Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - re-offenders?

androphobic · 19-06-2001 12:37am #1

from sky.com
<snip> .. Venables, who is now 19, attended a parole hearing to see if he would be released from detention.

He could walk free within days if the panel reviewing his case at a secret location so decide. A further hearing on Wednesday will decide the future of Thompson, who is also 19. The young men have already served eight years for murdering the toddler. </snip>

Should James Bulger's killers walk free?

Shinji · 19-06-2001 12:54am

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

androphobic · 19-06-2001 1:01am

Originally posted by Shinji:
I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

I guess that's the question here.
But does 8 years make up for what they did?

And considering they carried out such a gratuitous act in the first place, I guess people can't be blamed for thinking that at least one of them must be evil.

DadaKopf · 19-06-2001 1:18am

They were imprisoned "at Her Majesty's pleasure" anyway so a release soon after they became legal adults was always on the cards. Presumably they've grown up and have received therapy or something. So long as the shrinks say it's ok, it's ok. I mean, they're unlikely to become priests and molest children as well and then enroll in an anti-capitalist vigilante group and bomb the Tweenies.

I'm sure there are provisos like ongoing treatment and so on. People just should be careful about how they're viewing the whole thing; most people found the case extremely emotive but the law is more objective.

Magwitch · 19-06-2001 2:19am

They committed a terrible act of barbarism but after 10 years of theorpy and observation I am sure their heads are righted.

Both had troubled (in one case deeply) childhoods. As adults I think they have paid the price of loosing their chilhoods. Surely punishment enough.

ConUladh · 19-06-2001 8:44am

Definitely one for the experts

You can't trust joe public to look at this with an open mind, if they were kept inside for another 20 years there would still be protests

Xterminator · 19-06-2001 12:38pm

I understand why they may be released.
As children themselves, they were not entirely responsible for their actions.
Whether their parents should have assumed more of the blame is a discussion for another day.
I think if they are determined to be on no danger to the public, then they should be released, but monitored carefully for a while yet.
They need their anonimity preserved if they are to be re-intregrated into society.

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 22-06-2001).]

JustHalf · 19-06-2001 1:48pm

The fact that what these people did, as children, was cruel and barbaric is not in question. However, they are no longer children. The crime was committed as ten year olds. I don't think any of use had that much comprehension of cause and effect at that age, did we?

Argh, I need sleep.

androphobic · 19-06-2001 6:26pm

Originally posted by JustHalf:
I don't think any of use had that much comprehension of cause and effect at that age, did we?

I don't reckon we did. However very few kids killed someone at that age either.

I realise they've lost their childhoods as Magwitch pointed out, and they've undoubtedly had a lot of treatment since.
Just don't think I'd be able to accept 8 years if it had been my little sister.

Victor · 19-06-2001 7:00pm

I think it is a case where it is both difficult to forgive and indeed more difficult to forget. However, I think the time has come. Which has served longer Venables and Thompson or some 22 year old soldier who got trigger happy in some conflict or other.

Time to move on.

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

Shinji · 19-06-2001 7:09pm

Just don't think I'd be able to accept 8 years if it had been my little sister.

Quite. Had it been mine, I'd probably be frothing at the mouth too.

However, the whole point of the law is that it's meant to be a little more objective than that. I don't think that giving the victims a pointy stick and inviting them to punish the offenders however they see fit works particularly well as a criminal justice system.

JustHalf · 19-06-2001 8:33pm

Originally posted by androphobic:
I don't reckon we did. However very few kids killed someone at that age either..

I don't think we had a well formed idea of death though. I'm not trying to excuse what they did, but I think that children of ten could not possible have the same degree of logical thought processes as an adult.

Originally posted by androphobic:
I realise they've lost their childhoods as Magwitch pointed out, and they've undoubtedly had a lot of treatment since.
Just don't think I'd be able to accept 8 years if it had been my little sister.

That is understandable, but it as Shinji pointed out (repeatedly I think) the law is more objective. It needs to treat all parties fairly.

Shinji · 19-06-2001 11:09pm

It's worth noting that the very people whinging about the money being spent on protecting their identities are the people that they need to be protected from.

I can understand Bulger's mother being amazingly bitter about the whole affair, she'd undoubtedly like to see the pair of them roast in hell for what they did. I do wish, however, that the tabloid press would stop giving the woman a soapbox from which to shout - she's suffered a terrible loss, yes, but her ranting about Venables and Thompson is getting tiresome now.

androphobic · 19-06-2001 11:34pm

Originally posted by JustHalf:
That is understandable, but it as Shinji pointed out (repeatedly I think) the law is more objective. It needs to treat all parties fairly.

Hey again Justhalf.
Yea, I get what you (and Shinji, etc.) are saying. It's such a hard case to contemplate because on one hand we have 2 young men who committed crimes at a very vulnerable and impressionable and innocent age and who surely have a different perception of right and wrong, eight years later.

At the same time, we have one brutally murdered toddler whose murderers, however changed they may be, will probably walk free quite soon.

I realise the importance of rehabilitation. Eight years just doesn't sound like justice.

Shinji · 20-06-2001 12:22am

That's well and good, but your concept of justice seems to boil down to a "punish the bástards" mentality rather than a "rehabilitate them" mentality... Or rather, you don't want "justice", you want "revenge".

androphobic · 20-06-2001 12:44am

Originally posted by Shinji:
That's well and good, but your concept of justice seems to boil down to a "punish the bástards" mentality rather than a "rehabilitate them" mentality... Or rather, you don't want "justice", you want "revenge".

Hmm, not exactly. As I said previously, there's two sides to the story as such. Of course it's important for the two guys to be rehabilitated. At the same time, a young child was murdered. I mean, 8 years do not make up for this loss of life.

And I know they were only 10 when they killed him - that's what makes it so hard - their ideas and perceptions of right and wrong were different.. probably not even really formed.

My idea of justice is not the same as my idea of revenge. I guess prison sentences are somehow linked to both. The two boys were put away because they killed James Bulger.. so I suppose it could be argued that they were put away to avenge his death.

I'm not claiming to be objective - I can't be, a kid is dead and nothing can change that. For most people when they think of the Bulger case, they're gonna think of the innocent little two year old.. not the two ten year olds who probably didn't know what they were doing.. but it still happened, he still died.

I don't want them (Venables and Thompson)dead; I don't believe that they're going to reoffend; I don't think I even want them punished any longer, but at the same time I can't help thinking about the little child who was killed for no reason.
I feel pity for them more than anything.. because they're going to have the murder on their consciences for the rest of their lives, and that's one hell of a burden.

Magwitch · 20-06-2001 1:10am

The picture being painted is a dostorted one by the media, but one often painted. Tabloids and TV give vent to grieving in such a way as to convince the agrieved that everyone else is grieving with them. And of course there are those to whom this soap-opera makes a deep impression.

In the past grieving was done privatly, but the emergence of a "confession culture" through the media leads many of the more vocal to a higher moral ground, where they can grive continiously and denounce others who do not. (Reaction to Lady Diana's death spings instantly to mind).

Jamies Bulgers mother has other children, who are growing up in the shadow of a dead sibling. She should get over it. Eight years is going well beyond any period of acceptable grieving, It is now a morbid circus of media and self pity.

androphobic · 20-06-2001 5:26pm

Originally posted by Magwitch:
Jamies Bulgers mother has other children, who are growing up in the shadow of a dead sibling. She should get over it. Eight years is going well beyond any period of acceptable grieving, It is now a morbid circus of media and self pity.

I agree that the tabloids need to stop giving her so much attention because it is neither helping her or anyone else.

