Irish directed film on James Bulger comes under criticism for humanising the killers

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh no, I believe that the director believes they were dehumanised in the media and so on. As he explained himself, the tabloid media were his primary source if you like, for the information he was exposed to about the case. When I say I don’t agree that they were dehumanised, I mean that I don’t agree with his opinion that referring to the boys as evil monsters dehumanised them. I’m quite aware of humans capacity for cruelty, and I don’t think categorising the two boys as evil monsters on the basis of their actions and their behaviour is actually an attempt to suggest they aren’t human. It’s a way to put what they did into some sort of perspective that people can relate to - what they did wasn’t normal behaviour, and that’s why people found it unthinkable to get their heads around it. It’s far easier for people to get their heads around a concept if they can at least relate it to something they’re familiar with already- ‘evil monsters’ would be an apt description in this particular case.

I think what the director is attempting to do is he’s taken an idea that he already had - the idea that these boys weren’t the evil monsters they were portrayed as in the media, and it’s undoubtedly influenced his work. If he’s going into something with an already held position, holds fast to that position, and views the evidence and tailors the evidence to support that position, then he hasn’t done anything new or brought any new perspective to the discussion that hasn’t been discussed already. In order for his perspective to gain any traction towards acknowledgement, let alone acceptance - he has to dramatise it in order to make it more accessible to his audience. He wants to portray a particular narrative that we should empathise with these boys too on the basis of our shared humanity, and I get that, I really do, however I simply have no interest in empathising, let alone needing to understand what motivated these boys in this particular case to do what they did. I’m just not finding any compelling reason to want to try and empathise with the director in this particular case either if I’m being honest. I get why he would say it was a tragedy for three families, and I would say that’s the film he should have made, but instead he chose to make a dramatisation of 15-20 hours of police interviews with the two boys in which the boys themselves offered no explanation for their behaviour.

If anyone is projecting, it’s tbe director, in his attempt to suggest that the boys themselves don’t understand what they did at the time, as though they shouldn’t have been held responsible for their actions. I think the director is ignoring an awful lot we now know about this case long before he ever offered his perspective which isn’t bringing anything new to the table IMO in terms of our understanding of what could possibly have motivated these boys in this particular case to do what they did.





In any case, you’re always going to get people falling over themselves to express their revulsion and disgust, and y’know it’s completely an individual thing as to whether or not they should be taken seriously, but speaking only for myself, I don’t tend to entertain that sort of nonsense.

I think to equate this film to the primary sources you’re talking about is a bit much, notwithstanding the fact that the film itself is a secondary source, at best! I don’t think historical documents which offer considerable insight into society and culture in any given time period should be filed away and forgotten. I think there is so, so much we can learn from them and I actually love it when you’re giving history lessons (I do, I’m not a big history buff, but at least you make it interesting and make me want to learn more!), whereas the motivation behind the making of this film? Well, it’s a bit like imagining that Boards will be of any value as a primary source in offering future generations any insight into society and culture as it is now tbh. I can’t imagine anyone finding it all that useful as a historical reflection of Irish society. I have no doubt that someone will claim it has historical value as a primary source, in the same way some people claim this film has artistic merit or value in offering an insight into humanity, but for me, I simply see that as reaching to justify something which would be IMO a waste of time as it offers nothing of any value to society. It offers value to individuals of course, and I understand that, but let’s not go overstating it’s importance in terms of what it offers to it’s intended audience.

What the director has done is what every historian does.
He goes to the sources and interprets them - then presents his conclusions. In this case via the medium of film using re-enactments. It's not an uncommon way to do it. He may have tweaked. But to be honest I have been involved in broadcast documentaries and was not best please with the results of tweaking to such an extent that I won't partake in them anymore. Many historians are the same.

His sources are primary - the transcripts of the interviews with the boys are the primary source for what happened out of the public eye.
The newspaper reports are secondary sources for what happened outside the public eye but primary sources for how the media reacted.
The same goes for this film - it is a primary source for how the media - 25 years later - reacts but a secondary source as far as the event itself is concerned.
There no 'trying' about that - it's just how sources work.

