Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - re-offenders?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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 wordsPeople 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 upI just don't see any point with constantly bringing it up.
See aboveI 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 societyAnd 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 wishJust because I'm not agreeing with you, don't put words where there are none.
DITTO!! see above thank youDo you have anything to suggest that they would re-offend?
Nothing more than what you have to suggest that they wouldnt re-offendi'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 releaseAside 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-offendAs 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 thenSure, 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 crimesYou 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 outsetThey 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 assumptionsAnd 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 pockets0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
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.0 -
-
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 itAs for emotionally, sure. But I'm not. I'm not even sure why you are. WTFNope. 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
Absolutely, I have that liberty, and Im damn grateful for it, unlike Jamies motherAnd 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.
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 highLet 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
Be realistic, how do you think laws get reformed in the first placeThe 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.
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.Society has nothing to do with this. Be practical.
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 ANOTHERAye, 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.
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 explainTwisting 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 opinionsAgain, 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
See above, cause I've a pain in me left breast typing itEven if we just take violent offenders, you're giving up hope on a lot of people.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 itForever? No right to appeal? No rights at all? Because of one, admittedly gruesome action?
Yes Yes and Yes againWhy 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 gotYou 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 ironic0 -
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:0 -
-
-
-
-
Brian Capture wrote: »carlybabe1
= tabloid reader?
Brian Capture = idiotNow 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 legibleWell, 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 decisionWell, 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 strategiesI 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 thatActually 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 meantThe 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 meansThe 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 casesRegardless of what happens she'll continue to remember. If they committed suicide tomorrow, it wouldn't change her memory.
Thats obvious but whats your pointBut 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 chanceBUT 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 agreeSo 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 aboutmuddying 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 reformedThe 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 enoughSo 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 argumentsIts connecting the dots.
Hardly :rolleyes: Its twisting things and making leaps
.And thats keeping things simple
As aboveYou 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 opinionI 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 influenceTarnish? I'm responding to what you have said. Do you really understand what you are writing?
Do you understand what your readingAnd 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 releasedYou 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
Yawn :rolleyes:So therefore none of them should ever be released.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.
dittoIt 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
[/QUOTE]Misspelling. Drop out the my. I guess that was too difficult for you to figure out. :rolleyes:
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:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
carlybabe1 wrote: »Its not heiroglyphics your trying to decipher, the posts are legible
/sigh. You just don't get it. Even with your last post, you couldn't be bothered to show which were my posts and which were someone elses. Just throw them all together.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
As you have said, the eight years is not the full sentence. Their further imprisonment would be dependent on the courts and review process. I'm not saying that they should be released immediately. I'm saying that they should have the right to the review process, and if they pass they should face limited release.My point is, whether you like it or not, the public will have influence over the decision
As I have said, the public have limited influence over all court decisions, since the judges or the review panels are exposed to the media.
But its just influence, and not direct input. Don't know why you're having such problems acknowledging that.: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
Actually, I did answer the question. I said that if the boys were released and lived in proximity to any of the family members, i would understand their distress. I also said that I myself wouldn't be too bothered with them being near me. Although i would add that I would be more aware of their proximity.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
You used her as an example for multiple points, not just the influence of the public over the judicial process. And I answered that she is a different case, considering her age, her awareness of what she was doing, and the numbers of murders she was involved in.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
You weren't specific enough, and your post was open to interpretation. Don't get angry because I read something you didn't intend.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
Why do i need to back up my opinions? Nothing I've said requires anything like that.
In fact, how does one example in the case of Moira back up your opinion? You're using the public response a serial killer in comparison to two kids who made one gruesome killing. There will be many different opinions as to the mental health of the children, and their capacity for reform, if at all.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
Oh, I agree. At least with the Michael Stone example. The OJ Simpson example doesn't hold any weight, since the differences in American society/law is too different to British society/law for comparison.
As I have said before, the public will indeed have influence over the process. I just don't believe that it will have the degree of influence you seem to believe. This is a different case to that of Michael Stone. perhaps if you could find a case involving children murdering another child, and the public outcry?Thats obvious but whats your point
My point being that she will remember regardless of what happens. Seems obvious.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:
When did i say it offended me? I didn't. I said that she had said her piece, and should leave it at that. The media will run their stories about the case, regardless of her involvement. The media will not ignore a juicy story like this, where they can manipulate peoples emotions.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
I prefer a different way. Review their mental health, and emotional feelings towards the murders. Based on those examinations, and the opinions of the wardens who previously watched the kids, approve or deny their release. If denied, put a date for a second review sometime in the future under the same guidelines. If approved, release them with strict guidelines on where they might live, and keep them separated from each other. IF they reoffend, put them away for life without chance of reprieve.What makes you think that they didnt know what they were doing at the time they done it?