And you're right, eight years is a long time.. and it does seem to be a circus of media.. but you just don't get over something like that.
Yea it's been 8 years but I don't think it's very fair to say "she should get over it". Some people never get over things like that.

JustHalf · 20-06-2001 10:51pm

Originally posted by androphobic:
Yea it's been 8 years but I don't think it's very fair to say "she should get over it". Some people never get over things like that.

I think that the media should stop drawing her out like this. She feels anger and wants to vent it, but if you do this with a microphone and camera in front of you it totally demeans your grieving. I don't know what a psychologist would say about this, but I'm fairly certain that if she was allowed to grieve with her family, although she will probably never get over it, she will also not be abused by our curiousity while we reopen old wounds and dust off old memories.

Edited for syntax and grammar, the gruesome twosome.

[This message has been edited by JustHalf (edited 21-06-2001).]

Clintons Cat · 28-06-2001 6:08pm

one of the most irresponsible pieces of tabloid reporting over the last week or so concerns this case.The sun published a picture of one of the boys next to a picture of Damien from the Omen films on the grounds that the forman of the jury thought at the time that he "looked just like him".
There seems to be a que of upstanding citizens ready to dispense Justice for jamie,most of which seems to revolve around re enacting venables and thompsons crimes.
After the name and shame paedophile campaign which resulted in innocent men being attacked because they had the same name or lived in the out of date address supplied by the news of the world,one would have thought the tabloids would have used a modicum of sense.
Still if the boys release sells papers
just think how many will sell ...

Clintons Cat · 28-06-2001 6:30pm

the forman of the jury thought at the time that he "looked just like Damien".

Looking just like someone...Always a solid foundation for a judical process

bonkey · 29-06-2001 9:02am

Originally posted by androphobic:
I mean, 8 years do not make up for this loss of life.

This is what it boils down to, isnt it. Nothing makes up for a loss of life. Even if you were inclined to believe in the death sentence (other thread), killing the killers does not "make up" for his loss of life.

SO, the questions is not how we can make up for it, but rather how we can best recover from it.

A media circus, giving (as Shinji put it) JBs mom a soapbox to get up on, and a mob-rule mentality which has put these boys' lives in danger is by no means a good solution.

As for whether 8 years is "long enough". These boys have now spent almost 50% of their life to date in a correctional facility. While 8 years may not seem like a lot to us on the outside, think what it means to a young child. I remember thinking when I was in my teens that the millenium was SO FAR away.

If, as the experts say, they have been rehabilitated, then they should be released. Institutionalising someone serves no purpose, other than revenge, which is not what our justice system is about.

No length of time is "long enough" for the agrieved. However, for the boys in question....they lost their childhood, and their actions will probably haunt them for the rest of their lives to some extent or another.

Why also force them to spend their lives behind a wall if they are no threat? Why not allow them to at least try and put something back into society.

And of course...keep an eye on them, just in case the experts are wrong.

jc

Connor whos 11 · 20-04-2009 6:52pm

Shinji wrote: »

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

You have to be and Evil child to do that i may be 11 but no one would do that.

Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the

way stopping every now and again to

torture the poor little boy who was crying

constantly for his mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they

brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint

in his eyes, pushed batteries up his a*** and cut his

fingers off with scissors. Other mutilations were

inflicted but not reported in the press.

N.B. :- Remember, a 3year old cannot possibly

defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of

2 them.

What these two boys did was so horrendous that

Jamie's mother was forbidden to identify his body.

They then left his beaten small body on railway

tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess

they had created. These two boys, even being boys,

understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to

make it look like an accident.

carlybabe1 · 20-04-2009 7:28pm

Shinji wrote: »

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

Its not a simple case of breaking windows and puncturing tyres, these two boys deliberately abducted that toddler and then tortured and murdered him. Are they the same people? I very much doubt it, they are quite possibly worse, and at the very least they dont deserve thier liberty

carlybabe1 · 20-04-2009 7:43pm

Shinji wrote: »

It's worth noting that the very people whinging about the money being spent on protecting their identities are the people that they need to be protected from.

I can understand Bulger's mother being amazingly bitter about the whole affair, she'd undoubtedly like to see the pair of them roast in hell for what they did. I do wish, however, that the tabloid press would stop giving the woman a soapbox from which to shout - she's suffered a terrible loss, yes, but her ranting about Venables and Thompson is getting tiresome now.

Thats rich coming from someone who couldnt possibly have a clue how that women feels or what she went through. Typical fcuked up rationale if you ask me, on the one hand your saying we shouldnt judge these animals on what they done ten years ago, but your ok judging the mother of the victim, and harshly at that. Smacks of cheek IMO, put yourself in her shoes cause having three kids myself, and having lost my son three days after his 3rd birthday (due to illness) the torture that goes through your head and tears your heart, stuff like : was he scared when he was dying, did he know what was happening, did he suffer. I cant imagine how that woman has coped with the images and thoughts of how her baby suffered, how scared he must have been, and how she could do fcuk all to protect him. Its a testament to her courage and strength of character that she chooses to remind the world (and because of that herself) of what happened to her son, and why these people should never have thier liberty again. And you have the cheek to critise her for doing that while claiming these people should not be judged for what they done when they were ten??? Shame on you

She doesnt want people to forget about her jamie, and I can certainly understand that, as would most people I imagine.

carlybabe1 · 20-04-2009 7:51pm

Magwitch wrote: »

The picture being painted is a dostorted one by the media, but one often painted. Tabloids and TV give vent to grieving in such a way as to convince the agrieved that everyone else is grieving with them. And of course there are those to whom this soap-opera makes a deep impression.

In the past grieving was done privatly, but the emergence of a "confession culture" through the media leads many of the more vocal to a higher moral ground, where they can grive continiously and denounce others who do not. (Reaction to Lady Diana's death spings instantly to mind).

Jamies Bulgers mother has other children, who are growing up in the shadow of a dead sibling. She should get over it. Eight years is going well beyond any period of acceptable grieving, It is now a morbid circus of media and self pity.

I find this particularly offensive :mad: Are you havin a laugh??? What makes you such a worldly fcukin expert that you can tell someone how long they should be grieving?? When did you bury a child???? Didn't? well I never would have guessed that from your post. That kind of flippant remark could only come from someone who has never experienced anything like the subject thier spouting about

20-04-2009 9:04pm

JustHalf wrote: »

That is understandable, but it as Shinji pointed out (repeatedly I think) the law is more objective. It needs to treat all parties fairly.

If its the case of treating all parties fairly, then they should be treated the same way as if someone older had done something similar. The point of this is that Justice is supposedly blind. That is, if we're talking about punishment based on the crime regardless of those who commit it..

For myself, I'd like to see them on serious probation for the next five years of their lives. Sure, let them out to join mainstream society, as any other released convicts, but they should be monitored to ensure that they warrant such a release.

20-04-2009 9:08pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I find this particularly offensive :mad: Are you havin a laugh??? What makes you such a worldly fcukin expert that you can tell someone how long they should be grieving?? When did you bury a child???? Didn't? well I never would have guessed that from your post. That kind of flippant remark could only come from someone who has never experienced anything like the subject thier spouting about

I think he's more talking about the showing of the grief to the public, as if they're acting on stage, rather than commenting that she should forget her child. Its a fair point that many people who have received the limelight from the media, continue to do so for various reasons. Its time for this to be left to the family & friends, rather than broadcast across the world.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 21-04-2009 1:09am

Connor whos 11 wrote: »

You have to be and Evil child to do that i may be 11 but no one would do that.

Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the

way stopping every now and again to

torture the poor little boy who was crying

constantly for his mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they

brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint

in his eyes, pushed batteries up his a*** and cut his

fingers off with scissors. Other mutilations were

inflicted but not reported in the press.

