Evil children: guaranteed to be evil adults or capable of changing?

Dudess

I know it depends on each case but I've just received one of those petition emails concerning Jamie Bolger's killers. I personally feel nothing but utter disgust towards Robert Thompson and Jon Venables and am of the view that if they could do that at 10 years of age they can only do worse now in adulthood (they are 25/26). Thompson was supposed to have been the main instigator, Venables was just playing along apparently. I suppose that happens - kids can be led astray by other kids. But what they did to Jamie was so unspeakable I find it mind-boggling that Venables didn't stand up to Thompson. But Thompson is probably the truly evil one - so do you think someone like him is capable of changing their ways or not? I believe Venables probably does feel remorse.
I personally doubt Thompson is capable of changing - I've heard so many times that those who hurt animals as kids go on to hurt humans as adults, so if that gem is true, well I wouldn't like to live near Thompson...

the dee

I agree that what they did was unspeakabley horrible. But they were 10 years old! They've spent their whole lives since in correction facilities. I know these places can have a bad influence on people, but I like to think that they have learned something, that they know what they did was wrong and that they would never do something like that again.

I have no way of knowing if they have changed or not, but I think it's unfair to make them pay for their whole lives for something they did as children. It's unfair to think that people can never change.

humanji

Dudess wrote: »

I know it depends on each case but I've just received one of those petition emails concerning Jamie Bolger's killers.

It's not the one that's about 5 years out of date and makes up a load of the "facts" in order to shock people into action?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dudess wrote: »

I personally doubt Thompson is capable of changing - I've heard so many times that those who hurt animals as kids go on to hurt humans as adults, so if that gem is true, well I wouldn't like to live near Thompson...

What are you basing this on? The rantings of a Sunday World jounalist and Joe Duffy? Have you seen the psychology evaluation of either man? Do you know what sort of supervision orders either one is subject to? have you tried to find out?

Perhaps you need to stop looking at the evil children and look at the evil society that creates them? With malicious gossip and hate-mongering...?

Where's the lo-ove?!

Latchy

What i find a bit disturbing is that Thomson has being in a relationship for several years and possibly married but his partner is not aware of his horrible past .So we are led to believe .

If true , imagine her horror if and when she finds out ?

Earthhorse

the dee wrote: »

I have no way of knowing if they have changed or not, but I think it's unfair to make them pay for their whole lives for something they did as children. It's unfair to think that people can never change.

I'm inclined to agree. Unless someone can produce proof positive that all adult personality traits are predictable from childhood then we have to assume people are capable of change. This is particularly true when children commit crimes in fact because so much behavioural and psychological development takes place during the teens and early adulthood.

WindSock

I don't think so. I imagine if I were ten, I could easily have killed a child. Now i work with them :eek:

Blisterman

I don't know if they're evil, but spending ages 10-21 in prison is bound to mess you up.

Crazy Christ

Don't believe in the concept of an 'evil person' but rather a person doing 'evil' acts.

Latchy

If all children were evil then they could all carry out such evil acts but there upbringing would have had a lot to do with it .Learning right from worng is one thing it's understanding the difference and being remorsefull for your actions is the thing .They are both on record as adults saying how remorsefull they are for what they did.

Dudess

humanji wrote: »

It's not the one that's about 5 years out of date and makes up a load of the "facts" in order to shock people into action?

Probably. Oh I deleted it immediately but it just reminded me of the case. Yes, that email is pure salaciousness.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What are you basing this on? The rantings of a Sunday World jounalist and Joe Duffy? Have you seen the psychology evaluation of either man? Do you know what sort of supervision orders either one is subject to? have you tried to find out?

Hey, I'm not claiming to know anything, I'm just asking people what their views are. I'm not an "Evening Heralder" (see Wayne O'Donoghue thread).

Beetlebum

WindSock wrote: »

I don't think so. I imagine if I were ten, I could easily have killed a child. Now i work with them :eek:

Would you mind elaborating please? If you were 10 you could easily kill a child?

humberklog

Dudess you started with a heraldism and ended on one too. Those kids aren't as evil as your opening gambit was nasty,ill informed and blindly judgemental. I'm lucky enough to have a 4y.o girl. At hollowe'en i dressed her up as eva braun and together with her 4y.o cousin dressed as adolf they made a lovely couple. Now they looked evil..