As for Boards - if one wanted to discuss say Referendums than yes - boards would provide valuable primary sources as to what people on both sides were saying.
Or attitudes to Travellers in the early 20th century... wealth of material on that here.

You may disagree with his conclusions but it's hard to do so with any real vigour or objectivity unless you have read what he has.
You may disagree with his film on aesthetic grounds, or feel it is bad taste, but that is subjective - which isn't to say that is not valid but it is a personal feeling.

Hannibal_Smith

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was around when it happened.
The film would be suppressed if some had their way on here.

Is it the suppression of the film you have an issue with? Or the suppression of art?

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What the director has done is what every historian does.
He goes to the sources and interprets them - then presents his conclusions. In this case via the medium of film using re-enactments. It's not an uncommon way to do it. He may have tweaked. But to be honest I have been involved in broadcast documentaries and was not best please with the results of tweaking to such an extent that I won't partake in them anymore. Many historians are the same.

His sources are primary - the transcripts of the interviews with the boys are the primary source for what happened out of the public eye.
The newspaper reports are secondary sources for what happened outside the public eye but primary sources for how the media reacted.
The same goes for this film - it is a primary source for how the media - 25 years later - reacts but a secondary source as far as the event itself is concerned.
There no 'trying' about that - it's just how sources work.

As for Boards - if one wanted to discuss say Referendums than yes - boards would provide valuable primary sources as to what people on both sides were saying.
Or attitudes to Travellers in the early 20th century... wealth of material on that here.

I think we could go back and forth all day on much of the above tbh, so I’ll just address this bit below -

You may disagree with his conclusions but it's hard to do so with any real vigour or objectivity unless you have read what he has.
You may disagree with his film on aesthetic grounds, or feel it is bad taste, but that is subjective - which isn't to say that is not valid but it is a personal feeling.

I don’t disagree with his conclusions, we haven’t even gotten that far. I disagree with the entire premise of his perspective in the first place. I disagree with him when he says that the boys were dehumanised in the media. I don’t agree that they were. It’s as I said - there were a number of tabloids that of course played to the gallery, but I don’t think their efforts were to dehumanise the boys. Their images are iconic - if a person didn’t know, they would never suspect that those boys were capable of such cruelty from just looking at them.

Even to this day there are people who cannot fathom the idea of any child being capable of such cruelty, let alone committing such acts of violence. I don’t see what there is to be gained by focusing on two very specific individuals who have never been forthcoming with the facts themselves, and trying to “humanise” them. I get that they’re human already, and they are monsters, and they were children themselves at the time they committed torture and murder of another child, and that’s why they are regarded as evil - because what they did isn’t something that children generally tend to do at that age. They are as you suggested earlier more likely to be kicking a ball than hanging around a shopping centre attempting to abduct children to torture them.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at with the bit about personal feelings and being subjective and all, particularly given that the film we’re talking about is based upon the director examining his own personal feelings towards the boys. I don’t care for how the director feels one way or the other which immediately renders his feelings invalid from my perspective, before he even gets to try and convince me that I should empathise with two children who abducted, tortured, murdered a child, tried to cover it up, and have never had to explain their actions. All I see is the director imparting how he feels about the two boys, and on that basis I don’t regard the film as something I would ever feel compelled to watch.

Do I care that other people watch it? Of course not. If other people tell me it’s worth a watch, I might just do that to see whether it was worth all the hype.

FrancieBrady

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Is it the suppression of the film you have an issue with? Or the suppression of art?

Both.

One Eyed Jack may think he is presenting himself as a reasonable critic, but he isn't fooling anyone who reads and dissects his posts.

For instance, he claims that a personal interpretation of the factual events and actual transcripts is inferior to simply labeling these people as 'evil' in his quaint and archaic way. That labeling system lost all it's potency and usefulness with the bible.

