National News Shamima Begum

[Marston Road yellow]

I struggle with the fact that we are dumping our problems on the other side of the world. Why should the Kurds have to deal with this?

It’s also going to come back and bite us when their kids grow up living in an effective caliphate.

We’ve genuinely left them in the desert hoping that they’ll go away, when experience tells us that they won’t.

 

[MustardYellow]

I struggle with the duplicity in all this. People aged 15 have not reached the age of majority. They can't vote, can't buy a bottle of wine, can't drive etc etc. That's because we collectively don't trust their judgement at that age and so can't take their actions as seriously as we would an adult.
Then a child does something we hate and we insist they are treated as if they were at the age of majority. Suddenly the goalposts have shifted.

Is is disingenuous. There are plenty of under 18s who have a better grasp of politics and governance than the majority of adults, but we don't let them vote. There are under 17s who could easily pass a driving test. The are under 18s who would responsibly buy alcohol and take it back to their parents without drinking it. Either we make allowances for all of them, or we keep consistent with our opinion that 15 year-olds who do ill-advised things with all the conviction, bravado and self-determination in the world are still not competent to be held to the same account as an adult.

I'd hate to be a kid now. Everything you do is recorded and analysed, and you have the ever increasing pressure of accountability for your actions. No wonder there's an increase in anxiety. And more likelihood of teenagers running away in spectacular circumstances.

The human brain isn't fully developed, specifically the prefrontal cortex which is responsible for cognitive abilities such as impulse control, weighing up risk, future planning etc. In fact, the brain is still considered 'adolescent' by phycologists till we reach 25.

 

[chuckbert]

This isn't a modern phenomenon - children are held to be culpable when their actions are so grossly beyond reason that they pose a threat to society.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson being the most obvious example.

You're missing the point. JV and RT were dealt with by the legal system, tried for their horrendous crimes and found to be a risk to society.
From what I see, Begum is being judged for running away to ISIS, not for any actual crimes she committed. The reaction is equivalent to insisting that JV and RT be imprisoned for truanting.

 

[QR]

This isn't a modern phenomenon - children are held to be culpable when their actions are so grossly beyond reason that they pose a threat to society.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson being the most obvious example.

Er, yeah, and it's what people want to happen* with her. You're all over them place on this one.

*Edit ie tried in a uk court.

 

[chuckbert]

The human brain isn't fully developed, specifically the prefrontal cortex which is responsible for cognitive abilities such as impulse control, weighing up risk, future planning etc. In fact, the brain is still considered 'adolescent' by phycologists till we reach 25.

Agreed (except that phycologists study algae, not humans!).

 

[Eric Blair]

Agreed (except that phycologists study algae, not humans!).

Impressive algae knowledge there @chuckbert

 

[holdsteady]

That's an incredibly simplistic way to view it. If life were as simple as people know something is bad so they don't do bad thing in question, crime/bad things wouldn't exist at all.

There are any number of reasons as to why people do what they do. As I said, you or I (and probably no one but her) know if she's remorseful, regretful and has changed. If she has or is willing to, then why shouldn't the chance be afforded? Because you don't like her?

I don't know her thankfully so whether I like her or not is by the by.

Society has to draw a line somewhere with what its judges to be extremely bad and dangerous, I would say cold blooded murderers, terrorists and torturers etc are always going to be on the other side of the line, if that is simplistic then so be it if that keeps innocent people safe.

I don't think its the end of the world if she does come back, I do think its ridiculous if she is allowed to wander about freely given her past, given the cost that will involve I can see why the government would rather she was someone else's problem, have to agree with others that unfortunately she is ours.

 

[chuckbert]

cold blooded murderers, terrorists and torturers etc

Don't you actually have to try people to decide if they are one of them? Or no?

 

[MustardYellow]

I don't know her thankfully so whether I like her or not is by the by.

Society has to draw a line somewhere with what its judges to be extremely bad and dangerous, I would say cold blooded murderers, terrorists and torturers etc are always going to be on the other side of the line, if that is simplistic then so be it if that keeps innocent people safe.

I don't think its the end of the world if she does come back, I do think its ridiculous if she is allowed to wander about freely given her past, given the cost that will involve I can see why the government would rather she was someone else's problem, have to agree with others that unfortunately she is ours.

All that is based on the assumption that someone who does any of the things you've mentioned can never be reformed or change. Someone can do something 'extremely bad and dangerous' and after the fact regret it, feel remorseful and actively work to change themselves, no?

My point wasn't about what people consider bad and how they determine how 'bad' something is, I was meaning that regardless of any of that people often aren't willing to offer others chances. Those who even commit the most minor of offences face huge obstacles in society, which is part of the reason so many revert back to their old ways.

 

[holdsteady]

Don't you actually have to try people to decide if they are one of them? Or no?

No problem with her going to court, equally I wouldn’t lose sleep if she was never allowed back in the country, she isn’t top of my list of people to feel sympathy for, that’s Des Buckingham.

 

[bashamwonderland]

You're missing the point. JV and RT were dealt with by the legal system, tried for their horrendous crimes and found to be a risk to society.
From what I see, Begum is being judged for running away to ISIS, not for any actual crimes she committed. The reaction is equivalent to insisting that JV and RT be imprisoned for truanting.