Dinter

I'd say spending your formative years in prison would fairly mess you up. Isn't that why we have Juvenile Liason Officers etc these days? So kids don't have to go straight into St Pats or something because it's thought now that detention can have more of a detrimental rather that reformative affect.

AngryBadger

I think we have to believe that after X number of years in the system both will be rehabilitated.

However I think if they commit even minor offences again they should be back in jail.

I also think both sets of parents should have been sent to jail.

Latchy

Depending on which roumor you belive venables and Thomson are either in Leeds Ireland or Australia at the cost of millions to the taxpayer, both with new identities but with the Athorities knowing there every move .

Dudess

humberklog wrote: »

Those kids aren't as evil as your opening gambit was nasty,ill informed and blindly judgemental.

Bullsh*t. You seem to be forgetting what they did to that little boy.

I'm lucky enough to have a 4y.o girl. At hollowe'en i dressed her up as eva braun and together with her 4y.o cousin dressed as adolf they made a lovely couple. Now they looked evil..

If that's not a troll I'll eat my hat.

Ross_Mahon

Changing the killers whole identity when they are released is a first step, they should be given a job and some sort of part time college course to keep their mind active, And to be given special counseling along with some meditation classes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dudess wrote: »

Bullsh*t. You seem to be forgetting what they did to that little boy.

You seem to be proving our point, here? Nasty, ILL-INFORMED, JUDGEMENTAL?

Ring any bells?

david1two3

Dudess wrote: »

I know it depends on each case but I've just received one of those petition emails concerning Jamie Bolger's killers. I personally feel nothing but utter disgust towards Robert Thompson and Jon Venables and am of the view that if they could do that at 10 years of age they can only do worse now in adulthood (they are 25/26). Thompson was supposed to have been the main instigator, Venables was just playing along apparently. I suppose that happens - kids can be led astray by other kids. But what they did to Jamie was so unspeakable I find it mind-boggling that Venables didn't stand up to Thompson. But Thompson is probably the truly evil one - so do you think someone like him is capable of changing their ways or not? I believe Venables probably does feel remorse.
I personally doubt Thompson is capable of changing - I've heard so many times that those who hurt animals as kids go on to hurt humans as adults, so if that gem is true, well I wouldn't like to live near Thompson...

supposed , apparently, I suppose, unspeakable, probably, Ive heard, depends, utter disgust, led astray, mind boggling. Oh and his name was James Bulger

Dudess

Just how exactly is it nasty or ill-informed or judgemental to condemn two kids for murdering a toddler? MURDERING - not accidentally killing like the Holohan/O'Donoghue case.
And I am bearing in mind that Venables was led astray and is probably full of remorse now.

LadyJ

Dudess wrote: »

I've heard so many times that those who hurt animals as kids go on to hurt humans as adults, so if that gem is true, well I wouldn't like to live near Thompson...

This is apparently true. However, it is my understanding that this would only apply to children who are not rehabilitated and rather to kids whose strange behaviour goes unnoticed or ignored until one day they butcher a child.

Kids are far more suceptable to rehabilitation while they are young. Adults prove to be more of a challenge.

Dudess

david1two3 wrote: »

supposed , apparently, I suppose, unspeakable, probably, Ive heard, depends, utter disgust, led astray, mind boggling.

Yeah exactly. I'm not stating, I'm speculating, I don't claim to be an expert, that's why I'm asking for opinions. Just like I've given mine - flawed as it may be. I know you'd LIKE me to be a Herald-reader type who thinks the case is just black and white but I'm not. I've been accused of being too PC on numerous occasions here.

Oh and his name was James Bulger

My mistake on the Bolger - I was convinced that was it. It even looks more correct to me than "Bulger". As for the Jamie thing, well yes, his parents always referred to him as "James", it was the gutter press that decided to christen him "Jamie" (similar to Maddy/Maddie) but in fairness, that's what we became more familiar with than "James".