N.B. :- Remember, a 3year old cannot possibly

defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of

2 them.

What these two boys did was so horrendous that

Jamie's mother was forbidden to identify his body.

They then left his beaten small body on railway

tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess

they had created. These two boys, even being boys,

understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to

make it look like an accident.

That's a copy and paste of an email which added some details to the story which aren't true.

carlybabe1 · 21-04-2009 8:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he's more talking about the showing of the grief to the public, as if they're acting on stage, rather than commenting that she should forget her child. Its a fair point that many people who have received the limelight from the media, continue to do so for various reasons. Its time for this to be left to the family & friends, rather than broadcast across the world.

With all due respect thats not your decision to make. And lets be honest here, people dont really want to repeatedly hear about this kind of thing happening because it makes them uncomfortable and cant be explainedaway, there is no reason for this kind of a crime occurring and it brings reality a little bit closer to our own front door. (dont start down the bad childhood crap, I know people who've had much worse upbringing, and while they are not what you'd call well adjusted, they could never concieve of this kind of malice)

So the above comment and similar fake honourable types such as "let them grieve in private" is really just dressing up the fact that people dont want to hear about it.Lets call a spade a spade, Sure, let them out into society, let them be rehabilitated and get thier lives back together, because then it will all just go away and we wont have to hear about it anymore.
I hate to point out that aside from the fact that I dont beleive they should have thier liberty back, what if they do get out and re-offend??? Will anybody feel guilty for fighting thier cause I wonder

21-04-2009 11:12am

carlybabe1 wrote: »

With all due respect thats not your decision to make.

None of our decisions bear any influence over this. This is a bulletin board where people post their opinions. Which is extremely obvious, so why bother saying so? Really...

And lets be honest here, people dont really want to repeatedly hear about this kind of thing happening because it makes them uncomfortable and cant be explainedaway, there is no reason for this kind of a crime occurring and it brings reality a little bit closer to our own front door. (dont start down the bad childhood crap, I know people who've had much worse upbringing, and while they are not what you'd call well adjusted, they could never concieve of this kind of malice)

Actually, for my part, I say let the issue be forgotten because the court has ruled, and the punishment has been applied. If we're going to talk about the murder of children, fine, do so. But the issue of these offenders is over. The court of law has pretty much decided they've served their time.

So the above comment and similar fake honourable types such as "let them grieve in private" is really just dressing up the fact that people dont want to hear about it.

Pretty much. But society revolves around being polite about just about everything.

Lets call a spade a spade, Sure, let them out into society, let them be rehabilitated and get thier lives back together, because then it will all just go away and we wont have to hear about it anymore.
I hate to point out that aside from the fact that I dont beleive they should have thier liberty back, what if they do get out and re-offend??? Will anybody feel guilty for fighting their cause I wonder

Aside from the fact? You've made your stance clear, so how can this be aside the fact? You point out people who dress up their comments, and yet you're pretty much doing the same. Its a bit like saying "With Respect,...". :rolleyes:

The release of any person who has served time in prison is a risk. But the simple fact is that the British don't have corporal punishment, and keeping them in prison for the rest of their natural lives isn't really an option. Better to released them while they're not too bitter about being stuck in prison for those years, and capable of reforming. I do believe they need to be monitored more than most released prisoners, but they should be given the chance to deal with what they've done. Perhaps they've taken the true measure of what they did, and now wish to act positively?

carlybabe1 · 21-04-2009 1:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

None of our decisions bear any influence over this. This is a bulletin board where people post their opinions. Which is extremely obvious, so why bother saying so? Really...

Im aware that this is a bulletin boards, my point was that its not for anybody to say how a victims mother should or should not behave. If she wants to remind people of this horrendous crime through the media then thats her right, NOT my opinion, but HER RIGHT legally.

Actually, for my part, I say let the issue be forgotten because the court has ruled, and the punishment has been applied.

Thats your opinion and you are more than entitled to it, but if you dont mind me asking, why do you think it should be forgotten, and can you honestly say you would still feel that way if the issue was closer to you

If we're going to talk about the murder of children, fine, do so.

Im a bit lost here, what exactly are you trying to point out??? They were 10 yrs old and they tortured and murdered a toddler after abducting him from a shopping mall, its tantamount to the issue. Are you trying to say that all the details should be forgotten???

But the issue of these offenders is over. The court of law has pretty much decided they've served their time.

Of course it isnt, and they were sentenced at her majesties leisure. Correct me if Im wrong, but thats a legal term meaning that there has been no set date for thier release, and its dependant on the risk of re-offending. And in the case of moira hindley, it was public opinion, and her victims mothers outrage that kept her behind bars till her death, WHERE SHE BELONGED.
So to say that the issue is over and we have no influence is like saying we dont have a vote, which is obviously not the case

Pretty much. But society revolves around being polite about just about everything.

Yawn :rolleyes: Must I point out the irony???

Aside from the fact? You've made your stance clear, so how can this be aside the fact? You point out people who dress up their comments, and yet you're pretty much doing the same. Its a bit like saying "With Respect,...". :rolleyes:

Ok I'll try saying it ssslllooowwwllly! Aside from the fact that I dont believe they are entitled to thier freedom actually means,"putting my opinion to one side" ! Is that any clearer??
I then asked a question which you failed to answer, and I'll re-iterate it in case it was confusing,
"What way would you feel if they were released and they re-offended?, would you feel bad for the proposed victim"

The release of any person who has served time in prison is a risk.

Should the risk and the crime not be assessed??? Its not like they burgled a house, surely your not suggesting that the actual crime be ignored when assessing the release of perpetrators :eek::eek:

But the simple fact is that the British don't have corporal punishment, and keeping them in prison for the rest of their natural lives isn't really an option.

Ive just pointed out that it is

Better to released them while they're not too bitter about being stuck in prison for those years, and capable of reforming.

Yes cause heaven forbid their character gets warped and twisted from being incarcerated :rolleyes::rolleyes:
the irony is killing me

I do believe they need to be monitored more than most released prisoners

far too often we have seen this failing,how are they going to be monitored with new IDs

but they should be given the chance to deal with what they've done.

Should they really, why's that now

Perhaps they've taken the true measure of what they did, and now wish to act positively?

And perhaps moira hindley truely was sorry etc etc :rolleyes: they should never see the light of day. Would you be as forgiving if there was a chance they would move near you???

DSB · 21-04-2009 1:24pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

And perhaps moira hindley truely was sorry etc etc :rolleyes: they should never see the light of day. Would you be as forgiving if there was a chance they would move near you???

Just to clarify, you're advocating actual life imprisonment for murder with no exceptions here right?

carlybabe1 · 21-04-2009 1:46pm

DSB wrote: »

Just to clarify, you're advocating actual life imprisonment for murder with no exceptions here right?

Absolutely not, as I posted previously, I do advocate the severity and callousness of the crime should be taken into consideration. Wthout opening the can of worms of circumstances, I do believe that when a perpetrator gleans enjoyment from commiting the crime then they should not ever be released, the risk is just that, a risk. And the consequences are far too high to justify taking that risk

Bottle_of_Smoke · 21-04-2009 2:22pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Absolutely not, as I posted previously, I do advocate the severity and callousness of the crime should be taken into consideration. Wthout opening the can of worms of circumstances, I do believe that when a perpetrator gleans enjoyment from commiting the crime then they should not ever be released, the risk is just that, a risk. And the consequences are far too high to justify taking that risk

I do agree with this. I don't think their living arrangements should be harsh or anything but as they are potentially a threat I don't think the public should face the risk. Same goes for rapists/sexual predators.

carlybabe1 · 21-04-2009 2:39pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I do agree with this. I don't think their living arrangements should be harsh or anything but as they are potentially a threat I don't think the public should face the risk. Same goes for rapists/sexual predators.

