Thompson & Venables to be freed

TwoShedsJackson · 22-06-2001 4:22pm #1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1402000/1402527.stm

I see that there's a group called Mothers Against Murder & Aggression. Does this mean their are mothers who are for murder and aggression?

Hobbes · 22-06-2001 10:23pm

I don't know I'm in two minds about the whole thing.

It really isn't that long ago that Jamie died and it was a pretty sick and disturbing thing to do. Releasing them so soon seems wrong.

On the other hand going to Jail is a big difference then where they currently were and would be detrimental, although I think life should mean life.

Either way, they are screwed coming out. They have spent a part of thier life behind bars which greatly influences your choices later on in life. Then they have the problem that if it ever got out to anyone who they really were I would put money down that they wouldn't last 2 days without police protection.

Canaboid · 24-06-2001 1:51am

I blame the parents, or lack of them.
Poor Cvnts.

the fnj · 24-06-2001 12:29pm

I think the real question here is can a ten year old really be evil?

They were two very mislead ten year olds who made a very big mistake. How would you feel if something you did at that age was held against you for the rest of your life? The two boys in question are going to pay with their lives because some people think that the penalty for committing a brutal murder is a brutal murder. I'm not going to bother explaining what’s wrong with that.

The English parole office should have them sent off to a British embassy in the middle of nowhere and give them jobs licking envelopes.

Hecate · 24-06-2001 3:11pm

apparently one of Jamie's relatives was quoted as saying "wherever they go, someone will be waiting" - in relation to the boys release.

azezil · 24-06-2001 3:32pm

i think its fair enough to let them out, after all they were only 10, and alright they knew right from wrong but maybe didn't have a real grasp on the reality of the situation?

its an early age, easily swayed by right or wrong, i'd like to believe that they're reformed by now and don't pose a treath to society.

"just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after you!"

Hobbes · 25-06-2001 1:19pm

Originally posted by The FANJ:
How would you feel if something you did at that age was held against you for the rest of your life.

leading a 2 year old kid away from his parents, molesting and killing him and leaving his body on the train tracks so a train will run it over. Yes I think something like that should be held against you.

I see Jon's mother gives her son 4 weeks, shes more optimistic then I am.

Shinji · 25-06-2001 1:31pm

Remembering it is one thing. Keeping an eye on them for the rest of their lives, making them check in with parole officers constantly for EVER, making sure they never have a chance to reoffend, however unlikely it is that they will do so... Makes sense.

But "holding it against them"... If that comes down to "tearing them to shreds with an angry mob", or "having a hit taken out on them by major league criminal elements in Merseyside" (which has indeed happened), then absolutely not.

C B · 25-06-2001 2:01pm

Originally posted by The FANJ:

some people think that the penalty for committing a brutal murder is a brutal murder. I'm not going to bother explaining what’s wrong with that.

Please do, I'd love to know.

These boys probably should have been killed at the time. It would have saved everybody alot of hassle.

TwoShedsJackson · 25-06-2001 2:04pm

Originally posted by C B:
Please do, I'd love to know.

These boys probably should have been killed at the time. It would have saved everybody alot of hassle.

Talk about a blatant trolling attempt

C B · 25-06-2001 2:10pm

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Talk about a blatant trolling attempt

No, not at all actually. I'm sick of people posting these throw away remarks such as, "the death penalty is wrong, everybody knows that", and then being unable to defend it. these boys commited one of the most horrendous acts of premediated violence against an entirely innocent and helpless infant. They knew what they were doing was wrong. society owes these thugs nothing and their actions should be summarally rebuked, not treated with empathy.

the fnj · 25-06-2001 2:36pm

CB do you realy believe that these boys deserve to be brutally battered to death by a frenzied lynch mob?

I pity you if that is the case because it's ignorance like yours that allows these mobs to from. What does that make the members of the mob? Or the government who allow the death penalty? They are no better. Two teenagers should be murdered because of something they did as ten year olds? Do you really believe a ten year old has a full understanding of right and wrong and a stable thought process?