That dishonesty is a form of suppression, as he hopes it will dissuade others from approaching this with an open mind. In the kingdom of the blind the 'one eyed man' is king.

In saying that, I will defend the right of a responsible artist to make their art, but I have no idea how successful this particular film is until I actually see it. It could be exploitative rubbish for all I know.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think we could go back and forth all day on much of the above tbh, so I’ll just address this bit below -





I don’t disagree with his conclusions, we haven’t even gotten that far. I disagree with the entire premise of his perspective in the first place. I disagree with him when he says that the boys were dehumanised in the media. I don’t agree that they were. It’s as I said - there were a number of tabloids that of course played to the gallery, but I don’t think their efforts were to dehumanise the boys. Their images are iconic - if a person didn’t know, they would never suspect that those boys were capable of such cruelty from just looking at them.

Even to this day there are people who cannot fathom the idea of any child being capable of such cruelty, let alone committing such acts of violence. I don’t see what there is to be gained by focusing on two very specific individuals who have never been forthcoming with the facts themselves, and trying to “humanise” them. I get that they’re human already, and they are monsters, and they were children themselves at the time they committed torture and murder of another child, and that’s why they are regarded as evil - because what they did isn’t something that children generally tend to do at that age. They are as you suggested earlier more likely to be kicking a ball than hanging around a shopping centre attempting to abduct children to torture them.

I’m not sure what you’re driving at with the bit about personal feelings and being subjective and all, particularly given that the film we’re talking about is based upon the director examining his own personal feelings towards the boys. I don’t care for how the director feels one way or the other which immediately renders his feelings invalid from my perspective, before he even gets to try and convince me that I should empathise with two children who abducted, tortured, murdered a child, tried to cover it up, and have never had to explain their actions. All I see is the director imparting how he feels about the two boys, and on that basis I don’t regard the film as something I would ever feel compelled to watch.

Do I care that other people watch it? Of course not. If other people tell me it’s worth a watch, I might just do that to see whether it was worth all the hype.

We both agree that neither of us wish to see it.
Where we disagree is whether or not it should have been made.

In one way I am repelled by how there is a whole entertainment industry based around graphic depictions of murder and death but I do love me an Agatha Christie or a Midsummer Murders... Love the Swedish The Killing, and the Nordic The Bridge.. and I did 'like' the Steig Larsson books, eventually I was put off the Patricia Cornwall's because it just got to much... so much as I protest my disdain I am a consumer of murder as entertainment .

Given that it would be very hypocritical of me to call for films like this to be banned - or even not made.

Calltocall

This thread has made me go back over the details of the case, I’ve also tried to understand from an unbiased perspective where the Director is coming from in terms of his attempt to show it from the view of the two boys but I find I’m left scratching my head as in my opinion there’s nothing there in how they behaved during the police interviews to make me think yes they were misunderstood or that the content of their interviews is something that needed to be heard or made into a film, the fact also that the film is the interview transcripts to a t without any new perspective I am left confused as to the directors motives but it is his entitlement to make it if he so wishes and its release shouldn’t be blocked.

Some things that stick out from the interviews with the boys are as follows

Thompson was clearly the ringleader, even at 10 years old, he gave lip back to the questioning officer as if he was a hardened criminal, he lied constantly, he never once cried or broke, it is shocking that a ten year old could already be that hardened. He showed no remorse.

Venables was clearly the softer one, breaking down in tears constantly but also consistently lied and eventually broke when pressure came from his mother and he blamed it all on Thompson.

Again nothing in my opinion in what was said by the boys merited them being tagged misunderstood in fact quite the opposite.

My main discomfort with this case apart from the crime surrounds their rehabilitation/release and also their right to anonymity particularly Venables, from researching their time in detention it is clear that they were treated with a very light touch and given special status and protection, authorities were afraid to upset them, basically they were coddled. Thompson in particular manipulated this to his advantage telling his minders you have to do what I say, I know you do etc he was observed as being very clever with a high iq, he basically played his minders.