+++1
thanks for that, I was beggining to feel medievil (sp?)

PullOutMethod · 21-04-2009 3:01pm

OP, you've got to differentiate between the 2 perpetrators.
As far as I recall it was child A (Venables) who was the instigator.
Child B (Thompson) apparently was one of those kids who are easily led and just went along with whatever others suggested.
Of course it was a heinous crime, but I don't think the punishment should have been borne equally.
So I do have some sympathy for Thompson.
As far as the other one is concerned I regard him like something out of the Chucky movies - apparently that is exactly the movies he had been watching prior to the murder.

21-04-2009 5:57pm

To clarify (because the account earlier was inaccurate): they beat him with rocks, bricks and an iron bar, and splattered him with paint, "manipulated" his penis, and put batteries in his mouth (causing electric shocks), and left on the tracks where a train cut him in half. They didn't cut off his fingers, rub paint in his eyes or put batteries in his anus.

21-04-2009 6:11pm

Come on, really... is it that hard to get your quotes written correctly? There is an edit button.

carlybabe1 wrote:

Im aware that this is a bulletin boards, my point was that its not for anybody to say how a victims mother should or should not behave. If she wants to remind people of this horrendous crime through the media then thats her right, NOT my opinion, but HER RIGHT legally.

People regularly make their opinions known about how people should or shouldn't behave on these boards. Why is this any different? You yourself are saying how others should act.

Thats your opinion and you are more than entitled to it, but if you dont mind me asking, why do you think it should be forgotten, and can you honestly say you would still feel that way if the issue was closer to you

If it was closer to me? You mean geographically or emotionally? If you mean location, I wouldn't really care. I'm currently living in Athlone where there are plenty of people who have seen the inside of jails for violent crimes. I've also lived in Dublin, London, Paris etc. Plenty of violent crime there.

As for why it should be forgotten, I don't mean the act in itself. Rather, the feeding frenzy with the media serves no purpose. The murder is known to most people in the Uk and Ireland, and isn't likely to be forgotten. I just don't see any point with constantly bringing it up. I have the same kind of feelings regarding Princess Diana, and plenty of other topics which the media loves to focus on.

Im a bit lost here, what exactly are you trying to point out??? They were 10 yrs old and they tortured and murdered a toddler after abducting him from a shopping mall, its tantamount to the issue. Are you trying to say that all the details should be forgotten???

I'm talking about there being two subjects here. The first being Jon Venables and Robert Thompson themselves, and secondly the actual act of murder by children towards other children. Its about the manner of this discussion.

And you're jumping to conclusions, by saying i wish the subject forgotten. I never said that. Just because I'm not agreeing with you, don't put words where there are none.

Of course it isnt, and they were sentenced at her majesties leisure. Correct me if Im wrong, but thats a legal term meaning that there has been no set date for thier release, and its dependant on the risk of re-offending. And in the case of moira hindley, it was public opinion, and her victims mothers outrage that kept her behind bars till her death, WHERE SHE BELONGED.
So to say that the issue is over and we have no influence is like saying we dont have a vote, which is obviously not the case

Do you have anything to suggest that they would re-offend? i'm sure they have been under psychological observation and their tests would influence whether the courts decide to retain them for longer. Aside from their original murder, they may have shown some degree of remorse for their crime?

As for saying we don't have a vote, well... we don't.

Yawn Must I point out the irony???

Nope. I guess you can't even see when I happen to agree with you. But I can't say I'm too suprised by your reaction. :rolleyes:

Ok I'll try saying it ssslllooowwwllly! Aside from the fact that I dont believe they are entitled to thier freedom actually means,"putting my opinion to one side" ! Is that any clearer??

Which you fail to do, so why bother? And drop the sarcasm, you're not particularly good at it.

I then asked a question which you failed to answer, and I'll re-iterate it in case it was confusing,
"What way would you feel if they were released and they re-offended?, would you feel bad for the proposed victim"

Sure, i would. But I believe in a persons chance to be reformed and re-introduced into society. Otherwise we might as well, start killing every offender just in case they re-offend. Would you advocate such mass murder?

Should the risk and the crime not be assessed??? Its not like they burgled a house, surely your not suggesting that the actual crime be ignored when assessing the release of perpetrators

have I said that their behavior shouldn't be evaluated? Do you really think they're going to released without tests and evaluations being made? I've already said that they should be monitored more closely than other ("reformed") criminals should they be released.

Ive just pointed out that it is

You might as well ask for the death sentence considering your stance on this. A life sentence just doesn't happen. They'd be released between 10-15 years. Why don't you call for their deaths?

Yes cause heaven forbid their character gets warped and twisted from being incarcerated
the irony is killing me

They were children committing a horrible crime. If released in later years (say 20 years more), they would be adults with a grudge against the state and society in general. Personally, I think they would be more likely to re-offend if kept in prison, and then released in later years. And they would be released.

far too often we have seen this failing,how are they going to be monitored with new IDs

I don't know. How often do these measure's succeed?

Should they really, why's that now

Ahh... I see now. You don't view them as human. That they have no rights to life. That they have no chance of reform. Well, there's no use talking to you, because your hatred is set in stone.

wrote:

And perhaps moira hindley truely was sorry etc etc :rolleyes: they should never see the light of day. Would you be as forgiving if there was a chance they would move near you???

Again the same question. Read above.

carlybabe1 · 21-04-2009 10:21pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Come on, really... is it that hard to get your quotes written correctly? There is an edit button.

Apparently so, Im not sure if Im being unclear or if your deliberately misconsrtruing my words

People regularly make their opinions known about how people should or shouldn't behave on these boards. Why is this any different? You yourself are saying how others should act.

Yes people do, and normally a debate ensues, this shouldnt be any different. However, peoples opinions are usually formed with some reasoning behind them. You are attacking my opinion which, to clarify, is that when the crime is as heinious as this was, its too great a risk to release the offenders, they should just be locked up where its certain that they can NEVER reoffend, instead of releasing them on what I would consider misplaced charity and then looking for someone to blame when they put another child and/or family through the same kind of ordeal, or possibly a worse one.

If it was closer to me? You mean geographically or emotionally? If you mean location, I wouldn't really care. I'm currently living in Athlone where there are plenty of people who have seen the inside of jails for violent crimes. I've also lived in Dublin, London, Paris etc. Plenty of violent crime there.

I meant emotionally, which was about as obvious as you pointing out that this is a bulletin board. You dodged it nicely though

As for why it should be forgotten, I don't mean the act in itself. Rather, the feeding frenzy with the media serves no purpose.

Says who? You? Sure aren't we havin a grand oul debate here now

If there was no "media frenzy" (:rolleyes:) then these people would be released and no-one would be any the wiser, much less be able to do anything about it, would you not think?

The murder is known to most people in the Uk and Ireland, and isn't likely to be forgotten.

Ah but it is, I know personally that I haven't thought about it in the last year, doubt anyone else has until, (dare I point it out :eek:) the media brought it up

I just don't see any point with constantly bringing it up.

See above

I have the same kind of feelings regarding Princess Diana, and plenty of other topics which the media loves to focus on.

Apples and oranges really, please dont make me have to point out the obvious differences, its late and my wrists hurt

I'm talking about there being two subjects here. The first being Jon Venables and Robert Thompson themselves, and secondly the actual act of murder by children towards other children. Its about the manner of this discussion.

Its one and the same, hence my point, the punshment should fit the crime and the level of heinousness should definately be considered when thinking about releasing them into society

And you're jumping to conclusions, by saying i wish the subject forgotten. I never said that.

