old, before the legal age of criminal responsibility (provided in the first criminal law enacted in 1979, 14 years old "minimum age"), the public security organs shall not state criminal case investigation. Involved girls were brought up by their mother from the "right and wrong". Poor but due to the nature of the event and dropped baby girl without any penalty and any coercive measures has sparked heated debate.
A lot of people are guessing as to what factors led to the girl so far, cruel act it? Judicial authorities and society, and what to do to cope with these evil child?
Recalling that two similar cases abroad, maybe you can give us some clues.
UK's youngest murderers boy a and boy b
Talk about such cases, most notably when the number zhanmusi·patelike·baerjie (James Patrick Bulger) case.
On February 12, 1993, 3 years with James and his mother came to the United Kingdom a Bootle shopping centre, then ran away. Distraught family members early warning, but when the police found him, was the body of an incomplete.
James of died shaped rather miserable: he face Shang was people poured has blue paint, first body was stone, and bricks more Department hit hurt, subsequently and was people with a root about 10 kilograms of iron in head repeatedly combat (its head of scars up to 42 Department, but are not mortally wounded), mouth in also plug full has battery; last, he was people put in tracks Shang, was a car Gallop and to of train grind rolling into has two cut.
The news came out, throughout the United Kingdom were very angry, innocent children were brutally murdered, it is extremely evil, Sin cannot be pardoned. Police also called for providing people familiar with leads, full investigation is proceeding.
Surveillance video from the Mall, is a little older two children James holding hands away; in addition, several witnesses saw 3 kids together to Liverpool railway. These clues together, finally, arrested the two suspects, and they are all children.
For the protection of minors, both suspects before the trial court referred to as "boy a" and "b boys" at the time of only 11 years old.
As the trial proceeds, and context of the case became clear, but even more astonishing: two of the accused and the victim little James, who did not know each other, neither adults instigate in advance, there is no clear plan for; the other day, when they are just petty theft at the Mall, just saw this cute little babies, was at that moment suddenly ill read.
In the course of the trial, they all kept quiet, so the Court cannot understand their exact motives. However, on the scene, the murder weapon, fingerprints found on the remains of victims, they contaminated clothing of blue paint and so exhibits, as well as up to 20 hours of interrogation recordings (two statements at the police station), or will they lock. Eventually, the two men were found guilty by the Court, became the 20th century, the United Kingdom's youngest murderers. Both were sentenced to detention (that sentence is not a fixed penalty may serve for life, or some time after being paroled), at least a 10-year sentence.
Subsequently, possibly because of too much pressure from the public, two photographs and names of release by the Court, the public only knew the two men called qiaoen·weinabuersi (Jon Venables) and luobote·tangpusen (Robert Thompson).
For humanitarian reasons, in order to meet the requirements of law, two people were sent to two juvenile correctional facilities for education and reform. According to reports, the two men performed well in prison, passed the a-level exams (equivalent to the copy). In order to alleviate their psychological pressure, they were allowed to go shopping once a month or watch a sports game, Jon and even took a trip to Wales for a short trip, can say that the transformation process is quite user-friendly.
Parents of victim James, only to be hurt so deep in this case, divorced soon after the judgment.
Surprising is that on appeal, in 1999, the European Court of human rights found that "on the trial of the two accused is unjust, because they are too young to understand various judicial proceedings on the adult courts". Although this finding for the United Kingdom's justice system does not impose binding, but still contributes directly to the United Kingdom Court of appeal in the decision in 2001, "given the two men no longer have social harmfulness, granted parole." In other words, they only 8 years in prison for his cruel crimes, stop by and also completed a high school education.
Just when they had been forgotten by public, 2010, United Kingdom released news that the Ministry of Justice, qiaoen·weinabuersi and was sent back to prison because of violation of parole. Originally, the prison, and committed substantial resources in the justice sector, let them change my name, hidden past of "black history", expect them to get rid of baggage, a fresh start. But those efforts apparently Pearl cast: Jon was later charged with possession, distribution of child pornography, chat rooms posing as a mother of an 8 year old daughter trying to sailing and exchange of this kind of pornography, he later was sentenced to two years. Court also determined that he had drunk in street fights with people before and has been warned for possession of cocaine, is a real problem child.