Reports suggest when Thompson was questioned about his crime in detention his response was simply that happened and I don’t want to talk about it, in my opinion that’s not good enough basically spending his detention never having to face his crime.

So when they reach 18 they are granted new identities and released into the world, since then Venables has been in serious trouble, on numerous occasions he accessed and shared violent child pornography with paedophile groups online even whilst being closely monitored and eventually being incarcerated in 2017 for this crime, clearly not rehabilitated. Thompson not surprisingly has remained off the grid, being the tougher of the two he has been able to control his emotions and perhaps has moved on from it but there has to be serious question marks over him given that he was the ringleader and the one who dealt out the worst of the violence in the murder of a two year old, I don’t think anyone here would like him as their neighbour yet we will never know if he his because of the protection afforded to him.

Whilst I don’t subscribe to the burn them at the stake mentality I do believe that certain rare individuals who have committed particularly brutal murders with gratuitous violence like this one should never be free amongst the general population, I’m not convinced it’s something that can be talked out of you, you have to be a very particular very rare person to commit such extreme brutality against a baby and to not show remorse, thankfully individuals like this are rare but they do exist.

Spannerplank

Calltocall wrote: »

This thread has made me go back over the details of the case, I’ve also tried to understand from an unbiased perspective where the Director is coming from in terms of his attempt to show it from the view of the two boys but I find I’m left scratching my head as in my opinion there’s nothing there in how they behaved during the police interviews to make me think yes they were misunderstood or that the content of their interviews is something that needed to be heard or made into a film, the fact also that the film is the interview transcripts to a t without any new perspective I am left confused as to the directors motives but it is his entitlement to make it if he so wishes and the its release shouldn’t be blocked.

Some things that stick out from the interviews with the boys are

Thompson was clearly the ringleader, even at 10 years old, he gave lip back to the questioning officer like a hardened criminal would, he lied constantly, he never once cried or broke, it is shocking that a ten year old could already be that hardened. He showed no remorse.

Venables was clearly the softer one, breaking down in tears constantly but also consistently lied and eventually broke when pressure came from his mother and he blamed it all on Thompson.

Again nothing in my opinion in what was said by the boys merited them being tagged misunderstood in fact quite the opposite.

My main discomfort with this case apart from the crime surrounds their rehabilitation/release and also their right to anonymity particularly Venables, from researching their time in detention it is clear that they were treated with a very light touch and given special status and protection, authorities were afraid to upset them, basically they were coddled. Thompson in particular manipulated this to his advantage telling his minders you have to do what I say, I know you do etc.

Reports suggest when Thompson was questioned about his crime in detention his response was simply that happened and I don’t want to talk about it, in my opinion that’s not good enough basically spending his detention never having to face his crime.

So when they reach 18 they are granted new identities and released into the world, since then Venables has been in serious trouble, on numerous occasions he accessed and shared violent child pornography with paedophile groups online even whilst being closely monitored and eventually being incarcerated in 2017 for this crime, clearly not rehabilitated. Thompson not surprisingly has remained off the grid, being the tougher of the two he has been able to control his emotions and perhaps has moved on from it but there have to be serious question marks over him also given that he was the ringleader and the one who dealt out the worse of the violence in the murder of a two year old, I don’t think anyone here would like him as their neighbor yet we will never know if he his because of the protection afforded to him.

Whilst I don’t believe in the burn them at the stake attitude I do believe that certain rare individuals who have committed particularly brutal murders with gratuitous violence like this one should never be free amongst the general population.

The reading of the case makes for food of thought. A lot of people, if not most, want to deal with a disturbing event in their own terms. Something unsavoury is usually screamed at and anyone who says "hold on for just a few minutes" is attacked.

If you examine all the facts of this horrible episode you will find that there was no murder committed, DESPITE, the dreadful homicide of Jamie Bulger.

