Serious question: Can someone explain something?

Antbert

aDeener wrote: »

Do you think the majority of people, in your opinion, would want the right to know of someone who has been convicted of tortoruous acts in the past living beside them?

I'm completely with OutlawPete on this (well, on everything he's said really). What good is naming and shaming? If they've served their time, they've served their time. Who the hell cares if you want to carry out vigilante justice on your neighbour? That doesn't mean it SHOULD be your right to know their background.

It's clear from this thread that a lot of people would like criminals to be named and shamed, but asking him (well, the posters in general) if that's a factor is pointless.

Latchy

I do agree with Deniese Bulger saying that these boys should be named and the time to stop 'rewarding them ' ( her words ) must end .Many people who lived in that neighbourhood will already know their names anyway and they will be moved away to a safe corner of the world ,much safer than the ****hole they grew up in and be giving new indentities /names .Of course these boys have to be rehabilitated , but not were they get to a situation were as they grow older they feel comfortable in themselfs .The problem is how do you make evil people feel bad or guilty ? The sad answer in most cases is you cant and that's the sickening outcome of this whole horror ,lack of remorse or any feelings of accountability by them or that excuse for what's called parents .Those boys like the bulger killers should always be made aware of whet they did ,they must never be allowed forget and should feel all the guilt and pain till the day they die .

Antbert

Latchy wrote: »

Of course these boys have to be rehabilitated , but not were they get to a situation were as they grow older they feel comfortable in themselfs .The problem is how do you make evil people feel bad or guilty ? The sad answer in most cases is you cant and that's the sickening outcome of this whole horror ,lack of remorse or any feelings of accountability by them or that excuse for what's called parents .Those boys like the bulger killers should always be made aware of whet they did ,they must never be allowed forget and should feel all the guilt and pain till the day they die .

The rest of your post doesn't sound much like rehabilitation to me.

The problem with naming and shaming is that it encourages vigilante justice. What good is more violence going to do in this situation?

Also, to say they have to miserable until the day they die because of what they did doesn't make much sense to me. If it's possible to make them feel remorse (again, I'm not a qualified psychiatrist and have no interest into entering into the psychology debate) then chances are they probably will feel bad for the rest of their lives. They don't need your encouragement.

You have no idea what rehabillitation would do to two children. They could emerge completely different people.

Milky Moo

I would just like to know what happened in these boys lives to turn them so bad so young,or if they were born this way?

It's shocking to say the least!

Antbert

Milky Moo wrote: »

I would just like to know what happened in these boys lives to turn them so bad so young,or if they were born this way?

It's shocking to say the least!

I think there's a rather hearty debate going on about that for the last 12 pages or so.

OutlawPete

Lovin the new haircut

Latchy wrote: »

Those boys like the bulger killers should always be made aware of whet they did ,they must never be allowed forget and should feel all the guilt and pain till the day they die .

Latchy, everytime these lads turn out a light and put their head on a pillow they must be haunted by what they did to an infant.

They have to live with that to their dying day.

fonecrusher1

OutlawPete wrote: »

Lovin the new haircut



Latchy, everytime these lads turn out a light and put their head on a pillow they must be haunted by what they did to an infant.

They have to live with that to their dying day.

And so they should.

Latchy

Antbert wrote: »

The rest of your post doesn't sound much like rehabilitation to me.

Are you suggesting that remorse and guilt and a deeper understanding of what they have done is not part of that rehabilation ?

The problem with naming and shaming is that it encourages vigilante justice. What good is more violence going to do in this situation?

No and who suggested violence ? I am not suggesting violence for one second and never implied that at all (although if you look back in the thread you will see somebody else suggested they should be flogged and used for scientific research ...oh dear )

Also, to say they have to miserable until the day they die because of what they did doesn't make much sense to me. If it's possible to make them feel remorse (again, I'm not a qualified psychiatrist and have no interest into entering into the psychology debate) then chances are they probably will feel bad for the rest of their lives. They don't need your encouragement.

How does anybody know how they will feel ? Only the psychiatrists Counselors and social workers assigned to get into their heads will have an idea what they are feeling .If ,when they grow up to be adults they do feel remorse and guilt than that is something to take from it .

You have no idea what rehabillitation would do to two children. They could emerge completely different people.

And neither do you ,I suppose we might have to look up the history of children who inflict violence on other children to have any idea but the lads who they tortured are fearfull that they are going to come after them again and finish the job , that's the reality of the situation and I would be more concerned for their future then the evil pair in question .

Acoshla

As much as I think what those boys did is horrific, disgusting and unimagineably cruel and sick, I do (in a small way) feel sorry for them. Their parents have serious addiction issues, their mother apparently used to drug them when she wanted a quiet night, I mean drugs mess up adults, who knows what emotional/psychological/physical damage these children have sufferd themselves.