It is clear that arrangements of the judiciary has not been able to replace Venables out, but was relentlessly mocked by his behavior. After this case was adapted for the film of the boy a, theaters public again after heated debate. Penalties for minor offenders, whether is too light or too heavy? Or rather, society for their forgiveness, it has gone too far?
Mary's redemption
Mary's story is an example to the contrary.
Mali·fuluola·Beier (Mary Flora Bell), was born in 1957 in United Kingdom, Newcastle. Her mother gave birth when she was 17 years old, is a sex worker. Her mother does not know who her father is, is sleepwalk in Bili·Beier on the head. Billy was a professional thief, she was going to jail for armed robbery shortly after he was born.
Thus, Mary's childhood was very poor: her mother was out of town, "work", not only failed to give her proper care, but either beat or scold, even forced her to engage in paid sexual services.
On May 25, 1968, the day before she was 11 years old my birthday, Mary in an empty House, strangled Martin Brown – a small boy 4 years old. Subsequently, she also broke into a nursery in Scotland, leaving behind a note, claimed responsibility for the death of Martin Luther King, but the police thought it was a prank, not to disregard it altogether.
In July of the same year, Mary Bell shot once again. This time, she was with another girl, 13-year old Nuoma·Beier act together, strangled bulaien·Hao 3 years old. They also insulted the remains of Brian: Mary with a knife in his arm has identified a "n" letter, Norma is scratched on the other arm, "m"; in addition, the two also cut off part of his hair with scissors, stabbed him in the leg, even cut off his penis. These brutal atrocities even crazy, "boy a" compared favourably. Of course, as the two men's statements conflict with each other, when the specific circumstances of, for example, exactly how the violence happened, who play a leading role, it's hard to figure out.
Two girls were soon arrested and trial in December of that year. In court, a doctor of Psychiatry, Mary Bell is the typical psychopath, but still have full capacity to act.
Marie was found guilty of murder, sentenced to life detention, rushed to reformatory education and reform of the Lancashire Red Bank, and Norma was acquitted. By coincidence, after 27 years, "boy a" qiaoen·weinabuersi be sent to custody.
In 1980, after serving 12 years, 23-year old Mary Bell out of jail, and start out with a new return to society.
Soon after, Mary Bell and her mother, Betty, and Joseph. While Betty when she is very bad, even after their prison will also be sold to tabloids published a letter Mary wrote to her, but Mary seemed to forgive her.
After 4 years, Mary has her own daughter. She has been hiding his past and have a good life, dutifully raising daughter daughter never knew her mother there was to forget the past. Mary, sometimes even brought his daughter to see Betty, their experience of happiness. That erstwhile little devil she stayed in jail forever, come out, is a moderate and tolerant new Mary.
In 1998, Mary's autobiographical novel of the silent cry (Cries Unheard) publication, sensational United Kingdom, which has brought considerable income to her, but let her back in the spotlight in the past. Soon her new identity was kicked by reporters and even daughter going out would have to be wrapped in sheets to escape the reporters filming.
Already 15 years old daughter, chose to accept her in the past. "MOM, why didn't you tell me? "Her daughter said," you are still a child, smaller than I am now. ”
However, the public's attention, but truly, to Mary and her daughter has brought great hardship. If Mary is paying the price for that year's cruel violence continue, her daughter is innocently involved. To that end, she filed claims with the Court, and in 2003 the United Kingdom High Court support for himself and his daughters got a paper protective orders: any United Kingdom media, not allowing public reporting of Mary and her daughter's status and name, the protection order valid for life. In this case, that is persistent confidentiality for juvenile offenders after release identity practices, later also known as "Mary Bell orders of protection."
