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

AudreyHepburn · 03-01-2019 6:34pm

This is the one case that I read once and will never be able to bring myself to read again. What those boys did nothing short of horrific.

That said I see nothing wrong with trying to unseat derstand what a drives a person, adult or child, to commit such acts. There are very few people born inherently evil and there is something to said for trying to understand why these two boys did what they did.

Ignoring the darker aspects of life won’t make them go away.

DeanAustin · 03-01-2019 7:39pm

Candie wrote: »

Whatever about the killers, it's the family I really feel for. Every time someone sparks interest in the case, the media contacts the mother or father for comment. Every time someone seeks to examine the case, for righteous reasons or because they seek something sensational to raise their own profile, the parents are brought back to that time and find themselves considering some other angle of that horror.

No murder is committed by a monster, they're all committed by humans. Maybe the humans have something monstrous inside them, and that makes examination important so history is prevented from repeating itself. Ideally the examination is by trained health professionals, not to be confused with documentary makers.

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

brendanwalsh · 03-01-2019 7:41pm

It's scary how we have been desensitised to these horrific crimes. At the time this happened it was one of the most vulgar murders ever to take place. Only a few months ago two dublin teenagers did the same thing to that poor little Polish girl and there was barely a mention of it in the papers.

My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2019 7:42pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

If you don't require anymore insight to what happened here, don't go to the film.

Who really cares what you think? Only those who agree with you.

Nobody is being forced to go to this.

tayto lover · 03-01-2019 7:44pm

brendanwalsh wrote: »

It's scary how we have been desensitised to these horrific crimes. At the time this happened it was one of the most vulgar murders ever to take place. Only a few months ago two dublin teenagers did the same thing to that poor little Polish girl and there was barely a mention of it in the papers.

My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

Ah heeoor.
It was all over the media for weeks.

BalcombeSt4 · 03-01-2019 7:56pm

nthclare wrote: »

You'll have the usual pattern of people defending these evil bastard's, always from the left.

I seen something a while back about lefties saying paedophiles are another sexual orientation, and how hard it must be to be rejected by society for being a naunce.

If society ever say's it's ok to be a naunce or child killer then Armageddon has surely arrived.

They don't belong here, they're sick twisted and need to be all rounded up and strung up by their nuts and bolts....

Do you have a link to any these statements?

DeanAustin · 03-01-2019 7:58pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't require anymore insight to what happened here, don't go to the film.

Who really cares what you think? Only those who agree with you.

Nobody is being forced to go to this.

It’s not about me. It’s about the family and particularly the parents who have to deal with this unimaginable tragedy opened up in the public domain again to raise the profile of a film maker and satisfy the voyeurism and pseudo intellectualism of some sections of the public. Me not going to see this film won’t make one jot of difference the Bulger family because the damage is already done.

donkeykong5 · 03-01-2019 7:59pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

Candie wrote: »

Whatever about the killers, it's the family I really feel for. Every time someone sparks interest in the case, the media contacts the mother or father for comment. Every time someone seeks to examine the case, for righteous reasons or because they seek something sensational to raise their own profile, the parents are brought back to that time and find themselves considering some other angle of that horror.

No murder is committed by a monster, they're all committed by humans. Maybe the humans have something monstrous inside them, and that makes examination important so history is prevented from repeating itself. Ideally the examination is by trained health professionals, not to be confused with documentary makers.

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

Apologise to anyone for using Jamie in my posts to refer to James. I was living in England at that tragic time and yes you are correct he was constantly referred to as Jamie.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2019 8:03pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

It’s not about me. It’s about the family and particularly the parents who have to deal with this unimaginable tragedy opened up in the public domain again to raise the profile of a film maker and satisfy the voyeurism and pseudo intellectualism of some sections of the public. Me not going to see this film won’t make one jot of difference the Bulger family because the damage is already done.

So you are getting offended on behalf of someone else?

There were two other people involved and two other families as well.
I understand how this is upsetting for the family of James Bulger but that should not stop responsible and justified questioning of what happened.
This case has barely been out of the media spotlight since it happened. But if the story is about the 'evil' of the the two boys who killed him, there doesn't seem to be any outrage funnily enough. :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09 · 03-01-2019 8:06pm

eagle eye wrote: »

There are all types in the world. There's more people around these days who want to find an excuse for the scumbag and the evil bastard than ever before.
Ignoring them completely is about the only way to stay calm and get on with your life.
Just don't watch this thing. If it loses money then he might never get to make another one.