I did not bother explaining myself because I thought it was so blatantly obvious that it needed no further explanation. Obviously I was wrong I apologise.

Shinji · 25-06-2001 2:50pm

I'm not entirely against the concept of the death penalty in certain instances.

However, I do believe that people like CB here who seemingly think it should be handed out like candy at a birthday party and trust in mob rule and the baying of the tabloid press so blindly, are in fact far more dangerous to society than Thompson and Venables are now...

C B · 25-06-2001 3:17pm

Does it not seem ironic to either of you that you use such over the top language and emotion order to accuse me of siding with the tabloid press.

Fanj can you please tell me why the state has no right to kill killers. By your logic the state would have no right to imprison kidnappers, because they would be "no better" than the criminals. Can you please give me a convincing and logical arguement why the death penalty is morally wrong? ("'cause it is" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.)

Shinji, I never said that it should be "handed out like candy at a birthday", in fact if you read my other posts on this issue you will find that I have severe reservations regarding the abiliity of a human justice system to utilise the sanction in a sensible manner, and for that reason I am not generally in favour of the death penalty. In this case there is video evidence to prove the guilt of the boys, and their crime is simply beyond comprehension.
This is not a simple misdemeanour with circumstantial evidence.

10 year old boys are aware of the concept of right and wrong (in fact studies show that pre-adolesants have a much stronger moral certainty than teenagers).

This crime was not an accident.
It was not a prank gone wrong.
These boys attempted to abduct a number of children and failed.
When they eventually abducted jamie Bulger they knew exactly what they were going to do to him and they ruthlessly carried out their actions without thought for anything but their own warped sense of self-gratification.

I understand (and believe) that these boys had a particularlly troubled upbringing and that the last eight years have reformed them.

However freeing them makes light of the life that they took away, and now that they are fully awre of the magnitude of the infringement they should be forced to suffer the ultimate consequence, not at the hands of a mob but at the cold and emotionless hands of justice.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 25-06-2001).]

cueball · 25-06-2001 3:35pm

That sentence was a joke, Exactly life should mean life. AND if they are released now, they seem to of benifited from the crime, as before they were both thick as Cow $hit, now they have A levels, new homes, lives etc.

What they did to that kid WAS evil and sick, they better count thier days cause they wont have many left when their identities get out, and they WILL get out

JustHalf · 25-06-2001 3:56pm

Originally posted by C B:
By your logic the state would have no right to imprison kidnappers, because they would be "no better" than the criminals

There's this lovely term called "false imprisonment". Emphasis on the "false".

C B · 25-06-2001 4:11pm

Originally posted by JustHalf:
There's this lovely term called "false imprisonment". Emphasis on the "false".

Q. Who defines "false"?
A. The state.

Therefore the state could just as easily decree that some killings are false (i.e. murders) and some are not (i.e. court sanctioned executions).

Next please!
Given the widespread opposition to the death penalty and the fact that ye all seem to think that it's ills are obvious I am amazed that not one person can give a concrete arguement againsts societies right to execute murderers.

JustHalf · 25-06-2001 4:17pm

Originally posted by C B:
Q. Who defines "false"?
A. The state.

Therefore the state could just as easily decree that some killings are false (i.e. murders) and some are not (i.e. court sanctioned executions).

My god. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. I mentioned "false imprisonment" as imprisonment is used to punish those who break the law. Tell me, is there such a thing as "false killing" in our laws?

Shinji · 25-06-2001 4:26pm

Society has every right to execute murderers, because society itself decides what rights ARE, and what morality is.

We just choose not to, because not all of us are as perfect and certain of the facts of cases, the ideal criminal justice system and the mental state of people they have never met, as Cueball and C B.

C B · 25-06-2001 4:30pm

Originally posted by JustHalf:

My god. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. I mentioned "false imprisonment" as imprisonment is used to punish those who break the law. Tell me, is there such a thing as "false killing" in our laws?

I'm sorry but I fail to see your point (this could be due to my stupidity or your poor explaination I'm not sure)

My initial point was to show the FANJ that his logic was flawed , i.e. to say that the State shouldn't turn the crime on the criminal is counter-intuitive. I believe I have made that point.