Of course, some people have expressed surprise about this. For example, victims that year Martin Brown's sister, said: "the victim wasn't (the Court) considered as well. No one cares about our family, how's it going? ”
In 2009, have reported that Mary's daughter became a mother, Mary Bell promoted to Grandma, she recalls dust of the past 52 years old, I do not know what will be feeling? At least, can say justice system transformation and success in the protection of her, what she really said goodbye to the past and return to society, also returned to one person would have a normal life.
Bad boys go from here?
In fact, the above two cases, children and adolescents are not isolated cases of malignant crime. According to United States Department of Justice Office of juvenile justice and juvenile delinquency prevention (OJJDP) data, in 2010, the full United States Court a total of 908 minors convicted of murder, 7% per cent of those convicted of murder, it is the result of the various aspects of crime prevention efforts. In the late 80 's, United States used to have one-third murder of minor offenders were involved in.
In other words, if on the world-wide, the minors to engage in crime, particularly vicious crime of violence, is not individual cases of, but one glaring problem.
But from these violent crimes, such as the two cases mentioned above, can also be seen how many underage children is different from the characteristics of juvenile delinquency.
First, differences in motives. Many minor offenders are impromptu, no exact motive (such as for financial gain, revenge on color, etc), and even can be said to be quite divergent thinking. This context can be construed as disregard for life, their cold-blooded cruelty, but also their subjective malignant is not deep, and there was no strong anti-social personality disorder, is likely to be recast as a normal personality alteration, education of the future.
Second, these children in growth of process in the, actually are has repeatedly bright up has "red" of dangerous signal, as truancy, and petty theft, and bullying beat companion or than themselves more small of children, and abuse small animal, abnormal moves, is these signal are was around of adults by ignored, only let they of surly acts a step step upgrade, eventually breed not back of consequences. In this sense, their moral guardians cannot shirk its responsibilities.
In addition, a minor crime, fully possible to use extreme violence, endangering the very large consequences, and possible escalation in normal bullying suddenly. Therefore, in order to avoid the occurrence of such cases, school administrators have to on a day-to-day basis, end to bullying behavior discovery, viewed as a highly important responsibilities, to apply the principle of zero tolerance of violence on campus, and keep being bullied students ask teachers for help channels, so as to identify on a timely basis.
Certainly, this on derivative out for "problem students" the shouldn't punishment of problem, author of personal views, is on those repeatedly bullying students, and has violence tendencies of students giving must term of observation period, if its guardian still unwilling to or cannot suppression its acts, on should timely Collaborative Justice, and social workers, sector intervention, even take must of forced measures (as into special education school, and specifies social workers guardian,), avoid to they themselves and around of minor people brings more big of hurt.
Finally, from the perspective of education and reform, it should be said that most underage offenders can make, good education, society for some tolerance and protection measures are reasonable. After all, the community needs to be a good citizen to comply with the order, rather than a hostile society of released persons. In this connection, the judiciary, community help, educational institutions, has put forward higher requirements, more resources must be invested by national construction; the emphasis continues to be placed on the school's daily education, early intervention program.
After all, the "worst schools are much stronger than the best prison", prevention of juvenile delinquency Act might have saved two or three families of great, had a very important significance to society.