They were children. ****ed up children, but children nonetheless. How much do children truly know of the world and the laws we live by at that age?the fact that you would like to live in a world where such evil doesn't exist??
Where did I say anything like that. I'm tired of you making up crap like this. Point to where i did, or retract it. ffs.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
Realists? You? Hardly. What decisions would you make? Just say, you had the ability to decide on this case, what would you do with them? Specifics pls..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???????
You have backed up nothing. You have taken the stance that the risk of them re-offending is too great, based solely on their one action eight years ago. Your examples refer to adults who committed repeat murders. Your examples, aren't based on a single murder committed by children.You showed me nothing of the sort
omg. You really do have a selective reading ability.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
You say you didn't bring it up, and then say you were explaining about it through society's influence? Right.What are you s*hiting talking about
Because the law is there. Solid. It should be applied to everyone equally dependent on the facts of the case. You're advocating picking and choosing who should be allowed due process.
If the law and the process is not adequate, change it.
Also would you mind keeping you language just a shade nicer? Just because you get confused a lot, doesn't mean you have to be insulting. This isn't "after hours".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
Ok. You didn't say they were worthless. Just that they should have no right to freedom at any stage in their lives, because of their one action. They will never be able to take back that action, and thus they will be always a risk. So they should be allowed the rot in prison. Is that better?NO! [/B]By my logic no amount of therapy can justify taking the risk of releasing them. is that clear enough
Yes, Its clear enough. As before, they should never be allowed to be released from prison. Just as anyone who has committed murder should never be allowed to be released... That IS what your logic promotes.Your good at twisting words to suit yourself, but s*hit at backing up your arguments. Hardly :rolleyes: Its twisting things and making leaps
And you're not particularly good at actually answering the statements except to continue promoting your justifications. I made a statement based on what you have said in this thread. Simple, and very easy to see.What are you on about, I couldnt be any more open about my opinion
As above. Again, you fail to answer.Fair enough, but there will still be an influence
I get the sense you're drifting. What influence? I am talking solely about the review process in judging the emotional stability of the subjects.Do you understand what your reading
yup.
Its not difficult.I havent hedged around anything, my opinion has been obvious to everyone from my first post (well, maybe not to retards)
/sigh... You really can't manage a simple debate can you? If I disagree with you, and your "logic", I must be a retard. Better yet, if I read your very basic opinions, and extrapolate your viewpoint on the rights of prisoners, i'm wrong? Why? You weren't very clear in your first two postings, and its only through examining your points, that we have come to this point...Well the majority of posters happen to agree with me, that it would be unjust if they were released
haha... doesn't make it right though... To keep a person in prison simply because the risk (no matter what that risk is) is too great, regardless of the input of the justice and health officials? Not the world I would approve of. People deserve a second chance even if that chance is just a review to see if they're worthy of it.Ah, so you've know my stance all along? Well now its just obvious that you were deliberately twisting stuff
Nope. Just clarifying your stance.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[/B]
But you have said that people should be judged solely on their past action.. So therefore any person who has committed violent crimes or murder would always be a risk too high to be released...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??
haha... lost my credibility? hardly.. I have been a poster on these boards for a long time, and most people who read my posts know I tend to stick to my opinions on things. When they need to be backed up, I do. When they don't i move on. But when I see bull****, I tend to call people on it. Just like I have been with you.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:
You really have an issue with the ability to compare like with like. You seem to always compare adults with these children.. perhaps because you understand that children have a lower understanding of what they are doing and the reactions, compared to that of adults, and wish to gloss over it?
Yes, i see it as being a mistake. A huge, and horrible mistake. Whether they are aware of their mistake, feel remorse for that mistake, and now understand never to do it again, I don't know... I would leave that to the medical professionals assigned to their evaluation to judge that.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
/sigh... What is the difference?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:
ROFL.. If you can't handle an adult conversation on a bulletin board, stick to after hours... Post here, and expect your opinions to be examined. :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement