Serious question: Can someone explain something?

OutlawPete · 25-01-2010 11:24AM

aDeener wrote: »

So you think you or anyone else for that matter does not have the right to know that they are living next door to convicted sadistic torturers?

That's correct.

They were little boys themselves at the time and had not committed any crimes of anything close to this nature before. Something or someone failed these kids.

Society, in general, are full of s**t and prone to knee jerk responses at the best of times so the information that they have 'evil monster child killers' next door is not exactly going to be something they won't overreact to.

They have paid their dues, move on.

aDeener wrote: »

away an' ****e :rolleyes:

I'll have my breakfast first if that's alright with you.

aDeener · 25-01-2010 11:32AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

That's correct.

They were little boys themselves at the time and had not committed any crimes of anything close to this nature before. Something or someone failed these kids.

Society, in general, are full of s**t and prone to knee jerk responses at the best of times so the information that they have 'evil monster child killers' next door is not exactly going to be something they won't overreact to.

They have paid their dues, move on.

I'll have my breakfast first if that's alright with you.

what are you on pete, it has stated that this pair tried the same to another boy weeks earlier? or are you reffering to thompson and venables??

the kids failed themselves, why is that people always look for something else to blame and cant look in the mirror?

my arse you would not have a problem with you or your loved ones living next door to them, i dont believe that for one second and think you are just saying that to try and give strength to your argument.

aDeener · 25-01-2010 11:36AM

Nodin wrote: »

What age would you suggest?

I would see nothing wrong with 11 and seriously heinous crimes under that age being reviewed. What age do you think is appropriate, is it alright the way it is now? do 16 year olds not fully understand what they are doing when they beat the shit out of strangers?

My earliest memories are from when i was 4, i knew at the time that ramming a branch down someones throat was wrong.

weblogix01 · 25-01-2010 11:38AM

its really awful i hope it wont repeat

Nodin · 25-01-2010 11:42AM

aDeener wrote: »

I would see nothing wrong with 11 .

So you think an 11 year old has the wherewithal to enter into a legally binding contract?

aDeener · 25-01-2010 11:45AM

Nodin wrote: »

So you think an 11 year old has the wherewithal to enter into a legally binding contract?

oh you have to sign a contract now declaring you wont torture others, i was not aware of that

Nodin · 25-01-2010 11:52AM

aDeener wrote: »

oh you have to sign a contract now declaring you wont torture others, i was not aware of that

Stop being evasive. You want to lower the age of criminal responsibility - as far as I can tell for reasons of "revenge" - yet don't seem eager to extend the concept.

TheGod · 25-01-2010 11:58AM

Psychopaths are created by two factors. Those who say they are simply born that way and those who say it is their enviroment that produces them are both half right. It is, in actuality, a combination of the two.

Firstly Anti Social Personality Disorder is hereditary but this alone will not turn a person into a cold blooded killer. It is when someone with an Anti-Social Personality Disorder is nutured in a cold, violent enviroment that psychopathic tendencies will start to emerge.

These two boys, sadly, have no control over how they acted. They more than likely have a mental illness (Anti social personality disorder) and have been brought up in an enviroment that antagonises this condition. The two boys lack empathy in that they can't see what they are doing wrong and because of their enviroment where they have been brought up they see violence as normal. There is no amount of counselling that can fix this as its too late. You can be born with ASPD (or more commonly known as the psychopath gene) and not turn into a cold blooded killer providing you were nutured in a loving enviroment however those with ASPD who are brought up in an enviroment that the two boys were brought up in will most certainly turn into dangerous psychopaths.

These boys should be locked up for life. Its sad because its not their fault they were born with with the ASPD gene and they weren't responsible for the enviroment that atagonised their condition but its the only way to prevent them for reoffending.

aDeener · 25-01-2010 11:58AM

Nodin wrote: »

Stop being evasive. You want to lower the age of criminal responsibility - as far as I can tell for reasons of "revenge" - yet don't seem eager to extend the concept.

Thats not being evasive, youre the one being evasive. i asked you questions a few posts above and you did not attempt to reply.
No I dont wan't to extend the concept, as an 11 year old would most certainly not know the ins and outs of company and contract law, why would you even bring that into this? What they do know is that beating people to a pulp is wrong, world of a difference, im sure you will agree.... actually no you probably wont

rubyred · 25-01-2010 11:58AM

...

OutlawPete · 25-01-2010 12:03PM

aDeener wrote: »

what are you on pete, it has stated that this pair tried the same to another boy weeks earlier?

Was that not found to be hyperbole by a cop who wanted to write a book?

That in fact the boys were looking at toys deciding which ones to steal and as it was a woman with kids that overheard them, the cops put two and two together and get ten?

If you have evidence that it wasn't hyperbole, I'd like to read it.

aDeener wrote: »

the kids failed themselves, why is that people always look for something else to blame and cant look in the mirror?

Because children tend to be a product of their environment.

Of course that is not ALWAYS the case but the vast majority of the time it is.

aDeener wrote: »

my arse you would not have a problem with you or your loved ones living next door to them,

Not now I wouldn't.

The day after yes but the parole board found that public safety would not be threatened and so we have to trust this their word otherwise we don't have a society at all.

aDeener wrote: »

think you are just saying that to try and give strength to your argument.

I have made two posts and your first response is "away an' sh*te' and your second is say I am lying to give strength to my argument.

I am tempted to use the eye-rolling smiley here but I like to save that for Grannie Seoige bashers.

First of all, what would my motive be for lying? I just got to the thread, I have no agenda.

Secondly, I don't have an argument to "give strength to" - as it IS my argument that I wouldn't have a problem with them living next door to me and that they have paid their dues.

The only opinion I have can hardly be where I am lying to give strength to this very opinion, it doesn't even make sense.

And you ask me what I am on.

OutlawPete · 25-01-2010 12:16PM

rubyred wrote: »

What about the two victims? Are they going to feel fine and normal after a few years when their torturers have "paid their dues" and are released?

My comments referred to the Jamie Bulger case.

rubyred wrote: »

I think the two boys that committed those crimes should have to be punished for as long as the two victims are suffering - which will be for the rest of their natural lives.

So you feel they should be punished for the rest of their lives then?

They were children too when this happened. Don't you think that maybe something or someone failed them too?

aDeener · 25-01-2010 12:51PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Was that not found to be hyperbole by a cop who wanted to write a book?

That in fact the boys were looking at toys deciding which ones to steal and as it was a woman with kids that overheard them, the cops put two and two together and get ten?

If you have evidence that it wasn't hyperbole, I'd like to read it.

Because children tend to be a product of their environment.

Of course that is not ALWAYS the case but the vast majority of the time it is.

Not now I wouldn't.

The day after yes but the parole board found that public safety would not be threatened and so we have to trust this their word otherwise we don't have a society at all.

I have made two posts and your first response is "away an' sh*te' and your second is say I am lying to give strength to my argument.

I am tempted to use the eye-rolling smiley here but I like to save that for Grannie Seoige bashers.

First of all, what would my motive be for lying? I just got to the thread, I have no agenda.

Secondly, I don't have an argument to "give strength to" - as it IS my argument that I wouldn't have a problem with them living next door to me and that they have paid their dues.

The only opinion I have can hardly be where I am lying to give strength to this very opinion, it doesn't even make sense.

And you ask me what I am on.

You need to make it clear what case you are reffering to?

You give about hyperbole and then you go and say we would have no society if we did not trust a parole boards decision. That there is a load of cobblers, how on earth would society break down just because there is a lack of trust of a parole board? I sure as hell would have no faith in what they have to say. The number of repeat convictions from criminals here is remarkable e.g frog ward had over 50 previous convictions, and you expect people to have faith and trust in this?

I just dont believe you that you would be 100% a-ok living beside these anonymous torturers when they get out. I dont think you would be calling around for a céile too often. I would believe you if we had a flawless parole board but that is far from the case, as im sure you will agree.

+1 on Grainne Seoige bashers

Rabies · 25-01-2010 12:53PM

Reindeer wrote: »

Ignorance like that makes me wanna shove a stick down your throat.

Reindeer, any further comments like that will result in a ban.

Discuss the topic properly or stay away.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-01-2010 01:37PM

TheGod wrote: »

Psychopaths are created by two factors. Those who say they are simply born that way and those who say it is their enviroment that produces them are both half right. It is, in actuality, a combination of the two.

Psychopaths are born... that's the general consensus.

What is your understanding of psychopathy? Do you think the majority of them are violent? Stupid? Insane?

TheGod · 25-01-2010 01:49PM

Giana Sour Housetop wrote: »

Psychopaths are born... that's the general consensus.

What is your understanding of psychopathy? Do you think the majority of them are violent? Stupid? Insane?

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

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

fonecrusher1 · 25-01-2010 04:46PM

TheGod wrote: »

Psychopaths are created by two factors. Those who say they are simply born that way and those who say it is their enviroment that produces them are both half right. It is, in actuality, a combination of the two.

Firstly Anti Social Personality Disorder is hereditary but this alone will not turn a person into a cold blooded killer. It is when someone with an Anti-Social Personality Disorder is nutured in a cold, violent enviroment that psychopathic tendencies will start to emerge.

These two boys, sadly, have no control over how they acted. They more than likely have a mental illness (Anti social personality disorder) and have been brought up in an enviroment that antagonises this condition. The two boys lack empathy in that they can't see what they are doing wrong and because of their enviroment where they have been brought up they see violence as normal. There is no amount of counselling that can fix this as its too late. You can be born with ASPD (or more commonly known as the psychopath gene) and not turn into a cold blooded killer providing you were nutured in a loving enviroment however those with ASPD who are brought up in an enviroment that the two boys were brought up in will most certainly turn into dangerous psychopaths.

These boys should be locked up for life. Its sad because its not their fault they were born with with the ASPD gene and they weren't responsible for the enviroment that atagonised their condition but its the only way to prevent them for reoffending.

Oh dear unfortunately you seem to perfectly match what i would consider to be a textbook supporter of the its not their fault its because their from a broken home brigade.
Blame unemployment, blame the parents, blame television, blame their environment but of course if you even suggest its possible the two brats simply took pleasure in torturing & almost killing other kids.....oh well thats just ridiculous & overly aggressive.
Many people come from very underprivileged & possibly abusive backgrounds & still go on to become decent members of society.

I don't think they should spend the rest of their life in prison & i don't think you think that either. I think you said that to diffuse any sort of accusation of being too lenient regarding the reasons behind why they decided to commit this disgusting crime.
Again i will say unfortunately there is a percentage of society that have grown up in similar circumstances to these two 'children' yet go on to lead normal lives without ever once deciding to drop 28lb rocks on the heads of other children on a whim.

Why exactly is not their fault?

TheGod · 25-01-2010 05:10PM

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Oh dear unfortunately you seem to perfectly match what i would consider to be a textbook supporter of the its not their fault its because their from a broken home brigade.
Blame unemployment, blame the parents, blame television, blame their environment but of course if you even suggest its possible the two brats simply took pleasure in torturing & almost killing other kids.....oh well thats just ridiculous & overly aggressive.
Many people come from very underprivileged & possibly abusive backgrounds & still go on to become decent members of society.

Did you read any of my post? Or did you just completely ignore the part where I said it is a combination of a hereditary personality disorder known as Anti Social Personality Disorder and their enviroment. I knew someone was going to pick me up wrong.

I don't expect everyone to understand this so I'll make it quite simple.

If these boys are similiar to every notorious psychopath thus far they will more than likely have ASPD, a disorder that is in their genes. ASPD on its own will not cause someone to become a psychopath but if someone suffering from it is also shown a lack of empathy and exposed to violence they will begin to show psychopathatic tendencies. This is because someone who is suffering from ASPD does not feel any empathy. At all. This is probably hard for you to imagine as you don't suffer from it but essentially with ASPD you don't feel any remorse,regret nothing. You can torture someone for hours and just not feel anything. They are mentally ill.

As I said imprison them for life but its not their fault that
(A)They were born with ASPD - bolded for you in case you miss it again.
(B)The enviroment they grew up in antagonised the condition to such a severe level

fonecrusher1 · 25-01-2010 05:57PM

TheGod wrote: »

Did you read any of my post? Or did you just completely ignore the part where I said it is a combination of a hereditary personality disorder known as Anti Social Personality Disorder and their enviroment. I knew someone was going to pick me up wrong.

I don't expect everyone to understand this so I'll make it quite simple.

If these boys are similiar to every notorious psychopath thus far they will more than likely have ASPD, a disorder that is in their genes. ASPD on its own will not cause someone to become a psychopath but if someone suffering from it is also shown a lack of empathy and exposed to violence they will begin to show psychopathatic tendencies. This is because someone who is suffering from ASPD does not feel any empathy. At all. This is probably hard for you to imagine as you don't suffer from it but essentially with ASPD you don't feel any remorse,regret nothing. You can torture someone for hours and just not feel anything. They are mentally ill.

As I said imprison them for life but its not their fault that
(A)They were born with ASPD - bolded for you in case you miss it again.
(B)The enviroment they grew up in antagonised the condition to such a severe level

Hold on a second. Where are you getting this information from? Is it a fact that they were born with ASPD?

This is the only reference to the mental health of either child in the linked paper article:
The ten-year-old 'had the potential' to become a psychopath, a child psychiatrist said.

Look if you want to keep banging on about ASPD thats fine but it really kind of means nothing in my book.
Have you seen the vague list of 'symptoms' associated with the disorder? Half of the so called tale-tale signs are what i would call fairly normal behavior for a rebellious child/teenager.

Btw I thought ASPD can only be diagnosed after the age of 18? How can an individual be born with it?

TheGod · 25-01-2010 06:03PM

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Hold on a second. Where are you getting this information from? Is it a fact that they were born with ASPD?

This is the only reference to the mental health of either child in the linked paper article:
The ten-year-old 'had the potential' to become a psychopath, a child psychiatrist said.

The fact that the psychiatrist said they 'had the potential' to become a psychopath more than likely means they had ASPD.

Look if you want to keep banging on about ASPD thats fine but it really kind of means nothing in my book.
Have you seen the vague list of 'symptoms' associated with the disorder? Half of the so called tale-tale signs are what i would call fairly normal behavior for a rebellious child/teenager.

Really? A complete lack of any kind of empathy is normal for a rebellious teenager?

Btw I thought ASPD can only be diagnosed after the age of 18? How can an individual be born with it?

Well having an illness and being diagnosed with one are completely different.

pennylane22 · 25-01-2010 06:05PM

They sound like they were little bastards but I don't think it would be right either to lock away someone for life for something they were 12. I don't have any rational argument for this I just don't think its right and a justice system should always be 50% punishment and 50% rehabilitation. Whats the point of sending someone to prison if you are just going to assume they won't learn anything and will reoffend again. In the case of these two lads if they are already that far gone then its likely they will in some sort of institution all of their lives. Have the two lads in the Jamie Bulger case reoffended?

fonecrusher1 · 25-01-2010 06:47PM

TheGod wrote: »

The fact that the psychiatrist said they 'had the potential' to become a psychopath more than likely means they had ASPD.

Really? A complete lack of any kind of empathy is normal for a rebellious teenager?

No but lying, impulsivity, lack of long-term goals, inability to make friends, impatience, irresponsibility are hardly abnormal in a child or teenager. Honestly what a load of rubbish.

Well having an illness and being diagnosed with one are completely different.

I'l make it in bold so you dont miss it; I thought ASPD can only be diagnosed after the age of 18? How can an individual be born with it?
I think you're confusing your speculation with facts.

"I don't expect everyone to understand this so I'll make it quite simple." I don't think you understand what you're writing about.

TheGod · 25-01-2010 07:53PM

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'l make it in bold so you dont miss it; I thought ASPD can only be diagnosed after the age of 18? How can an individual be born with it?
I think you're confusing your speculation with facts.

"I don't expect everyone to understand this so I'll make it quite simple." I don't think you understand what you're writing about.

You are aware that being diagnosed with an illness just means that you are officially told by a doctor that you have it? It doesn't mean it wasn't there until you were diagnosed.

In regards to the symptoms you highlighted yeah they're normal for teenagers but your kind of completely ignoring the main symptom of ASPD and the most pivital one, you know, the complete lack of empathy one....

fonecrusher1 · 25-01-2010 08:36PM

TheGod wrote: »

In regards to the symptoms you highlighted yeah they're normal for teenagers but your kind of completely ignoring the main symptom of ASPD and the most pivital one, you know, the complete lack of empathy one....

So would a child that pulls the wings off a bug be described as lacking empathy or is he/she just being a child?
Im sure most kids cut worms in half or take part in various similar child-like activities but i wouldn't consider this as marker signals for future psychopathic behavior.
I think ASPD is a trendy contemporary word used to fill in the gaps where theres really no explanation for why two seemingly normal kids become monsters.
There is no doubt that they have probably endured a traumatic up-bringing but no more than countless other troubled children who do not display such a lack of value for human life.

OutlawPete · 25-01-2010 09:34PM

aDeener wrote: »

You need to make it clear what case you are reffering to?

My original post was in reply to a comment reffering to the Bulger case.

I have clarified it also:

OutlawPete wrote: »

My comments referred to the Jamie Bulger case.

aDeener wrote: »

You give about hyperbole .

Yes, as one of detectives was accused of exaggertating in a Channel4 documentary many years ago. It was not me suggesting 'Hyperbole' - just recalling it to point out that there is no evidence that the boys were talking about anything other than shoplifting.

aDeener wrote: »

and then you go and say we would have no society if we did not trust a parole boards decision. That there is a load of cobblers, how on earth would society break down just because there is a lack of trust of a parole board?.

I am not saying that it if we have no parole board society falls apart, for god sake man - follow the discussion.