However none of that condones their behaviour, I do believe they deserve a chance at rehabilitation but I can't see how successful it would be, the damage to their ideas of right/wrong good/bad has been done for years through the neglect and abuse of their parents, I hope for their own sake and for society that they can be helped though (probably asking a bit much tbh).

And as for the argument of whether they were born "evil" or whether their f*cked up morals/behaviour is as a result of their upbringing, if these two boys had come from a middle class "normal" family with no other issues or violent background then you could possibly say they were genetically going to be that way, but realistically and looking at the facts it is clear that it is as a result of their parents, and by God if their parents get away with such awful abuse and neglect...

smegmar

those two little cúnts are the product of the parenting and environment to which they have lived. It's more so the parents I blame but either way they are possibly beyond rehabilitation. Maybe some of this ....



might work. I still think we need better parenting and services to ensure that people can't get to this level of depravity and sadism.

aDeener

Antbert wrote: »

I'm completely with OutlawPete on this (well, on everything he's said really). What good is naming and shaming? If they've served their time, they've served their time. Who the hell cares if you want to carry out vigilante justice on your neighbour? That doesn't mean it SHOULD be your right to know their background.

It's clear from this thread that a lot of people would like criminals to be named and shamed, but asking him (well, the posters in general) if that's a factor is pointless.

whoah where did i say i would want to carry out vigilante justice? admittedly if someone else carried it out, i wouldnt exactly be crying my eyes out over it.

i would like to know, for my own safety purposes and my family's, i dont think i would be living next door too long, as i have outlined to pete already my lack of faith in the system that decides when people are likely to offend again or not.

Latchy

was due a makeover

OutlawPete wrote: »

Lovin the new haircut

Latchy, everytime these lads turn out a light and put their head on a pillow they must be haunted by what they did to an infant.

They have to live with that to their dying day.

Yes, they will and that might be punisment enough because it sure sounds like Hell to me

Antbert

Latchy wrote: »

Are you suggesting that remorse and guilt and a deeper understanding of what they have done is not part of that rehabilation ?

I'm saying it sounds like you want them to suffer eternally. That's punishment. Rehabillitating someone implies changing their outlook, instead of just punishing them. I would hope they feel remorse for what they do and do agree that if they are rehabillitated successfully then they will.

No and who suggested violence ? I am not suggesting violence for one second and never implied that at all (although if you look back in the thread you will see somebody else suggested they should be flogged and used for scientific research ...oh dear )

I'm glad you disagree with the violence aspect of it. I didn't say you suggested physically punishing them. I said naming and shaming encourages vigilante justice, which can turn violent. I don't agree with naming and shaming on any level, but if you don't agree with having violent acts committed against them, perhaps you should reconsider naming and shaming them.

How does anybody know how they will feel ? Only the psychiatrists Counselors and social workers assigned to get into their heads will have an idea what they are feeling .If ,when they grow up to be adults they do feel remorse and guilt than that is something to take from it .

Well... I've nothing to say to this really. I just didn't want to ignore it. I didn't think I implied I knew how they'd feel. In fact I've been very clear in many of my posts so far that I don't consider myself in any way qualified to offer opinions on their mentality.

And neither do you ,I suppose we might have to look up the history of children who inflict violence on other children to have any idea but the lads who they tortured are fearfull that they are going to come after them again and finish the job , that's the reality of the situation and I would be more concerned for their future two then the evil pair in question .

Of course I don't know. That's getting into the psychology debate again. My point was that they could emerge different people.

Antbert

This thread moves too fast!

aDeener wrote: »

whoah where did i say i would want to carry out vigilante justice? admittedly if someone else carried it out, i wouldnt exactly be crying my eyes out over it.

You, someone else, whoever wants them named and shamed. It doesn't matter if you personally aren't going to round to their house with a baseball bat. You say yourself that you wouldn't be that bothered if someone else did. This is where we differ I suppose. I see that as being a very probable effect of naming them and that really bothers me.

i would like to know, for my own safety purposes and my family's, i dont think i would be living next door too long, as i have outlined to pete already my lack of faith in the system that decides when people are likely to offend again or not.

Well, I do see your point (I don't agree with it, but I do see it). But if they are seen as fit for society by the relevant authorities, I don't see why that's less valid than your own opinion on the matter. I guess if you don't trust the relevant authorities that's another issue entirely. For you. Not for me.

aDeener

Antbert wrote: »

This thread moves too fast!


You, someone else, whoever wants them named and shamed. It doesn't matter if you personally aren't going to round to their house with a baseball bat. You say yourself that you wouldn't be that bothered if someone else did. This is where we differ I suppose. I see that as being a very probable effect of naming them and that really bothers me.