Source: legal weekly
天使还是天生杀人狂
最近，在重庆发生的一起“10岁女童暴打1岁半男孩并将其从25楼扔下导致重伤”的事件，让国人在惊诧之余，也感慨“现在的小孩怎么这么疯狂”。
事后，因涉事女孩只有10岁，未到法定刑事责任年龄(我国1979年颁布的首部刑法中规定，14周岁为“最低刑事责任年龄”)，公安机关依法不予立刑事案件侦查。涉事女孩也由其母亲带离“是非之地”。但由于事件性质的恶劣以及摔婴女孩没有受到任何惩罚和任何强制措施引发了人们的热议。
很多人都在猜测，究竟是什么样的因素，才导致了这名女童会作出如此离谱、残忍的举动呢？司法机关和社会，又该做些什么，来应对这些心存邪恶的孩子？
回顾国外的两个类似案例，或许可以给我们一些启示。
全英最年轻杀人犯男孩A和男孩B
谈到此类案件，最著名的当数詹姆斯•帕特里克•巴尔杰(James Patrick Bulger)案。
1993年2月12日，不满3岁的詹姆斯和母亲一起来到英国布特尔的一个购物中心，随后就走失了。心急如焚的家人迅速报警，但当警方找到他时，已经是一具残缺不全的尸体了。
詹姆斯的死状颇为凄惨：他脸上被人泼了蓝色油漆，先是身上被石头、砖块多处砸伤，随后又被人用一根约10千克的铁棍在头部反复打击(其头部的伤痕多达42处，但都不是致命伤)，嘴里还塞满了电池；最后，他被人放在铁轨上，被一辆飞驰而来的列车碾轧成了两截。
消息一出，整个英国都愤怒了，天真无邪的孩子被如此残忍地杀害，实在是邪恶至极、罪无可赦。警方也号召知情人士提供线索，全力侦办此案。
从当时商场的监控录像看，是两名稍大一些的孩子将詹姆斯牵着手带走；此外，多位证人看见了3个孩子一起走向利物浦一处铁路。这些线索汇聚起来，最终，两名嫌疑人落网，而他们也还都是孩子。
当时出于对未成年人的保护，这两个嫌疑人，在判决之前被法庭称为“男孩A”和“男孩B”，案发时都仅有11岁。
随着审判的进行，案件的脉络逐渐清晰起来，但却更加让人诧异：两名被告人和被害人小詹姆斯素不相识，事先既没有成年人教唆，也并无清晰的计划；那天，他们只是在商场小偷小摸时，恰好看到了这个可爱的小婴儿，就在那一瞬间突然起了歹念。
在庭审过程中，他们都保持了沉默，所以法庭也无法了解他们确切的犯罪动机。但是，在现场、凶器上、被害人遗体上找到的指纹，他们的衣物上所沾染的蓝色油漆等物证以及长达20小时的讯问录音(两个人在警察局的供述)，还是将他们牢牢锁定。最终，两个人都被法庭判决有罪，成为了20世纪以来，全英国最年轻的杀人犯。两人均被判处终身拘禁(即刑期不固定的刑罚，可能服刑终身，也可能一段时间后被假释)，至少要服刑10年。
随后，可能由于来自公众的压力太大，两个人的照片和姓名被法庭准许公开，公众才知道这两个人分别叫做乔恩•维纳布尔斯(Jon Venables)和罗伯特•汤普森(Robert Thompson)。
出于人道的考虑，也为了符合法律的要求，两个人后被分别送到两所少年罪犯管教机构进行教育改造。据报道，两个人在狱中表现良好，都通过了A-level考试(相当于我国的高中会考)。为了减缓他们的心理压力，他们每个月能获准外出购物一次或观看体育比赛，乔恩甚至还去威尔士短途旅行了一趟，可以说改造过程是相当人性化的。
而被害人詹姆斯的父母，却被本案伤害得太深，在判决之后很快离婚。
令人惊讶的是，经过上诉，欧盟人权法庭在1999年作出裁定，“对两名被告人的审讯是不公正的，因为他们年纪太小，理解不了成人法庭上的各种司法程序”。尽管这一裁定对于英国的司法体系并无强制约束力，但依然直接促成了英国的上诉法院在2001年作出决定，“鉴于两人不再有社会危害性，准予假释”。换句话说，他们只为自己的残忍罪行坐了8年牢，顺道还完成了高中学业。