This is the law. And so many here scream for death penalties or torture of some other lunacy which happens to be OUTSIDE the law except in their minds. I

If you set your emotions aside then you can decide what the law should be. If you continue to go froth at the mouth over your personal hatreds then you have no business influencing any legislation that affects all.

Grandeeod

For the benefit of the thread, this film was first screened to an audience in January 2018. Its a short film that will not be on general release. Since then it has only screened at festivals which is the norm with short films. The Director has not courted controversy or notoriety during this period. This film was passing way under the media radar until it was linked with an Oscar nomination. The Director is only now doing frequent media rounds since the UK TV show Good Morning challenged him in relation to what this thread is all about. Prior to that it was random media appearances going back no more than two to three months ago and all based on the film. I'll put forward the view that the UK media have decided to drag the Director into a a boxing match of sorts.

Spannerplank

What I would like to ask of those who insist that such productions be banned... Your excuse?

It seems it's always "have respect for the family of the victim" despite the fact that you don't even know the family. Any excuse to hide away bad news. Bodies coming back from Iraq couldn't be filmed out of "respect for the family" even though the grieving mother demanded her son's coffin be filmed.

So there is no disrespect here anymore so than a guy writing a book of putting together a play about Kennedy or Gandhi or Bloody Sunday or the Mi Lai massacre.

Making a movie about that is so insensitive because one didn't seek the permission of the survivors?

Calltocall

Spannerplank wrote: »

The reading of the case makes for food of thought. A lot of people, if not most, want to deal with a disturbing event in their own terms. Something unsavoury is usually screamed at and anyone who says "hold on for just a few minutes" is attacked.

If you examine all the facts of this horrible episode you will find that there was no murder committed, DESPITE, the dreadful homicide of Jamie Bulger.

This is the law. And so many here scream for death penalties or torture of some other lunacy which happens to be OUTSIDE the law except in their minds. I

If you set your emotions aside then you can decide what the law should be. If you continue to go froth at the mouth over your personal hatreds then you have no business influencing any legislation that affects all.

I have to disagree with you there, I have examined the case details and I believe they did murder the boy, They took him 3 miles away from the Shopping Centre were they abducted him, they were witnessed 36 times along this route and were questioned by some, each time they lied and said the boy was lost and that they were bringing him to a police station, they had numerous opportunities to let him go yet brought him to a remote area then battered him using various implements including Thompsons boot which left imprints on the child, they then left his body on a train track and hid it with bricks, that’s murder, I believe Thompson killed the boy for sport and used the child like a toy, Venables the weaker of the pair who was intimidated by Thompson went along with it.

It is ironic that in the time since the crime it is Venables who has been in trouble and has badly struggled with addiction (during his incarceration it was said he was traumatised by his actions) yet Thompson has been squeaky clean, perhaps a lack of a conscience may have something to do with that.

Motivator

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Because they are humans.

This white and black nonsense peddled by the media is bull****.

Hitler won Times Man of the Year in 1937 for Bringing Germany back from the great depression.

People are complex. They are not divided into "evil" and "good"

When 2 children murder another child there's some serious questions that need to be asked and examined and not just lump them into the "evil" pile and move on.

I welcome this discussion.

A friend of the family was the Bulger’s lawyer. I remember him being at our house for dinner some years after the trial and he completely broke down when someone at the table mentioned the case. He was, and I imagine still is, very badly affected by the case.

Venables and Thompson should have been locked up for the rest of their lives. They are the very definition of pure evil.

Gimme A Pound

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I apologize if I took you up the wrong way.
Genuinely.

If I came across as sneering or condescending I also apologize. That was not my intention. Your post read to me as outraged keyboard pounding, and I reacted to that interpretation.

As for Hindley - I had the misfortune to meet her back in the 80s (loooong story - and no I wasn't doing porridge. I was a volunteer prison visitor).
She was the closest person I have ever met to what I would call evil. Unbelievably manipulative - and extremely good at it. So no, I have no issue with saying some people are just awful, terrible, human beings, I will even say some children are just awful human beings. What I don't agree with with is hang 'em high. I'm not the merciful.