Well, I do see your point (I don't agree with it, but I do see it). But if they are seen as fit for society by the relevant authorities, I don't see why that's less valid than your own opinion on the matter. I guess if you don't trust the relevant authorities that's another issue entirely. For you. Not for me.

I would like to know just how common revenge attacks are though? plenty of criminals have done plenty of awful things and have been released but i can never recall of any vigilante justice afterwards.

There are no shortage of people who say they would do x, y and z to such and such, but when it comes to actually going through with it i doubt many would.

Latchy

Antbert wrote: »

I'm saying it sounds like you want them to suffer eternally. That's punishment. Rehabillitating someone implies changing their outlook, instead of just punishing them. I would hope they feel remorse for what they do and do agree that if they are rehabillitated successfully then they will.

Punishment with rehabilitation is what society would expect and if they as individuals have pangs of guilt inbetween all that then so be it .Eternally they will be remembered as the boys who did what they did .But if they somehow become better people as a result of all the rehabilliatation then that is something

I'm glad you disagree with the violence aspect of it. I didn't say you suggested physically punishing them. I said naming and shaming encourages vigilante justice, which can turn violent. I don't agree with naming and shaming on any level, but if you don't agree with having violent acts committed against them, perhaps you should reconsider naming and shaming them.

Yes is true but quite understandable .Venables and Thomson were named so at least people had the benefit of knowing who they were then ,at the time ( as opposed to what names they have now ) Nobody wants to see rent a mob viglilante justice weather they are named or not and understand your point .

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

TheGod wrote: »

Well essentially people susceptible to becoming psychopaths are born but this won't materalize unless they are brought up in an enviroment that would feed their personality disorders such as in this case.

I don't think they are neccesarily stupid or intelligent. They may seem more intelligent as they are a lot more logical due to their personality disorder but in general pyschopaths shouldn't be above or below intelligence. Perhaps the reason so many serial killers are very intelligent is because they were smart enough to become notorious serial killers in not getting caught.

They tend to have an average or above average IQ. Most psychopaths are, in fact, not violent...

Antbert

aDeener wrote: »

I would like to know just how common revenge attacks are though? plenty of criminals have done plenty of awful things and have been released but i can never recall of any vigilante justice afterwards.

There are no shortage of people who say they would do x, y and z to such and such, but when it comes to actually going through with it i doubt many would.

A fair point. I do worry how far people will take their armchair ranting though.

Even if there's no violent upshot, it seems like punishment to me to release people back into a society and basically tell that society to hate them.

walshb

aDeener wrote: »

There are no shortage of people who say they would do x, y and z to such and such, but when it comes to actually going through with it i doubt many would.

But it all depends on the relationship between the victim and those who would get revenge. I would find it harder to attack and kill a convicted sex offender if he/she had murdered a strangers daughter as opposed to having killed my daughter. I am in no doubt that if a relative, especially a close relative of mine, was butchered, I would take revenge if the opportunity occurred.

pretty-in-pink

A lot of these baby-killers/physcopaths are in fact repeating what is done to them at home. I'd personally be a lot more concerned when they get to the torturing animals sign, as thats where it begins. by the time they move on to people its usually to late.

Given the age of the two boys in question here, I believe rehabilition is possible- but only if completely removed from the toxic enviroment they have grown up in and given the structure and safety in which they can learn about just how wrong what they did is. I would also remove all other children from the boys parents.

How is torturing the perps of this crime going to make any positive change? All it will do is further perpertrate the anger etc they already have in them.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, far from it, however in the case of young kids,I do think there is some hope. AFAIK 14-16 is the point at which your character is pretty much set for life, bar a major event or upheaval to change your POV & behaviour. Prior to this harm can be undone. Why attack the sympton of the crime, as opposed to the root cause? Its obvious what kind of people have children that go on to commit terrible crimes, so stop the parents from breeding. No more scumbags torturing their own kids, no more kids going on too do horrific things to animals & other people, no more problems.

Actually i'd best stop there before I get to caught up in the whole "stop the problem at the root"argument.

keichii

Can anyone here propse a different solution than what will be offered that won't be hopped on in any other circumstance?

here.from.day.1

Really dont know what can be done in this situation.. its one of the most awful things I've heard but society cant resort to mob rule and lynching people.

Antbert

Latchy wrote: »

Punishment with rehabilitation is what society would expect and if they as individuals have pangs of guilt inbetween all that then so be it .Eternally they will be remembered as the boys who did what they did .But if they somehow become better people as a result of all the rehabilliatation then that is something

Yes is true but quite understandable .Venables and Thomson were named so at least people had the benefit of knowing who they were then ,at the time ( as opposed to what names they have now ) Nobody wants to see rent a mob viglilante justice weather they are named or not and understand your point .