Voodu Child

'Evil' children ? :rolleyes:

Dudess

Right so, poor, misunderstood, abandoned-by-society children - a society that drove them to torturing a small boy to death. Is that better?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dudess wrote: »

Just how exactly is it nasty or ill-informed or judgemental to condemn two kids for murdering a toddler? MURDERING - not accidentally killing like the Holohan/O'Donoghue case.
And I am bearing in mind that Venables was led astray and is probably full of remorse now.

It is ill-formed, nasty and judgemental to comment on the potential evil of ANYONE'S character when you've never met them or heard anything recent concrete about them.

Half of your posts admit to wild specualtion, for Heaven's sake!

Voodu Child

Dudess wrote: »

Right so, poor, misunderstood, abandoned-by-society children - a society that drove them to torturing a small boy to death. Is that better?

Much better actually.

We aren't even close to fully understanding and agreeing on the whole nature vs. nurture debate....and even touching on what we do know is waay beyond the typical AH discussion.

They had a fukced up childhood, and ended up doing fukced up things....but they were still only 10 years old FFS. If anything, they were much better canditates for rehabilitation than adult offenders.

Beetlebum

Jesus, get off Dudesses case everybody. She has a right to na opinion on this matter much as anybody else has. How is she being judgemental exactly? She is looking for opinions and an interesting discussion and people are being pedantic twats saying..oohhhh...you spelt his name wrong..

david1two3

Dudess wrote: »

Just how exactly is it nasty or ill-informed or judgemental to condemn two kids for murdering a toddler? MURDERING - not accidentally killing like the Holohan/O'Donoghue case.
And I am bearing in mind that Venables was led astray and is probably full of remorse now.

There is no obvious sign of you baring anything in mind other than the drivelish writing of hate filled hack stabbers and reinventing yourself as Mudder teresa in the last one or two posts doesnt work as having the thinking you do be showing here implies that your real problem is trying to distance yourself from the reality of the situation, that being that you were just as capable as these 10 year old boys of doing the exact same thing and if you make enough noise about it you would seem to be a caring person, whereas you really arent caring at all, as demonstrated by your demonising of both boys ,one more than the other. As all of these behaviour patterns are generally done subconsciously there is no need to utter front page denials to me or anyone else,just stop generalising on such an important subject and then backtracking like Neil Kinnock on the beach when you really are not equipped to know of the suffering of children and how they bring their experiences to the adult world. It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.

Latchy

Beetlebum wrote: »

Jesus, get off Dudesses case everybody. She has a right to na opinion on this matter much as anybody else has. How is she being judgemental exactly? She is looking for opinions and an interesting discussion and people are being pedantic twats saying..oohhhh...you spelt his name wrong..

Seems to be quite a few on Boards who are pedantic .

Recently sombody got annoyed about womon be refered to as wimmins , honestly :rolleyes:

Kinetic^

As an evil child I threw the remote control into the fire. I now realise that a remote control is very valuable asset to a person. So yes, evil children can change.

LadyJ

david1two3 wrote: »

It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.

Hear that, 6th?

Latchy

Children left alone to their own devices for long periods devoid of proper love and afection are capable of falling into a void of all sorts.That's not to say all kids alone will do so but the potential is there .

the dee

Children are very impressionable - I was talked into shop-lifting as a child by friend. Not nearly as bad, I know, but I knew it was wrong, in an I've-been-told-this-is-wrong kind of way and I did it anyway. I wanted to fit in and didn't think at all about the consequences. It had nothing to do with how my parents raised me and I was otherwise a very well-behaved child.

I got caught once and never did it again.

watna

david1two3 wrote: »

Mudder teresa

Who exactly is "Mudder" teresa?

Dudess

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It is ill-formed, nasty and judgemental to comment on the potential evil of ANYONE'S character when you've never met them or heard anything recent concrete about them.

Half of your posts admit to wild specualtion, for Heaven's sake!