Fair play. Many thanks - much appreciated.
And sorry for misunderstanding you also.

Oh same here - I've no interest in the "Hang 'em high" bluster, and people can of course be shaped by an abusive environment also. That plus an already inherent badness is a recipe for horror.

I remember reading about a campaigner for Hindley who changed their mind eventually based on the very thing you said. Manipulative was the key word used.

If this film throws light on why they crossed the line like few others have, it is worth making, but I'm sceptical given the Liverpool Echo story and surely that would have been explored already in the last 25.5 years. I can understand why people would be upset about empathy towards those boys too.

Dr Brown

Why would anybody want to make a film about those 2 animals ?

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

Execute children and harvest them for bodily organs....good to see the rational side of the argument anyway :rolleyes:

part of being rational is knowing when rationality is uncalled for

pleas advice

Dr Brown wrote: »

Why would anybody want to make a film about those 2 animals ?

Why would anyone do anything...

https://m.imdb.com/list/ls000092319/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I recall reading about Robert Thompson’s childhood. As toddlers, he and his siblings were pitted against each and encouraged to fight viciously whilst the adults sat around laughing. How was he ever going to be right? You simply can’t ignore details like that when considering his crime.

Porklife

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I recall reading about Robert Thompson’s childhood. As toddlers, he and his siblings were pitted against each and encouraged to fight viciously whilst the adults sat around laughing. How was he ever going to be right? You simply can’t ignore details like that when considering his crime.

Nobody is ignoring that. It's well documented that he had an abusive childhood. Loads of people have abusive childhoods that don't go on to commit horrific crimes. It's definitely a contributing factor but in no way does it explain, excuse or in any way make sense of his actions.
I had a rough childhood but I'm a loving caring person who wouldn't stand on a spider.
I truly believe some people are born evil. I think it's a chemical imbalance. Evil is a strange word too because if they have no capacity to feel empathy, are they actually evil or just incapable of feeling emotions and thereby its not really their fault. Hard to know but I think they enjoyed torturing him. I think they took huge pleasure from it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I actually think branding people as ‘evil’ is far too easy and helps in no way. You are ignoring his upbringing by disregarding that it could in any way have influenced his actions.

You say you had an abusive childhood. Were you encouraged to visciously fight your siblings with adults egging you on? When you were scarcely three years old? And remember, he committed the crime whilst still a child. He hadn’t even become a teenager. He still had a greatly immature mind because he was a child, that had been subjected to abuse for probably all his life to that point. The abuse bordered on animalistic. I would consider what I have read about his abusive upbringing to be far outside the norm. I don’t think many people who had abusive childhoods were in that league.

When considering the crime, you cannot disregard the abusive environment he came from. You can’t sweep it aside and say “Well that had nothing to do with it”.

When you look at the backgrounds of serial killers, so many of them had extraordinarily fücked up childhoods above and beyond even the abusive norm. They still going to go to prison but I can’t understand why people completely disregard the effects of fücked up formative years experiences. These happen when the brain is fast developing. Why wouldn’t these experiences have a huge effect?

Airyfairy12

I havnt seen the film, its an horrific crime that was committed but I think it is something that needs to be looked at and discussed. Most serial killers and people who have committed horrific crimes are wrote off as being evil but when you look into their backgrounds, upbringings and the families they came from, some times its easy to see how they became so messed up. Its a scary thought but anyone of us could have ended up the same way if we'd been unlucky enough to have their temperament and awful life experiences.
Im open to correction on this but im sure ive heard recently that one of the killers has been convicted for having images of children? Its not really surprising if thats the case. Instead of blaming someone for making a movie about these two boys and 'humanising' them - which I think is an awful description as we're all human, no actions can change that fact, its the legal system/child services/culture that should be blamed. Why wearnt these boys helped when they were young? Where were child services that could have potentially stopped this situation from ever happening through taking action and removing these boys from their own horrific home lives?
Why were they allowed to walk the streets again when they clearly showed psychopathic traits from a young age?