Are you trying to say that "false" execution by the state is unrectifiable? If so this does not affect the right of society to consider the death penalty, but rather an arguement against the ability of the state to do so.

Shinji · 25-06-2001 4:30pm

AND if they are released now, they seem to of benifited from the crime, as before they were both thick as Cow $hit, now they have A levels, new homes, lives etc.

So beforehand they would have grown up into a pair of uneducated thugs with negligent parents, but now they have their A-Levels and they've been watched all through their formative teenage years, and very unlikely indeed ever to break the law.

To my mind that's one of the only GOOD things to come out of this whole sorry affair... Oh, I suppose that a good thing coming out a bad thing is bad by extension, right? After all, that's an easier belief to base News of the World stories on.

C B · 25-06-2001 4:34pm

Originally posted by Shinji:
We just choose not to, because not all of us are as perfect and certain of the facts of cases, the ideal criminal justice system and the mental state of people they have never met, as Cueball and C B.

Can you read?

I have already said that I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that I do not trust a human justice system to operate it sensibly.

I am trying to challenge the moral certainty of those whho mpresent wolly opinions such as "killing is bold, it shouldn't be allowed". or other such opinions which wouldn't be out of place in a primary school debate.

the fnj · 25-06-2001 4:43pm

Originally posted by C B:

Fanj can you please tell me why the state has no rightto kill killers.

Sure thing.

We incarcerate criminals is for a number of reasons.

1 To prevent them from harming anybody else.

2 An attempt to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they will have found prison life hard and will not risk breaking the law again for fear of spending more time behind bars.

To begin with I do not think incarceration is the answer to stopping crime. I believe that 90% of people who spend time behind bars come out a bigger threat to society. This is the fault of the prison system and I would be happier to know that after spending time behind bars you come out a decent citizen with a better education and hopefully motivated to make something worth while of your life.

I don’t know how this can be achieved. I don’t even know if it can be achieved but this is what the prison systems strive to do.

Every civilization has looked down on murder. So what gives people the right to commit murder? The only time I could ever possibly condone a killing is in self-defence or in defence of another human being. It should always be a last resort when the option is you die or the attacker dies. Someone locked behind bars is not a direct physical threat to society. I admit that they can have influence on people outside but that is straying from the point. I also believe that if someone has been rehabilitated and cleared by physiatrists they should be realised and monitored to see how they settle back into society. Thompson and Venables are not just been thrown out on a whim. I can guarantee you that they have been tested by numerous physiatrists and that if their was any doubt in their mind about the boys they would not get out. Also after they get out they will be monitored to make sure they are settling back into a normal life.

They brutally killed a child in cold blood.

They are rehabilitated citizens and are not a threat to society.

They regret deeply what they have done and know it’s wrong.

So CB why do they deserve to die?

What right does a government or lynch mobs have to kill anyone.

If Thompson and Venables get murdered by a mob I would consider that a worse crime to what they did. The mob knows full well what it’s doing and the repercussions of there crime. It will be made of adults who are so brave they have to hide behind each other to get revenge on two teenage boys.

You cannot fight murder with murder.

[This message has been edited by The FANJ (edited 25-06-2001).]

Milkman · 25-06-2001 4:56pm

Funny all this debate over just TWO of the many murderers that are freed every week from prisons both here and in Britian.

Now I could be wrong, but are all Murderers who are released from prison given new identities..........
There are convicted murderers, rapists, child molestors etc etc released all the time and whether or not they should be released is a different discussion but THEY don't get all the attention and special treatment that these two lads are getting...
Are we not all equal under the law?

So why make a special exception for them?

Yes they made a mistake(which they have/havn't paid for depending on your opinion), but we all have to learn from our mistakes and it is up to them to start a new life - just like everyone else who comes out of prison.
They should not be treated differently.

Ri-ra · 25-06-2001 5:40pm

I think it's a good thing that the death-penalty be questioned by those both for and against. It's odd, though, that those usually for the death penalty are usually against abortion.

It might be said that the crucial difference here hinges on "innocence" of children. But what the Bulger case does IMHO, is put the whole idea of the "innocence" of children into question because all parties were kids.

Shinji · 25-06-2001 7:24pm

These boys probably should have been killed at the time. It would have saved everybody alot of hassle.

I have already said that I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that I do not trust a human justice system to operate it sensibly.

C B, either (a) stand by the things you say and stop being a knob, or (b) shut up. Thank you.

Milkman:-

So why make a special exception for them?

Because thanks to the efforts of the tabloid press in the UK, if a special exception is NOT made for them, they will not survive a month outside prison. As it is, even with the best efforts of the law, their survival prospects aren't good.

One of the things the law must do is prevent crime where it knows that crime will occur. Thompson and Venables would be murdered if people found them. No matter what THEY have done, the law must do whatever is in its power to stop that.

Think it's all just a storm in a teacup? When the News of the World (which seems to specialise in witchhunts these days, evil rabble rousing bástards that they are) published a list of paedophiles, there were witch hunts and mob attacks on homes all across England - many of them on the homes of people who were certified as seriously mentally ill, and some of them on the offices of paediatricians because the thick as shíte News of the World readers didn't know the damn difference.

Hobbes · 25-06-2001 7:46pm

One of those people in News of the world, lived near a guy with the same name. The wrong guy got beaten up and his house trashed.

I think the whole problem is the crime is too recent.

As for CB's post about they should of died when it happend, he's probably right it may of solved a whole lot of problems.

Would of solved even more problems if they never took Jamie to begin with.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 25-06-2001).]

Ri-ra · 25-06-2001 8:25pm

Check out:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Jamie91

There's a couple of thousand signatures there. Read what the public has to say, and if it doesn't frighten the s h i t e out of you, then Jaysus help us.

Check out Jamie's "response" as well.

JustHalf · 25-06-2001 10:58pm

Originally posted by Shinji:
Society has every right to execute murderers, because society itself decides what rights ARE, and what morality is.

Society (as in the people of a country) and the State are unfortunately two seperate entities. It is the State that decides the laws (why people should be punished) and often the punishment (sentencing).

Originally posted by C B:
Are you trying to say that "false" execution by the state is unrectifiable? If so this does not affect the right of society to consider the death penalty, but rather an arguement against the ability of the state to do so.

The false execution of someone is most certainly unrectifiable, as we have no technology that can resurrect the dead. It is an act such that the consequences cannot be rectified. A pardon is no good for a corpse.

The state obviously has the ability to kill. BTW, I *really* like this post:

Originally posted by C B:
I am trying to challenge the moral certainty of those whho mpresent wolly opinions such as "killing is bold, it shouldn't be allowed". or other such opinions which wouldn't be out of place in a primary school debate.

For a start, for a State to condone the death penalty it better be *damn* sure of it's legal system. It's legal system is run by fallible people. People are tried by a fallible jury.

The fact that we have an appeals process shows the State's recognition that it can be wrong. If you kill someone, you cannot do anything to bring them back. Do you get my point?

That said, why do we not have executions? It's for at least two reasons:
1: The state recognises it's fallibility
2: The state recognises the right it's citizens to life.

[This message has been edited by JustHalf (edited 26-06-2001).]

JustHalf · 25-06-2001 11:05pm

A poll on Sky News extra showed 91% of people wanted the identities revealed.

androphobic · 25-06-2001 11:26pm

Originally posted by Ri-ra:
Read what the public has to say, and if it doesn't frighten the s h i t e out of you, then Jaysus help us.

****ing hell..

Shinji · 25-06-2001 11:36pm

A poll on Sky News extra showed 91% of people wanted the identities revealed.

I've always maintained that 90% of humanity wasn't worth the oxygen they breathe. I guess being out by only 1% isn't bad.

DeVore · 26-06-2001 3:58am

Yeah yeah, lets kill these kids because they killed a kid and anyone who does that should be killed... hey hang on...

DeVore.

C B · 26-06-2001 8:26am

O.K. I've got alot of replies to deal with so I apologise if this post turns into a long one or if I don't deal with every point that ye have made.

Fanj, the penal system is just that. It is a system used to punish criminals it does not aim to rehabilitate anybody. those who are found guilty of criminal activities should be and are punished. What remains to be resolved is what form of punishment is appropriate for certain crimes.

Milkman, the state has decided that these boys should be set free and therefore that they should be allowed to become full members oif society. The state therefore owes these boys, and all other citizens, protection from harm.

Shinji, please read the following slowly and if you feel the need to respond please refrain from using insults as it lowers the gravitas of your opinion.

Society has a right to punish those who transgress it's laws. Society has a right to use the ultimate sanction against those who commit the most heinous crimes. It may have been easier for all involved if these boys were killed, because no option available to society is pallitable now.
I do however have grave reservations regarding the state to continue to use the death penalty in a judicious manner, this does not contradict my belief that it would have been the best outcome of this sorry situation. Given the dynamic of our criminal justice systems it is an outcome which was and should remain unavailable to us.

Justhalf, in a democracy we society has control of the state.
Perhaps these boys could have been tried by a jury of their peers i.e. other 10 year olds. I wonder would such a jury be able to see that murder and torture are wrong?

We seem to have our wires crossed entirely in regard to this "false" imprisonment issue so i will just say this. When society/the state (I will continue to use these terms interchangabley) contemptlates an action it should ask the following questions.
1. Do we have a right to intervene?
2. Will our intervention be positive and managable?

In answer to the first question we all accept that the state has a right to punish those who transgress it's laws. I believe that severe crimes should be met with severe punishments.

It is in response to the second question that my opposition to the death penalty arises, in that i do not trust the machinery of the state to operate perfectly at all times and the sanction of death is too serious to leave in the hands of such as flawed system.

Now there is one last recurring theme to deal with, which is expressed by the FANJ, Shinji, Just Half and others, and summed up by DeV. Ye seem to believe that the right to life is sacrisanct and that therefore we have no right use the death penalty.

We accept that humans are born with rights, including the right to life and the right to liberty. However, individuals by their choices and actions can deprive themselves of these rights. We all accept that it is sensible to remove violent criminals from society thereby depriving them of their right to liberty. It is not a giant leap to say that those who are guilty of the most awful transgressions should be deprived of their right to life.

These boys deprived Jamie Bulger of the right to life for no other reason than to satisfy their own sense of adventure. these boys placed the gratifoication of their own senses above the life of an innocent infant.

These boys are (as I have continually agreed) rehabilitated.

To release them is an insult to the pain and suffering of the Bulger family.

To send them to an adult jail does not make sense.

This scenario is disgusting from start to finish and there are no easy answers.

Finally I would like to say that all things conidered I believe that the release of these boys is the best option remaining available. The point of my posts have been to challenge the moral superiority of certain indivivuals who adopt a set of ideals from the liberal media in the same sponge like manner that the mob adopts opinions from the tabloid press.

Celt · 26-06-2001 6:42pm

Here's just an example of why that petition is bullshít.

Back in 1993 little Jamie was 2 years old. One of the cutest little baby boys you would ever lay eyes on. A red haired little hand ful. He loved mum, loved his dad, loved trains and anything else to with trains. He new nothing else in his blissful two year old existence other then JUST that...life was good...he was two.

Playing on human emotions is all that petition is.
Instead of simply stating the facts they come up with that tripe.

androphobic · 26-06-2001 7:08pm

Originally posted by WhiteLancer:

Instead of simply stating the facts they come up with that tripe.

I'm not supporting what was said by so many of those who signed the petition- many of the comments are frightening - but with regard to your comments, WhiteLancer, playing on emotions is often an important aim of petitions. Take Amnesty International for instance - they tell you the story of a wrongly imprisoned prisoner for example and then ask you to write to a specific person about the situation.

That hardly makes the petition "tripe" - what was said on that website was probably true anyway.. he was two, carefree etc - just like all two year olds.

............