Exactly. That's the point of this thread. I'm not saying I'm right whatsoever.
Oh, and they butchered a small boy and left him a train track for heaven's sake.

voodoo_child wrote: »

They had a fukced up childhood, and ended up doing fukced up things

As is the case with many people. Yes, they were 10, not 3. You and Ikky Poo2 sure talk a load of bleeding-heart shyte - telling me I have absolutely zero right to criticise them is just laughable.

david1two3 wrote: »

There is no obvious sign of you baring anything in mind other than the drivelish writing of hate filled hack stabbers and reinventing yourself as Mudder teresa in the last one or two posts doesnt work

Naw love, read my opening post and you'll see I said Venables probably does feel remorse today.

as having the thinking you do be showing here implies that your real problem is trying to distance yourself from the reality of the situation, that being that you were just as capable as these 10 year old boys of doing the exact same thing and if you make enough noise about it you would seem to be a caring person, whereas you really arent caring at all, as demonstrated by your demonising of both boys ,one more than the other. As all of these behaviour patterns are generally done subconsciously there is no need to utter front page denials to me or anyone else,just stop generalising on such an important subject

Oh you mean like those fuking idiots who go down to the courthouse to yell abuse at convicted murderers (e.g. Joe O'Reilly)? Nah, I hate those freaks too. No need for your psychoanalysis hon, it's not "masking" anything in me. I'm just appalled by what was done by those two boys to a two-year-old - very straightforward, nothing deeper than that.

and then backtracking like Neil Kinnock on the beach when you really are not equipped to know of the suffering of children and how they bring their experiences to the adult world.

Show me an example of me back-tracking. And again, what a load of bleeding heart cock.

It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.

Yeah... not because they're deemed capable of it. You clearly want to be a moderator. Go for it - you can do it!

Kenny 5 wrote: »

As an evil child I threw the remote control into the fire. I now realise that a remote control is very valuable asset to a person. So yes, evil children can change.

Heh, you were attacking me for being PC before, I suppose you'll have to change your abuse tactics now. Oh, and your gloating PM's.

AngryBadger

david1two3 wrote: »

There is no obvious sign of you baring anything in mind other than the drivelish writing of hate filled hack stabbers and reinventing yourself as Mudder teresa in the last one or two posts doesnt work as having the thinking you do be showing here implies that your real problem is trying to distance yourself from the reality of the situation, that being that you were just as capable as these 10 year old boys of doing the exact same thing and if you make enough noise about it you would seem to be a caring person, whereas you really arent caring at all, as demonstrated by your demonising of both boys ,one more than the other. As all of these behaviour patterns are generally done subconsciously there is no need to utter front page denials to me or anyone else,just stop generalising on such an important subject and then backtracking like Neil Kinnock on the beach when you really are not equipped to know of the suffering of children and how they bring their experiences to the adult world. It occurs to me the only people incapable of moderating are those that want to, same for politicians, cops and leaders in general.

I mean usually I prefer to sit back and let people defend themselves (and we all know Dudess is more than capable of doing that) but this defies logic.

On what are you basing the assertion that DUdess was jsut as capable of what these kids did when she was 10? Did you know both those children and Dudess personally at that time? Because if you didn't then you're guilty of exactly what you just accused Dudess of.

I'm not aware of Dudess having referenced the exact sources of her information, so I have to ask how you know what her sources are?

Are you also familiair with DUdess on a personal level? Because asserting that she has no familiarity with the suffereing of children or how they carry that with them to adulthood indicates you do.

As to your remark about moderators, politicians and so on. I always find the people who make those kinds of remarks are the very people who bemoan their situation when things go wrong but are never willing to get the finger out and actually do anything about it.

The moderators do their best with a lot of trying individuals like yourself, if you'd prefer a more receptive ear to your vitriol in future I suggest you refrain from making things personal.

Senna

Children aren't born evil, parents and society inflict evil on them, but some might be more susceptible to it. I'm sure Thompson and Venables were on the path to being true scumbags when they murdered Jamie Bolger. I dont think anybody here could give an accurate evaluation of these too men, or how their lifes have changed since the age of 10.

But i do know one thing, if i was either of them, i'd put a shotgun to my head and do the Bolger family (and world) a favor.