Firstly, I never said YOU personally, and secondly you agreed that I was right about it in your last reply to my post, I'll go rooting for it if you wish

Just because I'm not agreeing with you, don't put words where there are none.

DITTO!! see above thank you

Do you have anything to suggest that they would re-offend?

Nothing more than what you have to suggest that they wouldnt re-offend

i'm sure they have been under psychological observation and their tests would influence whether the courts decide to retain them for longer.

Obviously there would be other things to consider too, like how society feels about thier release

Aside from their original murder, they may have shown some degree of remorse for their crime?

Paedophiles show remorse, even to the extent that they go through chemical castration, some still re-offend

As for saying we don't have a vote, well... we don't.

Eh we live in a democracy the last time I checked.

Nope. I guess you can't even see when I happen to agree with you. But I can't say I'm too suprised by your reaction. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should be a bit clearer then

Sure, i would. But I believe in a persons chance to be reformed and re-introduced into society. Otherwise we might as well, start killing every offender just in case they re-offend. Would you advocate such mass murder?

Now now, dont go twisting my words, and dont accuse people of doin things you're quit adept at yourself. Its a bit "hello pot, this is the kettle speaking"

have I said that their behavior shouldn't be evaluated? Do you really think they're going to released without tests and evaluations being made? I've already said that they should be monitored more closely than other ("reformed") criminals should they be released.

Tell ye what, tommoro I'll find all the case files where offenders have been deemed to be "cured", released on the strength of those tests, and have subsequently re-offended. In the meantime, if you could find the case files of rehabilitated criminals, then we can compare notes, hows that sound??
Now I dont mean burglaries or the like, I mean comparible crimes

You might as well ask for the death sentence considering your stance on this. A life sentence just doesn't happen. They'd be released between 10-15 years. Why don't you call for their deaths?

Please see above "twisty" quote. If I thought they should be put to death I would have said so from the outset

They were children committing a horrible crime. If released in later years (say 20 years more), they would be adults with a grudge against the state and society in general. Personally, I think they would be more likely to re-offend if kept in prison, and then released in later years. And they would be released.

So like I suggested, keeping them incarcerated kind of eliminates that threat does it not??

Ahh... I see now. You don't view them as human. That they have no rights to life. That they have no chance of reform. Well, there's no use talking to you, because your hatred is set in stone.

SIGH I was going to try reasoning here but I think you're right, ignore me, it'll make my life easier, I wont have to keep correcting your deliberate misquotes and assumptions

And drop the sarcasm, you're not particularly good at it.

Perhaps not, but Im a damn sight better than you m'dear, surely you can allow me that one gift, after all Im sooooo hatefull

strolls off whistling with hands in pockets

AARRRGH · 22-04-2009 9:55am

I think they should be released, but if they turn out to be recidivists, they should be locked up for life instead of waiting for them to kill again.

I'm all on for giving people a second chance, but there is something seriously wrong when you kill people as a child.

carlybabe1 · 22-04-2009 10:43am

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think they should be released, but if they turn out to be recidivists, they should be locked up for life instead of waiting for them to kill again.

I'm all on for giving people a second chance, but there is something seriously wrong when you kill people as a child.

I really agree with the above, I reckon if your that damaged (for want of a better word) before puberty even sets in, then what hope is there when you get older??

Whats a recidivist though

22-04-2009 10:46am

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Apparently so, Im not sure if Im being unclear or if your deliberately misconsrtruing my words

Hardly. Notice other people's posts? They use the quote button correctly. My asking you to do the same is not distorting your posts.

Yes people do, and normally a debate ensues, this shouldnt be any different. However, peoples opinions are usually formed with some reasoning behind them. You are attacking my opinion which, to clarify, is that when the crime is as heinious as this was, its too great a risk to release the offenders, they should just be locked up where its certain that they can NEVER reoffend, instead of releasing them on what I would consider misplaced charity and then looking for someone to blame when they put another child and/or family through the same kind of ordeal, or possibly a worse one.

Actually, In this, I'm opposing your viewpoint that the mother should be still advertising her grief. I haven't attacked you or anything you have said, except for your use of sarcasm in your posts when its unwarranted. You seem to be getting...... distracted.

I meant emotionally, which was about as obvious as you pointing out that this is a bulletin board. You dodged it nicely though

Actually, geographically might affect people more since having someone like you describe above living in your house, would be quite disturbing... So it was logical to assume as I did.

As for emotionally, sure. But I'm not. I'm not even sure why you are.

Says who? You? Sure aren't we havin a grand oul debate here now

If there was no "media frenzy" (:rolleyes:) then these people would be released and no-one would be any the wiser, much less be able to do anything about it, would you not think?

Nope. I think these people will be released based on the evaluations of the psychiatric staff engaged to analysis the boys, the opinions of the wardens in charge of the boys, the legal group assigned to the case, and also the politicians looking at the case. I don't think the media or you will have any influence over any of that except limited returns on the politicians.

Ah but it is, I know personally that I haven't thought about it in the last year, doubt anyone else has until, (dare I point it out :eek:) the media brought it up

And if these boys are kept in prison, you'll go back to not thinking of them.... and just as likely, if these boys are released, and nothing happens, you'll won't think about them either. Until something happens if it does at all.

Its one and the same, hence my point, the punshment should fit the crime and the level of heinousness should definately be considered when thinking about releasing them into society

Sure... I actually agree. But release should always be a serious option..

Firstly, I never said YOU personally, and secondly you agreed that I was right about it in your last reply to my post, I'll go rooting for it if you wish

Let me remind you what you said:

"Are you trying to say that all the details should be forgotten???"

Its less than two posts above. Come'on. :rolleyes:

I said that it shouldn't be constantly placed in the limelight. Not that it should be forgotten.

DITTO!! see above thank you

Actually, no. Since you did say it. Whereas I didn't.

Nothing more than what you have to suggest that they wouldnt re-offend

Lovely.

Obviously there would be other things to consider too, like how society feels about thier release

The law and the manner in which the law judges the level of the reform settled in any prisoner is what matters. If you disagree with that process, seek to change it, but until then, respect them.

Society has nothing to do with this. Be practical.

Paedophiles show remorse, even to the extent that they go through chemical castration, some still re-offend

Aye, some do. Just as many murderers don't re-offend. Many who are imprisoned for "assault with a deadly weapon", later released, and disappear never to be heard of again.

You can't judge everyone who has a previous conviction as being hopeless just because they made one previous mistake... Well, actually you can judge them this way.. Not particularly free or just though.

Eh we live in a democracy the last time I checked.

Are you british? No? Then its not your vote.

Maybe you should be a bit clearer then

Oh, the irony! rofl.

Now now, dont go twisting my words, and dont accuse people of doin things you're quit adept at yourself. Its a bit "hello pot, this is the kettle speaking"

Twisting your words? hardly. You advocate that there is a risk that they will reoffend, so they should not be allowed any chance of release... Doesn't matter their state of mind, nor the opinions of the medical professionals involved in the case. You have made up your mind...

Tell ye what, tommoro I'll find all the case files where offenders have been deemed to be "cured", released on the strength of those tests, and have subsequently re-offended. In the meantime, if you could find the case files of rehabilitated criminals, then we can compare notes, hows that sound?? Now I dont mean burglaries or the like, I mean comparible crimes

Again, you advocate a zero tolerance policy towards offenders. Just because the system has failed in the past, nobody should be released. Ever. And that is not twisting your words. Your opinion is quite open from that paragraph above.

Even if we just take violent offenders, you're giving up hope on a lot of people.

Please see above "twisty" quote. If I thought they should be put to death I would have said so from the outset

Ahh, its better to leave them to rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives.... And I'm not twisting your words. Perhaps you should think about what you write before you do it?