Did anyone hear Jon Venables ex-solicitor on RTE radio 1 today? His theory is that the murder was not pre-meditated .. that it was carried out because the boys realised that they had to dispose of the child somehow in case they got in trouble. According to the solicitor - Laurence Lee is his name I think - Venables always insisted that he was led on by Thompson and the two boys haven't spoken since they were charged or something like that.

However, it has also been said that Thompson has shown great remorse whereas Venables was quoted as being "a sad, twisted individual."
I guess there are many parts of it that we just will never know.. like why they did it.

Ri-ra · 26-06-2001 7:13pm

yep, that petition is hair-raising.

Victor · 26-06-2001 8:11pm

Originally posted by C B:
We all accept that it is sensible to remove violent criminals from society thereby depriving them of their right to liberty. It is not a giant leap to say that those who are guilty of the most awful transgressions should be deprived of their right to life.

These boys deprived Jamie Bulger of the right to life for no other reason than to satisfy their own sense of adventure. 

Hitler, Goebbels, Pol Pot, Arkan ..... I probably agree - serial agressors and mass murderers - get rid of the rallying point by killing the leader.

Timothy McVeigh, Myra Hinkley, Johnny "Mad Dog" Adair, etc. let them rot in prison. Killing them creates a cult / martyr situation.

Thompson & Venables - never forget, perhaps slowly forgive, but time to move on. Killing them just makes the world a sadder place.

To say that for them to have died eight years ago (a lynch mob formed outside the police station) is utterly flippant. Would you say it would have been better that Jamie Bulger died in a miscarriage?

Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

Celt · 26-06-2001 10:02pm

I wasnt saying the petition was bs, just the a lot of the content.

Hobbes · 27-06-2001 1:41am

Damarr posted this link on another board.

Also check out the stuff on Mary Bell, which is kind of similar.

[This message has been edited by Hobbes (edited 27-06-2001).]

DeVore · 28-06-2001 7:28pm

Take Amnesty International for instance - they tell you the story of a wrongly imprisoned prisoner for example and then ask you to write to a specific person about the situation.

The difference is that A.I. take pains to present the facts without hyperbole.

They do not embellish the story or make it emotive.

They are very careful not to do this with specific cases (though they may evoke an emotion when describing the general idea of torture).

In short, AI are a LOOOONG way from that mob-petition.

DeV.

bonkey · 29-06-2001 8:49am

Originally posted by C B:
Fanj, the penal system is just that. It is a system used to punish criminals it does not aim to rehabilitate anybody. those who are found guilty of criminal activities should be and are punished. What remains to be resolved is what form of punishment is appropriate for certain crimes.

Incorrect. The penal system is also supposed to be about reform. The concept of parole is that the criminal has learned from his mistake, and is ready once again to take part in society. You can argue that (s)he has simply learned that "crime leads to time", and that all prison is is a deterrant, but they obviously didnt believe that when they got sent away initially, so arguably, reform has been achieved. While I would agree that the modern prison system is mostly about punishment, it is also still somewhat about reform, particularly when dealing with younger offenders. When reform is achieved, we should rejoice, not complain about the failing of our punishment system.

The two teens in question have been given counselling, education, psychiatric aid, and innumerable other forms of assistance. How can you claim that this was punishment and not an attempt at reform?

Society has a right to punish those who transgress it's laws. Society has a right to use the ultimate sanction against those who commit the most heinous crimes.

and

We accept that humans are born with rights, including the right to life and the right to liberty. However, individuals by their choices and actions can deprive themselves of these rights. We all accept that it is sensible to remove violent criminals from society thereby depriving them of their right to liberty. It is not a giant leap to say that those who are guilty of the most awful transgressions should be deprived of their right to life.

If society (embodied by the people and represented by the government) have accepted the Declaration of Human Rights, then the right to life in these circumstances is inviolable - it cannot be lost, sold, traded, ignored, or forfeited. Society does not have the right to take the life of criminal offenders (as you claim) in such cuircumstances.