就在他们已经被公众逐渐淡忘时，2010年，英国司法部发布消息说，乔恩•维纳布尔斯又被送回监狱服刑了，原因是违反假释规定。本来，在出狱之后，司法部门动用大量资源，让他们改名换姓、隐藏过去的“黑历史”，期望他们能甩掉包袱重新做人。但这些努力显然是明珠投暗：乔恩后来被指控持有、传播儿童色情图片，还在聊天室中伪装成一个8岁女儿的妈妈，试图与同好交换这类色情作品，他后来因此又被判刑两年。法庭还查明，他之前曾在酒后与人在街头斗殴，还曾因持有可卡因被警告过，可谓不折不扣的问题少年。
很显然，司法机关的一番苦心安排，并未能换来维纳布尔斯的洗心革面，反倒是被他的行为无情嘲讽。这一案件后被改编为电影《男孩A》，上映后再次引发公众热议。对于未成年罪犯的刑罚，究竟是太轻了还是太重了？或者说，社会对他们的宽恕，是不是太过头了？
玛丽的救赎
玛丽的故事，则是一个相反的例子。
玛丽•弗洛拉•贝尔(Mary Flora Bell)，1957年出生于英国的纽卡斯特。她的母亲生她时才17岁，是一名性工作者。她的母亲也不清楚到底谁是她的父亲，就稀里糊涂地算在了比利•贝尔头上。比利则是一名惯偷，在她出生后不久就因持械抢劫去坐牢了。
于是，玛丽的童年过得非常糟糕：她的母亲经常去外地“工作”，不仅没能给予她应有的照顾，反而非打即骂，甚至逼迫她也从事有偿性服务。
1968年5月25日，在她11岁生日的前一天，玛丽在一处空房子里，勒死了一名小男孩——4岁的马丁•布朗。随后，她还闯入了苏格兰一个托儿所，留下了一张纸条，声称对小马丁的死亡负责，但警方当时认为这不过是个恶作剧，没有加以理会。
同年7月，玛丽•贝尔再次出手。这次，她是和另一个女孩——13岁的诺玛•贝尔一起行动，勒死了3岁的布莱恩•豪。她们还对布莱恩的遗体进行了侮辱：玛丽用小刀在他的胳膊上划出了一个“N”字母，诺玛则在另一只胳膊上划了“M”字母；另外，两人还用剪刀剪掉了他一部分头发、戳伤了他的腿，甚至剪断了他的阴茎。这些残酷甚至疯狂的暴行，与“男孩A”相比，算是有过之而无不及了。当然，由于两人的口供彼此抵牾，当时的具体情形，比如到底暴行是如何发生的、谁起主导作用等，已经很难弄清。
两个女孩很快被捕，并在当年12月接受审判。法庭上，精神病学医生证明，玛丽•贝尔是典型的精神变态，但依然有完全的行为能力。
玛丽被裁定犯有谋杀罪，被判处终身拘禁，送往兰开夏郡的红岸管教所教育改造，而诺玛则被宣告无罪释放。巧合的是，27年后，“男孩A”乔恩•维纳布尔斯也是被送到这里羁押的。
1980年，在服刑12年之后，23岁的玛丽•贝尔走出了监狱，并以新的身份开始回归社会。
不久之后，玛丽•贝尔与她的母亲贝蒂相认。尽管贝蒂当年对她非常糟糕，在其坐牢后甚至还将玛丽写给她的信件卖给小报发表，但玛丽似乎真的原谅了她。
4年之后，玛丽有了自己的女儿。她一直掩藏着自己的过去，好好地生活，尽职地抚养着女儿；女儿也一直不知道自己的妈妈曾经有那么不堪回首的往事。玛丽有时甚至还会带着女儿去见贝蒂，让其体会天伦之乐。那个昔日的小恶魔被她永远地留在了监狱里，走出来的，是一个温和而宽容的新玛丽。
1998年，玛丽的自传体小说《无声啜泣》(Cries Unheard)出版，一时轰动英国，这为她带来了可观的收入，却也让她的过去重新放在聚光灯下。她的新身份很快被记者踢爆，甚至女儿出门时都要用床单裹头，以躲避记者们的跟拍。
此时已经15岁的女儿，却选择了接受她的过往。“妈妈，你为什么不告诉我呢？”她的女儿说道，“你那时还是个孩子，比我现在还要小啊。”