So like I suggested, keeping them incarcerated kind of eliminates that threat does it not??

Forever? No right to appeal? No rights at all? Because of one, admittedly gruesome action?

Why not just kill them? You're seeking to punish them more.... by taking away their freedom, and leaving them in prison.

SIGH I was going to try reasoning here but I think you're right, ignore me, it'll make my life easier, I wont have to keep correcting your deliberate misquotes and assumptions

You really need to read over what you write before you hit the submit button. Even looking at your previous posts should my help.

Latchy · 22-04-2009 10:50am

Would be in the best intrests of all concerned if Venables and Thompson are living outside uk ,somewere on the other side of the world .If any potential girlfriend or wife were to find out what they did ( assuming they dont know already ) then they might have a security issue to worry about .

carlybabe1 · 22-04-2009 12:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly. Notice other people's posts? They use the quote button correctly. My asking you to do the same is not distorting your posts.

Duh thorry, I wadn't aware thah the diffrent coloursth are confusthin ye, thorry

Actually, In this, I'm opposing your viewpoint that the mother should be still advertising her grief. I haven't attacked you or anything you have said, except for your use of sarcasm in your posts when its unwarranted. You seem to be getting...... distracted.

I dont think shes advertising her grief, I cant see why anyone would want the whole world to see how **** you feel. In MY opinion, she is attracting the attention of the public as to the chance of these two murderers getting released into society, NOT the same thing IMO.
As for being distracted, I dont think I can be any more clear on what my point is.

Actually, geographically might affect people more since having someone like you describe above living in your house, would be quite disturbing... So it was logical to assume as I did.

How might that be then? How could a murderer living close by possibly affect a person more than being that murderers victims mother/uncle/aunt/brother? How could living with the threat of that kind of crime be worse than living with the result of it

As for emotionally, sure. But I'm not. I'm not even sure why you are.

WTF

Nope. I think these people will be released based on the evaluations of the psychiatric staff engaged to analysis the boys, the opinions of the wardens in charge of the boys, the legal group assigned to the case, and also the politicians looking at the case. I don't think the media or you will have any influence over any of that except limited returns on the politicians.

I think I've already pointed this out but, when someone is imprisoned at her majesties pleasure there is no set date for thier release. As in the case of Moira Hindley (precedence they call it) she died behind bars, regardless of psychiatrists reports, politicians backing etc etc, and the reason for that is because of the public reaction. There would have been outrage, there was protests every time the issue came up. And the majority of people wouldnt have known about the issue coming up for review except for the media.
And I didnt say I would have any influence, I meant the public, collectively

And if these boys are kept in prison, you'll go back to not thinking of them....

Absolutely, I have that liberty, and Im damn grateful for it, unlike Jamies mother

and just as likely, if these boys are released, and nothing happens, you'll won't think about them either. Until something happens if it does at all.

This is where we differ. I really dont think that thats a risk that should be taken. I personally wouldn't like to be around for the fall out if it did re-occur, how do you explain that to the new victims parents? would you be able to do that (hypothetically of course), cause I know I wouldnt, and in much the same vien of the moors murders, I cant see the authorities taking that risk either.

Sure... I actually agree. But release should always be a serious option..

In some instances maybe but IMO in this particular case the risk is too high

Let me remind you what you said:

"Are you trying to say that all the details should be forgotten???"

Its less than two posts above. Come'on. :rolleyes:

I said that it shouldn't be constantly placed in the limelight. Not that it should be forgotten.

Actually, no. Since you did say it. Whereas I didn't.

Much confusion on both parts

The law and the manner in which the law judges the level of the reform settled in any prisoner is what matters. If you disagree with that process, seek to change it, but until then, respect them.

Be realistic, how do you think laws get reformed in the first place

Society has nothing to do with this. Be practical.

If you are trying to say that law and society are different and seperate entities then you're much mistaken IMO. Its only with society, by that I mean the public, pushing for change that it actually comes about.

Aye, some do. Just as many murderers don't re-offend. Many who are imprisoned for "assault with a deadly weapon", later released, and disappear never to be heard of again.

Its hardly within the context, you are muddying the water here. I cant say it any clearer, so if you refuse to see it fine, but the brevity of this particular crime should automatically preclude any chance of release. ITS NOT THE SAME AS A B&E WHERE SOMEONE GETS SHOT, ITS NOT THE SAME AS ONE GANG MEMBER SHOOTING ANOTHER

You can't judge everyone who has a previous conviction as being hopeless just because they made one previous mistake... Well, actually you can judge them this way.. Not particularly free or just though.

I agree, I dont think that everyone should be thrown on the scrap heap, I think the crime commited and the circumstances should always lend weight, which is why in this case I dont believe they should be released. Now, please dont try tarnish me in your next post with the above crap, this is the second time I've had to make this statement in reply to one of yours.

Are you british? No? Then its not your vote.

Ugh :rolleyes: it'll take to long to explain

Twisting your words? hardly. You advocate that there is a risk that they will reoffend, so they should not be allowed any chance of release... Doesn't matter their state of mind, nor the opinions of the medical professionals involved in the case. You have made up your mind...

Yes, thats my opinion, and as you previously stated, this is a forum where people express thier opinions

Again, you advocate a zero tolerance policy towards offenders. Just because the system has failed in the past, nobody should be released. Ever. And that is not twisting your words. Your opinion is quite open from that paragraph above.

Actually you are twisting my words. I advocate zero tolerance towards THESE TYPES of offenders, I did not make a sweeping statement

Even if we just take violent offenders, you're giving up hope on a lot of people.

See above, cause I've a pain in me left breast typing it

Ahh, its better to leave them to rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives.... And I'm not twisting your words. Perhaps you should think about what you write before you do it?

Yes, Yes I do think that of these boys/men. I have thought about it.
Maybe you should read my posts before replying instead of just scanning over it

Forever? No right to appeal? No rights at all? Because of one, admittedly gruesome action?

Yes Yes and Yes again

Why not just kill them? You're seeking to punish them more.... by taking away their freedom, and leaving them in prison.

Dont be silly now, Im pretty sure they would see it differently.
Its hardly the same kind of punishment thier victim got

You really need to read over what you write before you hit the submit button. Even looking at your previous posts should my help.

HAHAHAHA RLOL HAHAHA. Now THATS ironic

23-04-2009 1:02pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Duh thorry, I wadn't aware thah the diffrent coloursth are confusthin ye, thorry

Now you're just being retarded. I asked for you to format your quotes correctly. Nothing wrong with that, and your response to that has been consistently childish.

I dont think shes advertising her grief, I cant see why anyone would want the whole world to see how **** you feel. In MY opinion, she is attracting the attention of the public as to the chance of these two murderers getting released into society, NOT the same thing IMO.
As for being distracted, I dont think I can be any more clear on what my point is.

Well, we can have different opinions. I view that she has already made her stance clear. Justice has been served, and it is up to the law to decide if further imprisonment is needed. They have the facts of the case, and will judge accordingly.

How might that be then? How could a murderer living close by possibly affect a person more than being that murderers victims mother/uncle/aunt/brother? How could living with the threat of that kind of crime be worse than living with the result of it

Well, of course its different if these boys were released to live in close proximity to the family of the murdered child. But how does that affect you?

I think I've already pointed this out but, when someone is imprisoned at her majesties pleasure there is no set date for thier release. As in the case of Moira Hindley (precedence they call it) she died behind bars, regardless of psychiatrists reports, politicians backing etc etc, and the reason for that is because of the public reaction. There would have been outrage, there was protests every time the issue came up. And the majority of people wouldnt have known about the issue coming up for review except for the media.