I am saying that as a society we have to place trust in such things.

aDeener wrote: »

I sure as hell would have no faith in what they have to say. The number of repeat convictions from criminals here is remarkable e.g frog ward had over 50 previous convictions, and you expect people to have faith and trust in this??.

So your stance is do your full sentence, end of?

aDeener wrote: »

I just dont believe you that you would be 100% a-ok living beside these anonymous torturers when they get out. I dont think you would be calling around for a céile too often.??.

You can choose to believe me or disbelieve - tis your choice.

I feel if someone has done thier time then they deservce a second chance, especially when their crime was commited as a ten year old boy.

aDeener wrote: »

I would believe you if we had a flawless parole board but that is far from the case, as im sure you will agree..??.

Of course I agree but just because it is imperfect does not mean that it has no place as part of the justice system.

aDeener wrote: »

+1 on Grainne Seoige bashers

Now, there's people who shouldn't see the light of day

walshb · 25-01-2010 09:39PM

c - 13 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I don't believe that. What are the "right circumstances" for doing that to two children of a similar age ? There are none, that isn't normal human behavior.

+1

The circumstances are that they are born evil. Anyone else born evil is capable.
Other than this, I see no similarities between evil people and generally decent and good people, other than both are termed people.

Sure, good and decent folk can commit
bad acts due to circumstances or environment,
but some folks are plain evil regardless
of how they are reared or what environment
they are brought up in. They are just bad.

aDeener · 26-01-2010 01:57PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

My original post was in reply to a comment reffering to the Bulger case.

I have clarified it also:

Yes, as one of detectives was accused of exaggertating in a Channel4 documentary many years ago. It was not me suggesting 'Hyperbole' - just recalling it to point out that there is no evidence that the boys were talking about anything other than shoplifting.

I am not saying that it if we have no parole board society falls apart, for god sake man - follow the discussion.

I am saying that as a society we have to place trust in such things.

So your stance is do your full sentence, end of?

You can choose to believe me or disbelieve - tis your choice.

I feel if someone has done thier time then they deservce a second chance, especially when their crime was commited as a ten year old boy.

Of course I agree but just because it is imperfect does not mean that it has no place as part of the justice system.

Now, there's people who shouldn't see the light of day

How can we place trust in a board that deems it alright, for example, to release larry murphy after 8 years? Talk about a slap in the face to any woman that has ever suffered any form of sexual assault.

My problem is what the "time" is, it is rare that it is ever just - see case of larry murphy above. 5 years or whatever it is for these young lads is an insult to the boys they have scarred for life do you not think?

OutlawPete · 26-01-2010 04:10PM

aDeener wrote: »

How can we place trust in a board that deems it alright, for example, to release larry murphy after 8 years? Talk about a slap in the face to any woman that has ever suffered any form of sexual assault.?

You can find fault with anything.

The Birmingham Six, Guildford Four were all miscarriges of justice - does this then mean Britain just do away with courts? Of course not.

Anyway, in this particular case I see no fault with the Parole Board so I fail to see why you attacking my point that the have found that these boys are no longer a danger to the public.

aDeener wrote: »

5 years or whatever it is for these young lads is an insult to the boys they have scarred for life do you not think?

Of course I do.

My comments were were about the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger and that I don't feel anyone has a right to know that they are living beside them - other than Jamie's family that is.

aDeener · 26-01-2010 04:23PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

You can find fault with anything.

The Birmingham Six, Guildford Four were all miscarriges of justice - does this then mean Britain just do away with courts? Of course not.

Anyway, in this particular case I see no fault with the Parole Board so I fail to see why you attacking my point that the have found that these boys are no longer a danger to the public.

Of course I do.

My comments were were about the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger and that I don't feel anyone has a right to know that they are living beside them - other than Jamie's family that is.

i never said do away with them, i just cant see how you expect people to have faith in them when it is a rarity that they give proper sentences. But you believe the sentence in question to have been proper and we will just have to agree to disagree.

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

OutlawPete · 26-01-2010 04:37PM

aDeener wrote: »

i never said do away with them, i just cant see how you expect people to have faith in them ..?

They have to have faith in them as the public saftey is at stake. If the system is flawed - then address this and try fix those flaws.

aDeener wrote: »

But you believe the sentence in question to have been proper and we will just have to agree to disagree.?

Grand so.

aDeener wrote: »

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

I can't speak for those lunatics

Seriousily though, I wouldn't trust people with that information - that is the real issue.

People are nuts.

Serious question: Can someone explain something?

Comments