I dont think anyone is suggesting that their actions deserve any sympathy or that they arent accountable for their actions, they 100% are accountable - but there are other factors at play and I think it can only be a good thing to look at the whole picture and maybe try to understand how psychopaths are made, understanding this could prevent such situations happening again.

FrancieBrady

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I actually think branding people as ‘evil’ is far too easy and helps in no way. You are ignoring his upbringing by disregarding that it could in any way have influenced his actions.

You say you had an abusive childhood. Were you encouraged to visciously fight your siblings with adults egging you on? When you were scarcely three years old? And remember, he committed the crime whilst still a child. He hadn’t even become a teenager. He still had a greatly immature mind because he was a child, that had been subjected to abuse for probably all his life to that point. The abuse bordered on animalistic. I would consider what I have read about his abusive upbringing to be far outside the norm. I don’t think many people who had abusive childhoods were in that league.

When considering the crime, you cannot disregard the abusive environment he came from. You can’t sweep it aside and say “Well that had nothing to do with it”.

When you look at the backgrounds of serial killers, so many of them had extraordinarily fücked up childhoods above and beyond even the abusive norm. They still going to go to prison but I can’t understand why people completely disregard the effects of fücked up formative years experiences. These happen when the brain is fast developing. Why wouldn’t these experiences have a huge effect?

One organisation benefits from the descriptor 'evil' and it is no wonder it is still popular - the churches. You can even pay to pray it away or that it won't touch or visit your door.
It is a fairly useless designation.

Porklife

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I actually think branding people as ‘evil’ is far too easy and helps in no way. You are ignoring his upbringing by disregarding that it could in any way have influenced his actions.

You say you had an abusive childhood. Were you encouraged to visciously fight your siblings with adults egging you on? When you were scarcely three years old? And remember, he committed the crime whilst still a child. He hadn’t even become a teenager. He still had a greatly immature mind because he was a child, that had been subjected to abuse for probably all his life to that point. The abuse bordered on animalistic. I would consider what I have read about his abusive upbringing to be far outside the norm. I don’t think many people who had abusive childhoods were in that league.

When considering the crime, you cannot disregard the abusive environment he came from. You can’t sweep it aside and say “Well that had nothing to do with it”.

When you look at the backgrounds of serial killers, so many of them had extraordinarily fücked up childhoods above and beyond even the abusive norm. They still going to go to prison but I can’t understand why people completely disregard the effects of fücked up formative years experiences. These happen when the brain is fast developing. Why wouldn’t these experiences have a huge effect?

Nobody is disregarding his childhood. Did you even read my post? I open with... Nobody is disregarding his childhood and go on to say its definitely a contributing factor.
There's no easy answer here. It's shocking and awful how he was raised and what he was subjected to my his parents but it still doesn't explain why he did what he did.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Porklife wrote: »

Nobody is disregarding his childhood. Did you even read my post? I open with... Nobody is disregarding his childhood and go on to say its definitely a contributing factor.
There's no easy answer here. It's shocking and awful how he was raised and what he was subjected to my his parents but it still doesn't explain why he did what he did.

Why do you think that?

I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.

Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.

I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.

gerrybbadd

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why do you think that?

I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.

Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.

I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.

Nobody is born evil. You're almost entirely a product of your environment and upbringing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Nobody is born evil. You're almost entirely a product of your environment and upbringing.

Agreed.

Porklife

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why do you think that?

I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.

Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.

I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.

I'm not offended by the suggestion that their childhoods had an effect on their behaviour. I agree with you, how could it not. Even things like violent video games and horror movies have an effect. I do also believe personality comes into play. I think some people are born with an inherent badness in them and they will end up being horrible people regardless of their upbringing. I know a few dickheads who had very privileged childhoods, they're still dickheads. Conversely, someone could have a horrific childhood but go on to be a lovely person.