I know. You keep using her as an example. The difference i see is that she performed multiple murders and was an adult capable of understanding the full impact of her choices. She knew full well the effects of what she did. These boys didn't. They couldn't, having being so young. Public opinion will acknowledge that in addition to the people calling for their continued imprisonment.

And I didnt say I would have any influence, I meant the public, collectively

Actually you did. If you meant to say the public in general, then thats different. But you held that you had a vote on the subject. Which clearly you don't.

The british public on the other hand do have influence over the situation, through their expressions on the subject. But its still going to be minimal. The law is the law. The system in place to judge whether a prisoner should be released is pretty well laid out at this stage, and should be followed.

Absolutely, I have that liberty, and Im damn grateful for it, unlike Jamies mother

Regardless of what happens she'll continue to remember. If they committed suicide tomorrow, it wouldn't change her memory.

But the original comment was about you, and your knowledge of the children. That you would forget them in your daily life once the decision was made either to free them or to release them.

This is where we differ. I really dont think that thats a risk that should be taken. I personally wouldn't like to be around for the fall out if it did re-occur, how do you explain that to the new victims parents? would you be able to do that (hypothetically of course), cause I know I wouldnt, and in much the same vien of the moors murders, I cant see the authorities taking that risk either.

We differ on many points. You see, I believe that people should be allowed a second chance. I actually have a zero tolerance policy towards repeat offenders, and consider the harshest of sentencing for them justifiable. BUT these children committed a crime in their extreme youth, and have served 8 years. They may very well now understand what they have done, and may be capable to leading semi-normal lives. I believe they should have the chance to lead those lives, as long as the legal authorities find them worthy.

In some instances maybe but IMO in this particular case the risk is too high

Why? The only information you are using is what they did 8 years ago. You have nothing on their emotional stability today, nor the reports of the wardens monitoring them over the last few years. You're not basing this on them now, but rather just their previous action.

Much confusion on both parts

Jesus, you can't even agree when I show where you wrote it?

Be realistic, how do you think laws get reformed in the first place

But you're not talking about law reform. You're talking about influencing the courts to make an exception. If you were actually talking about changing the current system, I might consider your stance more worthwhile. But you're not.

If you are trying to say that law and society are different and seperate entities then you're much mistaken IMO. Its only with society, by that I mean the public, pushing for change that it actually comes about.

Actually, Most change in the law comes from individuals pushing for change. The public has a very short attention span, and doesn't really stay the course long enough for anything to be done. So if you want to change the law, change the law for everyone. Don't do it for some and not others.

Its hardly within the context, you are muddying the water here. I cant say it any clearer, so if you refuse to see it fine, but the brevity of this particular crime should automatically preclude any chance of release. ITS NOT THE SAME AS A B&E WHERE SOMEONE GETS SHOT, ITS NOT THE SAME AS ONE GANG MEMBER SHOOTING ANOTHER

muddying the waters? hardly. I'm keeping things rather simple actually. You're stating that because of one action over 8 years ago, they're worthless and a risk to society forever more. You advocate that they can't ever be reformed.

The law is the law. They committed murder, so the law should apply the same sentencing to anyone committing murder. And by your logic, no amount of time in prison can justify their release. So anyone that commits murder should be locked away for the rest of their lives.

Its connecting the dots. And thats keeping things simple.

I agree, I dont think that everyone should be thrown on the scrap heap, I think the crime commited and the circumstances should always lend weight, which is why in this case I dont believe they should be released.

You say lend weight now, but you've made it clear that its not to influence a decision, but rather to make the decision. I believe that their past actions should not be forgotten, and should be held in the mind while making any evaluation of their current character. But it should not decide the case, before they have been evaluated.

Now, please dont try tarnish me in your next post with the above crap, this is the second time I've had to make this statement in reply to one of yours.

Tarnish? I'm responding to what you have said. Do you really understand what you are writing?

Ugh :rolleyes: it'll take to long to explain

Whatever. Seems pretty simple actually.

Yes, thats my opinion, and as you previously stated, this is a forum where people express thier opinions

And i don't have a problem with people showing their opinions. I'd rather that you say it openly than trying to hedge around it though. You're not seeking justice for a crime. You're seeking punishment without end. That's not why we have a justice system in the west.

Actually you are twisting my words. I advocate zero tolerance towards THESE TYPES of offenders, I did not make a sweeping statement

You made the point that the risk that these boys re-offend is too high. Any person who has committed any form of murder falls into the same category, surely? So therefore none of them should ever be released.

Yes, Yes I do think that of these boys/men. I have thought about it.
Maybe you should read my posts before replying instead of just scanning over it

Notice that i quote you, and respond to those individual quotes? Its pretty obvious what I am responding to, and why I am responding to them in this fashion.

It took me reading your posts, and dragging an agreement from you before you actually said it. You jumped around the whole thing before admitting that you favor their lifelong imprisonment.

Yes Yes and Yes again

Ahh... so hard.. Never to be given a second chance. Ever. No matter what you try to do, you will always be guilty of your mistakes.

Dont be silly now, Im pretty sure they would see it differently.
Its hardly the same kind of punishment thier victim got

So you'd prefer that they receive the exact punishment the victim received? And thats not twisting your words.... And I'd like an answer.

HAHAHAHA RLOL HAHAHA. Now THATS ironic

Misspelling. Drop out the my. I guess that was too difficult for you to figure out. :rolleyes:

AARRRGH · 23-04-2009 4:40pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Whats a recidivist though

Repeat criminals. You know, in and out of prison for various offences. We're way too soft on those sort of scumbags.

Ahhh I swear make me Minister for Justice and I'll clean up this country! :pac:

Brian Capture · 23-04-2009 9:18pm

carlybabe1
= tabloid reader?

oldyouth · 23-04-2009 9:32pm

994 wrote: »

To clarify (because the account earlier was inaccurate): they beat him with rocks, bricks and an iron bar, and splattered him with paint, "manipulated" his penis, and put batteries in his mouth (causing electric shocks), and left on the tracks where a train cut him in half. They didn't cut off his fingers, rub paint in his eyes or put batteries in his anus.

That's how I recall it. I remember hearing it reported on the news as I was driving and I had to pull over to the side of the road. I don't believe that people are born evil but I do think they can become evil (for whatever reason). These two have no right to see the light of day, they should've stay in prison forever. As always, just my opinion

nacho libre · 24-04-2009 8:51am

arggh reading that made me wince. i wasn't aware of the specific details of the murder

with that in mind it's difficult to believe that anyone capable of such barbarity to a child could develop remorse later on in life. you have tons of people who have a ****ty upbringing who obviously have never done such a thing. it would be comforting if these guys were clinicially diagnosed as psychopaths, because it would be easier to justify them not being released based on the risk of them reoffending and being incapable of empathy and remorse.

on the other hand what if they are genuinely remorseful and want to dedicate their lives to helping others. should they be given that chance? or is there crime so beyond the pale they have forfeited their right to life outside prison irrespective of whether they are rehabilitated?

carlybabe1 · 24-04-2009 10:03am

Brian Capture wrote: »

carlybabe1
= tabloid reader?

Brian Capture = idiot

Now you're just being retarded. I asked for you to format your quotes correctly. Nothing wrong with that, and your response to that has been consistently childish.

Its not heiroglyphics your trying to decipher, the posts are legible

Well, we can have different opinions. I view that she has already made her stance clear. Justice has been served,

So you think that eight years is a long enough sentence for what they did to that toddler?? Doesnt seem like justice to me, in fact its quite soft

and it is up to the law to decide if further imprisonment is needed. They have the facts of the case, and will judge accordingly.