Dudess

Y'see I'm wondering whether Thompson's capability of doing what he did is down to his own pathology - not being able to feel empathy when another person suffers, the "evil gene" etc (hence my use of the term "evil" to all those pedants out there). And if so, is there any way he could be rehabilitated or is he just doomed?

Red Hand

I would invite them into my home for a spot of tea, a game of cards and perhaps engage them in conversation about the Kaiser's atrocities in Belgium.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dudess wrote: »

As is the case with many people. Yes, they were 10, not 3. You and Ikky Poo2 sure talk a load of bleeding-heart shyte - telling me I have absolutely zero right to criticise them is just laughable.
.

You have every right to criticise what they did, and you do. No problem.
What you do NOT have the right to do is criticise someone based on one inicident some time ago when you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING. I can't make it any clearer!

Maybe I am bleeding-heart, but I'd rather that than be an evil withchunting hatemongerer.

PS - what exactly is an "evil gene"? Scientifically speaking, of course?

david1two3

AngryBadger wrote: »

I mean usually I prefer to sit back and let people defend themselves (and we all know Dudess is more than capable of doing that) but this defies logic.

On what are you basing the assertion that DUdess was jsut as capable of what these kids did when she was 10? Did you know both those children and Dudess personally at that time? Because if you didn't then you're guilty of exactly what you just accused Dudess of.

I'm not aware of Dudess having referenced the exact sources of her information, so I have to ask how you know what her sources are?

Are you also familiair with DUdess on a personal level? Because asserting that she has no familiarity with the suffereing of children or how they carry that with them to adulthood indicates you do.

As to your remark about moderators, politicians and so on. I always find the people who make those kinds of remarks are the very people who bemoan their situation when things go wrong but are never willing to get the finger out and actually do anything about it.

The moderators do their best with a lot of trying individuals like yourself, if you'd prefer a more receptive ear to your vitriol in future I suggest you refrain from making things personal.

shes not capable of defending herself as I obvious by what she says and how she says it , this whole thread is a mess of her making but to back down now or ever would be to much for her. So she will soldier on as if it never was complete clap trap nonsense in the first place

Any ten year old is capable of killing a two year old.And what I accuse her of is in no way related to whether I know them or her. As for you telling me how I should write, I wont have that now or ever ,if they want rid of me I wont lose any sleep. I already know I dont want to know her

My remarks about mod, polititchens, cops etc are based on very obvious facts and you trying to undermine me on that wont work now or ever. Its always easy to see when your on the money as peeps come in with all sorts of valueless crepe to try and side swipe your position. Your logic defier needs adjusting or possibly switching off. As for sources ,they are irelevent as rubbishs source is a valueless as the rubbish itself. In reality your argument is a clueless as hers but I think that is more likely to propel you than quell you. Saying it like it is is obviously to much for you but if thats what rots your boat,fine thers loads more available for opinions like yours and hers. Your second last paragraph is the funniest ,standing up for those who stand idly by while lining their pockets blatantly and publicy castigating all around them for their .............yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Dinter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It is ill-formed, nasty and judgemental to comment on the potential evil of ANYONE'S character when you've never met them or heard anything recent concrete about them.

Half of your posts admit to wild specualtion, for Heaven's sake!

Ah I see the bleeding heart liberals are in full swing today.

As far as I can make out Dudess is talking about the children at the time of the offense and thus asking us to extrapolate from that on whether a child who'd commit such an unspeakable act could be rehabilitated from it. Therefore she is correct in her description of them at the time of the event.There is no reason for you to get up on your high horse and condemn her for it. They did murder a child.

Moving on from that I wouldn't see how an event like that couldn't be detrimental to a child's psyche and by taking into account the facts of the case I don't believe they were all there to start with.

To sum up I wouldn't trust that they're rehabilitated. Also before the liberals start crying, remember society doesn't trust them either. That's why murderers are only released on licence.

david1two3

Dudess wrote: »

Right so, poor, misunderstood, abandoned-by-society children - a society that drove them to torturing a small boy to death. Is that better?

bactracking

Dinter

david1two3 wrote: »

bactracking

I think she was being ironic.