On the other hand, if you wish to argue that society should not accept the Declaration of Human Rights in this form because you believe differently then that is your perogative. I ask one question....if you can sanction the death penalty, where do you draw the line? Remember that the court system most of the world uses is based on "innocent until proven guilty". You cannot convict someone if there is a POSSIBILITY of their being innocent, but miscarriages of justice occur on a regular basis. Therefore, you cannot even say that the death penalty is acceptable when there is no doubt about guilt, as conviction at the moment occurs on the same premise. If you can draw that line - if you can guarantee that the sentence is only meted out when it is truly deserved, and guarantee that no innocents will die through miscarriages of justice, then you can argue your case that killers lose the right to life. Until society achieves that state of perfection in arbitration, the death penalty is wrong simply because it threatens the right to life of the innocent.

This is not a pat one-liner "you cant kill because its wrong" answer. The oweness is not on me to show that the death sentence is wrong. The oweness is on anyone who supports it to show that it can be implemented in a foolproof manner which guarantees the sanctitiy of the life of the innocent. If you cannot offer me that guarantee, then my concern is not the punishment of the guilty, but rather the incorrect punishment of the innocent. Do their lives mean so little that we will risk them "for the greater good". What does it matter if we kill an innocent man here and there, as long as we get the guilty ones too? I think not.

The point of my posts have been to challenge the moral superiority of certain indivivuals who adopt a set of ideals from the liberal media in the same sponge like manner that the mob adopts opinions from the tabloid press.

I would argue that your own opinions can be construed in the same manner. Your logic and reasoning have all been put forward in the media before, as have mine. Does this make us mindless sponges as well?

I do not believe your attitude is based on sponge-like adoption, but I find it disappointing that you cannot cede the same intelligence to others.

jc

C B · 29-06-2001 9:46am

bonkey
the penal system also supposed to be about reform

pe·nal (pnl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or prescribing punishment, as for breaking the law.
2. Subject to punishment; legally punishable: a penal offense.
3. Serving as or constituting a means or place of punishment: penal servitude; a penal colony

I believe that incarciration has two roles.
1. To protect society from further harm - this role has been fulfilled and I believe that these boys no longer pose any real threat to the public.
2. To act as a deterant and punishment - What these boyys did was disgusting (we all agree on that) and they deserve to be punish regardless of remorse of likelyhood to reoffend. I believe that eight years in a secure unit does not reflect the magnitude of their crime.

As for the rest of your post will you please do me the favour of reading what I have already said. I do not believe that the machinery of the state is capable of utilising the the death penalty, and this is unfortunate. This is also the reason why I bitterly oppose the death penalty, it does not however stop be from thinking that the world would be no worse without these boys.

bonkey

I find it disappointing that you cannot cede the same intelligence to others.

Individuals, not for the first time, posted opinions when they were not sure why they held them. When I challenged those opinions some people were unable to defend them, and some people were. I would agrre with much (if not all) of what Shinji and you posted. However I still hold in contempt those who absorb opinions and are unable to rationalise them.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 29-06-2001).]

bonkey · 29-06-2001 10:23am

Originally posted by C B:

pe·nal (pnl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or prescribing punishment, as for breaking the law.
2. Subject to punishment; legally punishable: a penal offense.
3. Serving as or constituting a means or place of punishment: penal servitude; a penal colony

Thank you. I am utterly incapable of reading dictionaries, have no idea where or what dictionary.com is, and never knew the meaning of the word penal.

For someone who has criticised others for brainless thinking and school-kid debate tactics, I would have thought that pulling the old "dictionary definition" against a point was a bit beneath you.

Yes, my argument is completely flawed because I used the word penal instead of one of the myriad of others I could have chosen. How could I have been so blind.

Now, if you would be so kind as to explain the term "correctional facility" to me in the same way - because thats where these people were sent. Not to a prison, but to a correctional facility. Could you explain how this was punishment and not rehabilitation? I'll even accept dictionary definitions if it makes you happier?

Furthermore, "penal system", "penal code", and their ilk are anachronistic terms which are still in use today to describe what is more correctly known as the judicial or legal system. They hark from an age when punishment was all that was served out.

I think you'll find that these more frequently used terms (judicial & legal) do not imply punushment nor rehabilitation. They imply law and judgement.