My point is, whether you like it or not, the public will have influence over the decision

Well, of course its different if these boys were released to live in close proximity to the family of the murdered child. But how does that affect you?

:rolleyes: I didnt say it affected me, I was asking you how you would feel about thier release if you had been close emotionally to thier victim. there, thats as straight forward as you can get, you still haven't answered that question, and I reckon its because you cant without conceding that I do indeed have a good point. But well done on your dodging strategies

I know. You keep using her as an example. The difference i see is that she performed multiple murders and was an adult capable of understanding the full impact of her choices. She knew full well the effects of what she did. These boys didn't. They couldn't, having being so young. Public opinion will acknowledge that in addition to the people calling for their continued imprisonment.

She is the most obvious EXAMPLE of the public having an infuence over the law in cases where people commit heinous crimes and are sentenced at her majesties pleasure. I was using that situation to back up my argument. Did anybody else misunderstand that

Actually you did. If you meant to say the public in general, then thats different. But you held that you had a vote on the subject. Which clearly you don't.

Actually NO I DIDNT, I said in answer to a post of yours " thats like saying we dont have a vote" as in: if you think the public wont influence the laws decision thats like saying (above) which is plainly not true. I didnt at any stage suggest that I personally would hold sway, stop misquoting me deliberately, any retard that read the post properly can see what I meant

The british public on the other hand do have influence over the situation, through their expressions on the subject. But its still going to be minimal.

Says who, YOU?? what makes you the expert? I happen to disagree, and I've backed up my argument, unlike your good self. This is a high profile case, why dont you wiki what that means

The law is the law. The system in place to judge whether a prisoner should be released is pretty well laid out at this stage, and should be followed.

the law is also politics, and public image is of utmost importance. Another case where the public influenced the outcome of a trial was OJ Simpson. As much as you may not like it, its there. Another that comes to mind is that of Michael Stone, other high profile cases

Regardless of what happens she'll continue to remember. If they committed suicide tomorrow, it wouldn't change her memory.

Thats obvious but whats your point

But the original comment was about you, and your knowledge of the children. That you would forget them in your daily life once the decision was made either to free them or to release them.

Yes and my point was that so would everyone else and thats why jamies mother is using the media, as a means to remind people what happened.
Shes doing it so they wont be released, shes entitled to do that, if it offends you then dont buy the papers and switch off the news. Im begining to feel like a goddamn parrot, :rolleyes:

We differ on many points. You see, I believe that people should be allowed a second chance. I actually have a zero tolerance policy towards repeat offenders, and consider the harshest of sentencing for them justifiable.

So let them out, then when they re-offend throw them back in for life, no matter that they claimed another life and shattered another family??
Too risky to me, and like I already pointed out, I doubt the authorities are going to take that chance

BUT these children committed a crime in their extreme youth, and have served 8 years. They may very well now understand what they have done, and may be capable to leading semi-normal lives.

What makes you think that they didnt know what they were doing at the time they done it? the fact that you would like to live in a world where such evil doesn't exist?? The facts of the case would suggest they knew exactly what they were doing, if you want to live in lala land, fine. You should leave the decision making to the realists

I believe they should have the chance to lead those lives, as long as the legal authorities find them worthy.

:rolleyes: as above.

Why? The only information you are using is what they did 8 years ago. You have nothing on their emotional stability today, nor the reports of the wardens monitoring them over the last few years. You're not basing this on them now, but rather just their previous action.

What better monitor of someones character than the things they do, have done and will do in the future. What are you basing your opinion on?
You have as much info on wardens reports and emotional stability, why do you have the stance you do? I'm starting to see this as a one sided argument, Im telling you my stance and why I have it and I've backed up my argument with actual cases, so what about you???????

Jesus, you can't even agree when I show where you wrote it?

You showed me nothing of the sort

But you're not talking about law reform. You're talking about influencing the courts to make an exception.
If you were actually talking about changing the current system, I might consider your stance more worthwhile. But you're not.

I didnt bring up law reform, you did :rolleyes: I was simply explaing that society is what reforms law. And yes the public will influence the decision of releasing/not these people

Actually, Most change in the law comes from individuals pushing for change. The public has a very short attention span, and doesn't really stay the course long enough for anything to be done.

I agree

So if you want to change the law, change the law for everyone. Don't do it for some and not others.

What are you s*hiting talking about

muddying the waters? hardly. I'm keeping things rather simple actually. You're stating that because of one action over 8 years ago, they're worthless and a risk to society forever more. You advocate that they can't ever be reformed.

DO-NOT put words in my posts, I never said they were worthless, but yes they are a risk, and I dont reckon that they could be reformed

The law is the law. They committed murder, so the law should apply the same sentencing to anyone committing murder. And by your logic, no amount of time in prison can justify their release.

NO! By my logic no amount of therapy can justify taking the risk of releasing them. is that clear enough

So anyone that commits murder should be locked away for the rest of their lives.

Your good at twisting words to suit yourself, but s*hit at backing up your arguments

Its connecting the dots.

Hardly :rolleyes: Its twisting things and making leaps

And thats keeping things simple

.

As above

You say lend weight now, but you've made it clear that its not to influence a decision, but rather to make the decision.

What are you on about, I couldnt be any more open about my opinion

I believe that their past actions should not be forgotten, and should be held in the mind while making any evaluation of their current character. But it should not decide the case, before they have been evaluated.

Fair enough, but there will still be an influence

Tarnish? I'm responding to what you have said. Do you really understand what you are writing?

Do you understand what your reading

And i don't have a problem with people showing their opinions. I'd rather that you say it openly than trying to hedge around it though.

I havent hedged around anything, my opinion has been obvious to everyone from my first post (well, maybe not to retards)

You're not seeking justice for a crime. You're seeking punishment without end. That's not why we have a justice system in the west.

Well the majority of posters happen to agree with me, that it would be unjust if they were released

You made the point that the risk that these boys re-offend is too high.

Ah, so you've know my stance all along? Well now its just obvious that you were deliberately twisting stuff

Any person who has committed any form of murder falls into the same category, surely?

No not surely,Im pretty sure you know this too, cause I know I've said it before, it depends on the brevity of the crime

So therefore none of them should ever be released.

Yawn :rolleyes:

Notice that i quote you, and respond to those individual quotes? Its pretty obvious what I am responding to, and why I am responding to them in this fashion.

ditto

It took me reading your posts, and dragging an agreement from you before you actually said it. You jumped around the whole thing before admitting that you favor their lifelong imprisonment.

Get real, I was clear on my opnion from the start, you dragged nothing from me other than my patience, which is rapidly running out. You've lost your credibility by deliberately fuzzing things, pretending you didnt get my point and then you magically have an epiphany??, are you religious by any chance??

Ahh... so hard.. Never to be given a second chance. Ever. No matter what you try to do, you will always be guilty of your mistakes.

Abducting a toddler, torturing him, murdering him, and then trying to hide his body can hardly be called a mistake. Do you think that of paedos too?? "Im sorry, I didnt mean to rape that eight yr old, my penis fell into her, it was a mistake" :rolleyes:

So you'd prefer that they receive the exact punishment the victim received? And thats not twisting your words.... And I'd like an answer

.

Well I'd have liked an answer to the question I posed to you 3 times, but you deliberatly dodged it. And Yes it is twisting my words, and Ive answered this question already when you suggested that I wanted the death sentence for them, but for any one who is reading this, no I dont want them dead, I just dont want them released

Misspelling. Drop out the my. I guess that was too difficult for you to figure out. :rolleyes:

[/QUOTE]

Indeed, Im the retard :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Now Im gonna ignore you cause I dislike having arguments with people who have to twist my words in order to bolster thier own arguments. Toodles now :cool:

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - re-offenders?

Comments