AngryBadger

david1two3 wrote: »

shes not capable of defending herself as I obvious by what she says and how she says it

That is 100 % your interpretation of her posts, a great many people, including myself disagree with you.

david1two3 wrote: »

Any ten year old is capable of killing a two year old.

...can you back this up with anything other than your poorly puntuated swamp drivel? I don't know any 10-year olds that would be capable of taking a child out onto train tracks, throwing bricks at them, shoving batteries up their anus, and then leaving them on the tracks to be hit by a train, do you?

david1two3 wrote:

And what I accuse her of is in no way related to whether I know them or her. As for you telling me how I should write, I wont have that now or ever ,if they want rid of me I wont lose any sleep. I already know I dont want to know her

Actually by dint of the language you chose to use your post is very much a personal attack. No-one mentioned wanting rid of you, paranoid much?

david1two3 wrote:

My remarks about mod, polititchens, cops etc are based on very obvious facts

So obvious that you can't/won't cite them?

david1two3 wrote:

and you trying to undermine me on that wont work now or ever.

Well if I based my arguments on my own personal fantastical view of the world then it would probably be impossible for people to undermine me too.

david1two3 wrote:

Its always easy to see when your on the money as peeps come in with all sorts of valueless crepe to try and side swipe your position. Your logic defier needs adjusting or possibly switching off. As for sources ,they are irelevent as rubbishs source is a valueless as the rubbish itself. In reality your argument is a clueless as hers but I think that is more likely to propel you than quell you. Saying it like it is is obviously to much for you but if thats what rots your boat,fine thers loads more available for opinions like yours and hers. Your second last paragraph is the funniest ,standing up for those who stand idly by while lining their pockets blatantly and publicy castigating all around them for their .............yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm not sure what your point is here, to be fair it might not be because you don't have one, it might be because of your poor spelling, your lousy english, the fact that you seem to have something against full stops, or the fact that you (apparently) dozed off partway through a paragraph explaining how you wouldn't bother defending your points....

Which I guess would indicate that you neither there wherewithal nor the bottle to back up anything you say.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dinter wrote: »

Ah I see the bleeding heart liberals are in full swing today.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Dinter wrote: »

Moving on from that I wouldn't see how an event like that couldn't be detrimental to a child's psyche and by taking into account the facts of the case I don't believe they were all there to start with.

To sum up I wouldn't trust that they're rehabilitated. Also before the liberals start crying, remember society doesn't trust them either. That's why murderers are only released on licence.

That's why the law courts* decide and not soceity. If society decided, there'd be bodies hanging from every tree in the country.

*yes, yes, yes, I know, a jury is part of society, but it's the judge who decides sentencing and release conditions if any.

david1two3

Dinter wrote: »

Ah I see the bleeding heart liberals are in full swing today.

As far as I can make out Dudess is talking about the children at the time of the offense and thus asking us to extrapolate from that on whether a child who'd commit such an unspeakable act could be rehabilitated from it. Therefore she is correct in her description of them at the time of the event.There is no reason for you to get up on your high horse and condemn her for it. They did murder a child.

Moving on from that I wouldn't see how an event like that couldn't be detrimental to a child's psyche and by taking into account the facts of the case I don't believe they were all there to start with.

To sum up I wouldn't trust that they're rehabilitated. Also before the liberals start crying, remember society doesn't trust them either. That's why murderers are only released on licence.

"unspeakable act" that yee cant stop writing/talking about. The idea that you think liberals have to cry is the sort of statement that stereotypes you in an hilarious but not funny fashion

Dinter

Ah he doesn't need to.

He just knows. He's got a gut feeling.

Dinter

david1two3 wrote: »

"unspeakable act" that yee cant stop writing/talking about. The idea that you think liberals have to cry is the sort of statement that stereotypes you in an hilarious but not funny fashion

Man, you've the sort of typing, grammar and spelling skills that I'd expect to see from a person who spent his formative years in a prison or some sort of Juvenile home where school was definitely not on the agenda because it might interfere with the constant barrage of psych tests.

Oh. Wait a minute. . .

Dinter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That's why the law courts* decide and not soceity. If society decided, there'd be bodies hanging from every tree in the country.

Guarantee there'd be less crime. . .