Oh, and seeing as you hate people who just make points they absorbed from the media without being able to back them up......I'm very interested in your proof that our legal system (or the British legal system more correctly as thats who we're talking about here) is definitively only about punushment and not reform, because youve offered nothing more than a throwaway comment that this is what its about, but have offered no reason in the face of criticism beyond a dictionary term clarifying my (admittedly poor) choice of words.

Now, getting back to the actual point of the discussion, rahter than just knocking each other....you either oppose the death sentence, or you dont. If you feel the world may be better off without these two killers, then you are saying that you would (at least tacitly) approve of their killing.

So, are you saying that you would approve of the death sentence *in this situation*, in which case I go back to asking where the line is drawn. Or are you saying that you would approve (or at least shed no tears) if mob-rule has these two people killed upon their release?

Either you think they should be, or they shouldnt. I still cant figure out from your posts which it is, because you are against the death penalty, but wouldnt mind if these guys bought it. This seems a very stange dichotomy to me.

jc

[This message has been edited by bonkey (edited 29-06-2001).]

JustHalf · 29-06-2001 10:58pm

Originally posted by bonkey:
If society (embodied by the people and represented by the government) have accepted the Declaration of Human Rights, then the right to life in these circumstances is inviolable - it cannot be lost, sold, traded, ignored, or forfeited.

Er, China?
China is a signatory of the Declaration of Human Rights. Tell me, have they witheld all of these rights?

The Declaration of Human Rights is ignored in part by many of its signatories, so being one does not in any way seem to force it to guide your actions.

It *should*, but doesn't.

C B · 29-06-2001 11:05pm

FFS. Please read what I wrote.

Yes I believe that the death penalty in theory would have been the best outcome for a case like this, but the death penalty should never be used because the potential for errors is too much of a risk to take. Is this concept so hard to understand that I have to repeat it four or more times.

I support the death penalty in principle.
I oppose it in practice.

This goes back to the two conditions for state intervention which I have already outlined.

As for the issue of semantics I think you'll find that if you contextualise the quote of mine you used I was originally refering to semantics.

I will not continue to repeat my earlier points. If you have something new to queryme on by all means go ahead but first read to see if I have already answered your questions

bonkey · 29-06-2001 11:31pm

Originally posted by C B:
FFS. Please read what I wrote.

I have. Well, at least I've read what you've written on this thread. Over the course of your postings you have gone from saying

These boys probably should have been killed at the time. It would have saved everybody alot of hassle.

(which was your first post to this thread) to then referring to your other posts on the issue (which must be in other threads) where you are against the death penalty.

That first post is not taken out of context, as other than a reference to an unsupported argument against the death sentence, it made up the entirety of your post.

You have finally clarified your position, but I think you have to agree that it is somewhat at odds with what you first posted.

You have now made your stance clear. I tend to agree with your stance. I disagree that your stance was immediately obvious.

I ahve no further questions your honour, and will now stop hassling you

jc

Celt · 30-06-2001 6:35pm

The penal system is meant to reform people CB, quoting dicitonary.com wont change that.

C B · 02-07-2001 7:28am

Originally posted by WhiteLancer:
The penal system is meant to reform people CB, quoting dicitonary.com wont change that.

You may like to think that it does. You may believe that it should, but neither of these mean that it actualy does or that it even tries. Can you please point me to some evidence that the role of our (or Britian's) penal system is to reform criminals.

bonkey · 02-07-2001 8:14am

Originally posted by C B:
Can you please point me to some evidence that the role of our (or Britian's) penal system is to reform criminals.

This very case which is being discussed. the boys were sent to "a correctional facility". Over the past number of years, they have received education, counselling, psychiatric care, ansd pretty much anything else which the system could provide.

I will grant you that the *adult* system tries to get reform mostly through having a sufficient deterrant, but that does not mean that the whole system is only about punishment.

C B · 02-07-2001 8:19am

As I have already admitted I raised this issue due to semantics. Whitelancer raised it again in more general terms and I replied to that in general terms.

**Edited for terrible spelling**

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 02-07-2001).]

Thompson & Venables to be freed

Comments