Is Begum not being dealt with by the legal system?

Her case has now been heard at every level excluding the Supreme Court. It has been put in front of the appropriate courts and decided in accordance with UK and international law.

"From what I see" is unfortunately not in line with the reality of the legal journey this case has been on.

 

[chuckbert]

Is Begum not being dealt with by the legal system?

Her case has now been heard at every level excluding the Supreme Court. It has been put in front of the appropriate courts and decided in accordance with UK and international law.

"From what I see" is unfortunately not in line with the reality of the legal journey this case has been on.

She's fighting to get back to the UK, not to avoid accountability for any crimes (yet - I'm not arguing that that might not come). The judgments that you are talking about are about her right to citizenship. That's why I made the analogy to truancy for your example of Venables and Thompson.

 

[bashamwonderland]

She's fighting to get back to the UK, not to avoid accountability for any crimes (yet - I'm not arguing that that might not come). The judgments that you are talking about are about her right to citizenship. That's why I made the analogy to truancy for your example of Venables and Thompson.

I'm struggling to find meaning in your comparison to what Begum has done, with a case of truancy. It's minimising the gravity of her actions to an absurd level.

 

[holdsteady]

All that is based on the assumption that someone who does any of the things you've mentioned can never be reformed or change. Someone can do something 'extremely bad and dangerous' and after the fact regret it, feel remorseful and actively work to change themselves, no?

My point wasn't about what people consider bad and how they determine how 'bad' something is, I was meaning that regardless of any of that people often aren't willing to offer others chances. Those who even commit the most minor of offences face huge obstacles in society, which is part of the reason so many revert back to their old ways.

I think most of us are willing to give second chances to people who have committed crimes, in my view once you have served your time then that should be it, except for those crimes that normal, right thinking, people consider beyond the pale. Certain crimes will require you to have some sort of supervision for ever as well, the sex offenders register for example, I don’t think any of us want convicted child molesters working in schools?

It’s what you have done that will govern people’s reaction to you after, that’s human nature.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I'm struggling to find meaning in your comparison to what Begum has done, with a case of truancy. It's minimising the gravity of her actions to an absurd level.

Lets assume for one moment that she is tried in a court for her crimes. What would the charges be?

 

[Marston Road yellow]

Lets assume for one moment that she is tried in a court for her crimes. What would the charges be?

Actually think this is the point and why they’ve binned off her citizenship. Maybe hate speech….. inciting terrorism, membership of a banned organisation. Not sure what they can do about her leaving the UK. All of it’s a bit woolly. Nothing in there that would give her serious time and most of it would be batted away by a half decent solicitor.

 

[bashamwonderland]

Lets assume for one moment that she is tried in a court for her crimes. What would the charges be?

How could we possibly know? Evidence retention in ISIS-controlled Syria was probably patchy at best. The main one which sticks in my head would be joining or belonging to a proscribed terrorist organisation.

But then I'm not a criminal prosecutor.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Actually think this is the point and why they’ve binned off her citizenship. Maybe hate speech….. inciting terrorism, membership of a banned organisation. Not sure what they can do about her leaving the UK. All of it’s a bit woolly. Nothing in there that would give her serious time and most of it would be batted away by a half decent solicitor.

I have neither the energy nor the nuance required to join in the debate, but this is exactly why they don’t want her back. She won’t be able to be banged up for long on the sort of charges they could make stick.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Actually think this is the point and why they’ve binned off her citizenship. Maybe hate speech….. inciting terrorism, membership of a banned organisation. Not sure what they can do about her leaving the UK. All of it’s a bit woolly. Nothing in there that would give her serious time and most of it would be batted away by a half decent solicitor.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. If the most serious crime was joining a terrorist organisation.....as a 15 year old, then as you say, I can't think that the punishment would be all that draconian, especially when you take mitigating factors into consideration.

Those mitigating factors being that the courts have already established in earlier rulings that there was "credible suspicion" that she was groomed and trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation. The court also found that there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state authorities in having allowed her to make the journey to Syria.

So all in all, not that much to throw at her and she then becomes a life long problem for the state.

 

[MustardYellow]

I think most of us are willing to give second chances to people who have committed crimes, in my view once you have served your time then that should be it, except for those crimes that normal, right thinking, people consider beyond the pale. Certain crimes will require you to have some sort of supervision for ever as well, the sex offenders register for example, I don’t think any of us want convicted child molesters working in schools?

It’s what you have done that will govern people’s reaction to you after, that’s human nature.

I think that's a separate point, because things like the sex offenders register are implemented and maintained by the police rather than it being something that is socially enforced. But even then, it's a fine balance between managing risk from those who may reoffend and allowing those who have acknowledged their crimes and are trying to change, to do so. I think working under the assumption that anyone who has committed a crime is an inherent threat and bound to reoffend is counterproductive.

And is it human nature, or is it just how we've been taught to behave? We're all born surrounded by judgment and those who judge others based on one solitary action, so maybe we just learn to be that way based on our environment? It's also partly a choice to be that way.