Children who kill

Dear Sir - Are Wolff and McCall Smith attempting to redefine justice?
According to Judeo-Christian teachings (on which our system of law is
based), justice consists of two
principal parts. Firstly, restitution to the victim wherever possible,
and secondly punishment of the guilty. Any other consideration, however
well-meaning, is
necessarily of secondary importance. I include in this, those aspects
which Wolff and McCall Smith appear to think are the most important,
namely,
"...rehabilitation, education, and social integration...". They continue
to turn justice on its head by stating that, "Deterrence and punishment
are not rational
options..". However, true justice requires punishment for its own sake.
It doesn't need any utilitarian apology; it is absolutely essential.

In our culture, we punish people by restricting their freedom.
Sentencing is done on the principle that the punishment should fit the
crime. Herein, lies the legitimate debate about the length of sentence.
A hideous crime, such as the killing of a defenceless toddler by older
children, must be punished with a correspondingly
severe sentence. If it were not so, there would be no point in sending
children who kill to secure accommodation at all, would there? Surely,
Wolff and McCall Smith don't mean this?

The extraordinary nature of the crime and the emotion surrounding it,
should not cause us to abandon the firm foundations of cool-headed
justice.

Paul Shannon
Consultant Anaesthetist

Doncaster