FrancieBrady

Porklife wrote: »

I'm not offended by the suggestion that their childhoods had an effect on their behaviour. I agree with you, how could it not. Even things like violent video games and horror movies have an effect. I do also believe personality comes into play. I think some people are born with an inherent badness in them and they will end up being horrible people regardless of their upbringing. I know a few dickheads who had very privileged childhoods, they're still dickheads. Conversely, someone could have a horrific childhood but go on to be a lovely person.

And some environmental influence would have caused that, it just doesn't happen for all.

Why the need to employ an archaic biblical influence escapes me.

Calltocall

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why do you think that?

I did read your post. It boiled down to “his childhood was horrific but he was still just evil”. And then vague comments about just as “many” people having equally horrific childhoods. When I read about his childhood, I thought it sounded like an absolute outlier in terms of the viciousness, not something that would have happened to “lots” of people. Much like the mindbendingly effed up childhoods of both Fred and Rosemary West. There is just no way they weren’t molded by their weird, violent childhoods.

Why are people so offended by the suggestion that extreme experiences in the formative years can have a huge effect? It’s not like they were not going to be jailed because of it. Thompson and Veneables were not going to be allowed to roam free on account of it.

I think people just find it more comforting and neat to think that some people are just born that way. Evil/Not Evil - much less messy.

I don’t subscribe to the whole evil/not evil debate I think it boils down to a combination of factors ones childhood and also ones physiological makeup, in certain rare individuals it is a toxic combination that results in them committing horrific sadistic crimes for pleasure also coupled with the key factor lack of empathy/remorse.

I do not believe for one second that there aren’t many other children that were raised in horrific circumstances just like Thompson in this city and across the globe (And yes I have read about his childhood background in great detail) yet they DO NOT carry out crimes like Thompson, the crime took place in 93 and there has been possibly one other crime like it since then.

From researching his time in a care facility it is quite evident that Thompson displayed psychopathic traits, no remorse (not phased by his crime) obsession with himself (watching the news broadcasts on the case everyday) extremely manipulative.

My main issue is that I am not comfortable with an individual like above who is a murderer capable of barbaric brutality being free amongst the general population, an individual whos identity is hidden therefore he could be my next door Neighbour yet I don’t have a right to know because he is protected.

We had a case here in Ireland recently which immediately drew comparisons in my mind with this one, I will not name names as I do not want to cause an issue with the thread but the pattern of behavior was evident, a very disturbed individual from a very young age who then in adulthood committed horrific crimes and luckily for the victim they survived on another day they may not have. If he was locked up in a suitable facility that wouldn’t have happened. He had a terrible background which I’m sure is a great comfort to his victims. Whilst a terrible background should be taken into account in trying to understand the reason for someone committing a crime it should never be an excuse.

I personally believe that Venables and Thompson should not have been released at 18. I find it disturbing that they were coddled in care and tiptoed around, Thompson lived it up and manipulated that to his advantage every need catered for and look where we are now, Venables had been uploading and sharing violent child porn with peadophile groups online over a number of years even whilst being closely monitored who knows what he would have done if he wasn’t being watched and as for Thompson perhaps he is a different person however I wouldn’t be convinced of that I would say just a lot more cunning than Venables. Again a terrible background is an empty excuse and one which would offer little comfort to their victims.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

It’s so hard to know what to do with child on child murder re: lifelong incarceration. It’s much easier with adults. It’s easy to say than an Anders Breivik or Ted Bundy or Rosemary West should never be released.

But child murderers are so rare and the fact that they were still mentally developing when they killed just makes it so much harder to judge.

kowloon

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

People are complex. They are not divided into "evil" and "good"

Yes, but it's easy to sort everything that way. Black vs. white, left vs. right and so on. It's easier to just call them evil and move on without any uncomfortable examination.

gerrybbadd

Has this film been released yet at all? Where would you watch it? I see it's a half hour long - how does Lambe expect to "humanise" Venables & Thompson in that short a time frame