I think maybe our views aren't all that different. We just think the level of "punishment" for criminals should be different.

I will go back to what I said before. I consider it quite harsh (too harsh) punishment to put people back into a society where the society is essentially told to hate them, regardless of if the reaction is violent.

Antbert

Well what I personally think should be done is the best attempt should be made to rehabillitate them... If they're beyond help (I don't know what that would be, a psychopath?) and a blatant danger to society then I think (I say "I think" because I really don't know enough about it) they should be monitored in some sort of mental institution (are you allowed say that?).

Edit: Sorry for the unneccessary two posts. Thoughtless of me. But no good reason to combine and edit further.

keichii

Kinda seems to me that everyone is on one extreme or the other...

On one side people seem to be screaming for blood, that they should have to live with this for the rest of their lives, not just in themselves but also in public, that they should be put away, locked in an institute, etc.

On the other, you have people saying we need to re-educate these children, it's the parent's fault, they have a mental disorder, we should encourage them to change, society is to blame, etc.

You know, it's not fair to blame society for all the faults that these people have... It is not fair to say that only one type of person comes from this family because of money, location, etc. I know that if this gets any response, it'll be from someone saying, "Yeah, well, it's true that goo people can come from bad places, but the majority of people that come from poor families with asshat parents turn out to be crim scum", but you can't paint any location as bad, just like you can't say something like, "Black people are all thieves". Good things happen everywhere to everyone. Just like there are plenty of cnuts from wealthy families with good upbringings. People are people.

I hate it when people blame a mental disorder too, that's such a cop-out. Do the crime, do the time, right? I don't give a crap if you killed this person because he was wearing red and that trigges an "episode". The fact is that society has told people since you're born not to kill people, to generally try to avoid harming others, not to rob, etc. If you have a problem with these rules, well... You go to prison.

I think the real issue with giving them a punishment that you'd give to an adult is that aren't we supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers? I wouldn't trust a jury of children to make a call about anything, and I would in no way call someone who's 40 a peer of someone who's under 12. If you don't let them be judged by their peers though, is it fair? I wouldn't think so.

The fact is that bad things happen all the time too, but generally speaking if you follow society's general rules and put trust in the people that you have elected to make the tough calls aout things like psycho children, then you'll be ok. Nothing like this will happen to you, chances are your life is going to be boring as hell, you'll settle down with a girl that's average but stable, you'll work for the majority of your life, maybe have a few kids, retire for the last 15 years of it and then you'll die.

I think the best thing to do is chill out and have a crunchy bar, because they're delicious.

Antbert

keichii wrote: »

Kinda seems to me that everyone is on one extreme or the other...

So... We should not rehabillitate them OR punish them?

There are some extreme opinions further back, but certainly not all. I don't think it's particularly extreme to make the best attempt to rehabillitate someone. Nor do I think Latchy's opinion of 50% punishment and 50% rehabillitation is extreme, regardless of if I agree with it or not. I don't even think the idea of naming them so that people know who they are is extreme, even though I adamantly disagee with it.

I apologise for picking at the one, probably quite insignificant word, in your post. I just found it a bit irritating that you seem to say "Well I haven't got an opinion, but the rest of you are wrong". But maybe that wasn't what you meant.

keichii

I think you have missed the point here really. I said that people seem to me to be taking one extreme or the other as opposed to taking a middle ground. If I missed someone who suggested punishment and rehabillitation, it's probably because I was snoring through the novels people wrote saying they should be locked up indefinitely and the people saying that society is the culprit, and if someone is offended that I skipped them, I'm truly sorry; That's not who my post was intended for anyways.

Just because I said people seem to me to be taking extremes doesn't mean I don't think anything should happen to the boys; What I want to emphasise is that there is no easy way to determine what should be done to these people, and if you're going to take an extreme side of things, where do you draw the line?

We have enough faith in things like the electricity to run, our phones to work, our internet to be turned on when we get off work and our pizzas to be delivered to our doors, but we don't seem to have enough faith in our Justice system to deal with tricky cases like this, which I think is a little sad, especially because that, unlike so many other things in our lives, is something that we can actually have some input into.

Antbert

Ah I did misinterpret your post. Sorry about that.

I think I agree with you anyway.

OutlawPete

Antbert wrote: »

Ah I did misinterpret your post. Sorry about that.

I think I agree with you anyway.

Hang on a second.

Are you telling me after all the bickering on this thread - we have all now come to an amicable agreement :eek:

I'm impressed.

Well done everyone.

Latchy

Antbert wrote: »

I think maybe our views aren't all that different. We just think the level of "punishment" for criminals should be different.

When the natural reaction of anger and horror to crimes of this nature subside we realise that as a civilised society we have to do the right thing for both victims and offenders ,yes .