然而，公众的关注，却实实在在地给玛丽和她的女儿带来了极大的困扰。如果说玛丽是在为当年的残忍暴行继续付出代价的话，她的女儿则完全是无辜地被牵扯进来。为此，她入禀法院，并于2003年获得英国高等法院的支持，为自己和女儿争取到了一纸保护令：任何英国媒体，都不允许公开报道玛丽及其女儿现在的身份与姓名，该保护令终身有效。这一判例，即对未成年罪犯出狱后身份永久保密的做法，后来也被称为“玛丽•贝尔保护令”。
当然，也有人对此表示不解。比如，当年的受害人马丁•布朗的姐姐，就表示说：“被害人就根本不在(法庭)考虑之列。没有人关心我们的家庭怎么样了？”
2009年，有报道说玛丽的女儿也成了妈妈，玛丽•贝尔则升级为祖母，52岁的她此时回顾尘封往事，不知道会有怎样的感悟？至少，可以说司法体系对她的改造与保护获得了成功，她真正告别了过往，回归了社会，也回到了一个人应有的正常生活。
对恶童该何去何从？
实际上，上面两个案例，并非少年儿童恶性犯罪的孤例。据美国司法部青少年司法和预防青少年不良行为办公室(OJJDP)的数据，在2010年，全美国共有908名未成年人被法院裁定犯有谋杀罪，占到当年被定罪的谋杀犯的7%，这还是各方面预防犯罪努力的结果。在上世纪80年代，美国曾经有三分之一的谋杀案有未成年罪犯参与。
换句话说，如果放到世界范围来看，未成年人从事犯罪，特别是恶性暴力犯罪，已经不是个别的偶然案例，而是一个触目惊心的大问题。
但从这些暴力犯罪中，比如上面提到的两个案例，多少还是能看出未成年儿童犯罪中一些有别于成年人犯罪的特点来的。
首先，犯罪动机上的差异。很多未成年罪犯都是临时起意，并无确切的动机(如谋财、图色、报仇等)，甚至可以说是思维相当发散。这一方面可以解读为他们漠视生命、冷血残忍，另一方面却也说明其主观恶性不深，并没有强烈的反社会人格，是可能被日后的改造、教育重新塑造成正常人格的。
其次，这些孩子在成长的过程中，实际上都已经多次亮起了“红灯”的危险信号，如逃学、小偷小摸、欺凌殴打同伴或比自己更小的孩子、虐待小动物等反常举动，正是这些信号都被周围的成年人所忽视，才让他们的乖戾行为一步步升级，最终酿成不可挽回的后果。从这个意义上说，其监护人负有不可推卸的道义责任。
另外，未成年人的犯罪行为，完全可能出现使用极端暴力、危害后果很大的现象，并可能在普通的欺凌行为中突然升级。因此，为避免此类案件发生，学校的管理者就必须在日常工作中，把发现、制止欺负同学的行为当做一项高度重要的职责来看待，对校园内暴力实行零容忍原则，并保持被欺负学生向教师求助的渠道畅通，以便及时发现问题。
当然，这就衍生出对于“问题学生”该不该处罚的问题，笔者的个人意见，是对那些屡次欺凌同学、有暴力倾向的学生给予一定期限的观察期，如果其监护人依然不愿或不能制止其行为，就应该及时协同司法、社工等部门介入，甚至采取一定的强制措施(如转入特殊教育学校、指定社工监护人等)，避免给他们自己和周围的未成年人带来更大的伤害。
最后，从教育改造的角度来说，应该说，大多数未成年罪犯还是能够改造、教育好的，社会对其采取一定程度的宽容与保护措施也是合理的。毕竟，社会需要的是一个遵守秩序的好公民，而非一个仇视社会的刑释人员。在这方面，对司法机关、社区帮教力量、教育机构，都提出了更高的要求，也必须由国家投入更多的资源加以建设；而重点依然是放在学校的日常教育中，防范于未然。
毕竟，“最糟糕的学校也比最好的监狱要强得多”，预防一起少年犯罪行为，也许就是拯救了两到三个家庭的大好事，对社会有着相当重要的意义。
来源：法制周报
赞