Identical Circumstances
It's rather a good thing that there are schools in existence whose purpose it is to take in children who are considered to be socially problematic. Cevenol international school for children aged from 11 to 18, is evidently one of those schools. They specialize in taking in problem children. And, evidently, doing their best to normalize them while educating them.
A teacher and a hospital administrator whose 17-year-old son is undeniably a huge problem for society, brought their son to Cevenol international school. And the school generously accepted that 17-year-old boy as a student. Now, its headmaster has claimed in an interview: "We knew he had had problems with the law, but didn't know the nature of those problems."
They didn't? Why wouldn't they have enquired? Surely if parents approach such an institution it is an obvious signal that their child has not been able to adapt to the environment in an ordinary school. Perhaps he is a serious malefactor. Wouldn't any responsible school administrator seek to discover the background involved in any instance where a student is brought to them?
At the very least to determine that he would not present as a possible danger to their other students? For whom they most certainly have an obligation of security. It is one thing to be modestly discreet, another entirely to be careless with the well-being of those whom one is responsible for. And the parents of the young man, people with responsible positions themselves, they made no effort to disclose the reality?
In this particular instance, the 17-year-old boy is a rapist. He is also a vicious murderer. The private boarding school admitted the 17-year-old after he had spent four months in prison. Four months served, awaiting the trial for rape. This, evidently was not divulged during the admission interview.
He went further the second opportunity that was available to him; he selected a thirteen year old schoolmate. He lured her to a forest near the Cevenol international school to go mushroom picking. And there he raped her, murdered her and set her body on fire. And he admitted to having done all that, to the police.
"She was killed in an extremely violent and brutal fashion", explained the Clermont-Ferrand prosecutor. "He presented no danger, but psychiatry is not an exact science", he clarified further. The young man was awaiting trial for the rape of a 15-year-old former fellow student. "The circumstances were identical, except the victim (of the first attack) remained alive", said the prosecutor.
He presented as well-behaved and quiet. Psychiatrists had reached the conclusion after studying the young man that he posed no additional threat to those around him and was ready to be "re-inserted" and "re-adapted" to normal life. At which point he was released from detention before the trial, considered healed from a drug addiction.
And he was slated to receive regular psychiatric treatment. The 15-year-old girl who had survived described her ordeal to her mother: "From what my daughter told me, I felt that this would happen."
A teacher and a hospital administrator whose 17-year-old son is undeniably a huge problem for society, brought their son to Cevenol international school. And the school generously accepted that 17-year-old boy as a student. Now, its headmaster has claimed in an interview: "We knew he had had problems with the law, but didn't know the nature of those problems."
They didn't? Why wouldn't they have enquired? Surely if parents approach such an institution it is an obvious signal that their child has not been able to adapt to the environment in an ordinary school. Perhaps he is a serious malefactor. Wouldn't any responsible school administrator seek to discover the background involved in any instance where a student is brought to them?
At the very least to determine that he would not present as a possible danger to their other students? For whom they most certainly have an obligation of security. It is one thing to be modestly discreet, another entirely to be careless with the well-being of those whom one is responsible for. And the parents of the young man, people with responsible positions themselves, they made no effort to disclose the reality?
In this particular instance, the 17-year-old boy is a rapist. He is also a vicious murderer. The private boarding school admitted the 17-year-old after he had spent four months in prison. Four months served, awaiting the trial for rape. This, evidently was not divulged during the admission interview.
He went further the second opportunity that was available to him; he selected a thirteen year old schoolmate. He lured her to a forest near the Cevenol international school to go mushroom picking. And there he raped her, murdered her and set her body on fire. And he admitted to having done all that, to the police.
"She was killed in an extremely violent and brutal fashion", explained the Clermont-Ferrand prosecutor. "He presented no danger, but psychiatry is not an exact science", he clarified further. The young man was awaiting trial for the rape of a 15-year-old former fellow student. "The circumstances were identical, except the victim (of the first attack) remained alive", said the prosecutor.
He presented as well-behaved and quiet. Psychiatrists had reached the conclusion after studying the young man that he posed no additional threat to those around him and was ready to be "re-inserted" and "re-adapted" to normal life. At which point he was released from detention before the trial, considered healed from a drug addiction.
And he was slated to receive regular psychiatric treatment. The 15-year-old girl who had survived described her ordeal to her mother: "From what my daughter told me, I felt that this would happen."
Labels: Family, Sexism, Social-Cultural Deviations, Values
posted by Pieface @ 7:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home