The first line is completely right there are all kinds of people in the world. So why would it be wise to ignore that fact?

He says in the interview that he's not trying to make excuses for them. Explaining what actually happened is not the same as excusing it.

I don't believe in evil. It's a label we put on very bad behaviour but it doesn't actually explain anything. When I hear people calling a person evil I just hear them saying they don't want to understand it. They just label it evil and stop taking in new information.

begbysback · 03-01-2019 8:09pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

100 times this. Haven’t read the rest of the thread but this is bang on the money.

What is the filmmaker going to learn and what are people like me going to learn that will make a difference and ensure this won’t happen again? This is purely to raise his profile and he should be ashamed opening up these wounds publicly for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger again.

And it’s a small point but one that irritates me. He was never called Jamie by anyone except the media in England. His name was James.

Venables and Thompson are evil human beings who I wouldn’t shed a tear over if they both met a horrible death.

What worries me about the future is not that extremely rare cases of child murders occur, but the lack of curiosity about how and why they occur.

DeanAustin · 03-01-2019 8:43pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are getting offended on behalf of someone else?

There were two other people involved and two other families as well.
I understand how this is upsetting for the family of James Bulger but that should not stop responsible and justified questioning of what happened.
This case has barely been out of the media spotlight since it happened. But if the story is about the 'evil' of the the two boys who killed him, there doesn't seem to be any outrage funnily enough. :rolleyes:

Where did I say I was offended? I think it’s a ****, self serving move on behalf of the director. I’m not offended, I just think it’s a prick move. What difference does it make if he questions this or if I question it or you question it? We aren’t experts in psychology and it serves no real purpose. There are experts that can do that and don’t have to be on camera doing it.

This is just voyeurism.

Zorya · 03-01-2019 9:12pm

There are different styles of documentary film making.
Poetic, subjective documentaries, for example, or apparently more objective styles like expository or observational etc. There are other styles but no matter what kind of documentary is made there is the unavoidable presence of the film-maker.
Every act of editing in a documentary film is a deliberate choice, an act of bias, an attempt to persuade on behalf of the film maker, consciously or unconsciously.
Documentary is scripted, just like any other narrative. It cannot be free from arrangement and distortion.
For that reason I cannot understand how some seem to think that a documentary like this, or any documentary in fact, could reveal some new objective ''truth'' or objective ''deeper understanding''. Nor that a film maker might claim such a motive, as he does. The film maker could not have avoided the thought that this was a construction of events that would be controversial and attract notoriety. He was evasive in that interview. Better to be honest.

Some things are better left alone. Like this story. I remember feeling similiarly when Edna O' Brien wrote her book about Imelda and Liam Riney.

03-01-2019 9:32pm

Zorya wrote: »

There are different styles of documentary film making.
Poetic, subjective documentaries, for example, or apparently more objective styles like expository or observational etc. There are other styles but no matter what kind of documentary is made there is the unavoidable presence of the film-maker.
Every act of editing in a documentary film is a deliberate choice, an act of bias, an attempt to persuade on behalf of the film maker, consciously or unconsciously.
Documentary is scripted, just like any other narrative. It cannot be free from arrangement and distortion.
For that reason I cannot understand how some seem to think that a documentary like this, or any documentary in fact, could reveal some new objective ''truth'' or objective ''deeper understanding''. Nor that a film maker might claim such a motive, as he does. The film maker could not have avoided the thought that this was a construction of events that would be controversial and attract notoriety. He was evasive in that interview. Better to be honest.

Some things are better left alone. Like this story. I remember feeling similiarly when Edna O' Brien wrote her book about Imelda and Liam Riney.

How can anyone really believe that a short film maker is going to reveal some truth that managed to escape the trained and experienced health professionals with unfettered access to the killers? Twenty five years after the event?

What possible reason would anyone have to avoid simply informing that parents that they might see images of their toddlers killer on tv again, or happen on an interview that discusses the injuries he suffered for the education of the greater public? How much education do they need?

I'm all for unearthing the motivations and circumstances surrounding these kinds of crimes, but not for exploiting an anniversary and calling it art or education or being arrogant enough to think that informing the parents isn't important, even from a human decency point of view.

PuppyMcPupFace · 03-01-2019 9:37pm

Candie wrote: »

How can anyone really believe that a short film maker is going to reveal some truth that managed to escape the trained and experienced health professionals with unfettered access to the killers? Twenty five years after the event?

What possible reason would anyone have to avoid simply informing that parents that they might see images of their toddlers killer on tv again, or happen on an interview that discusses the injuries he suffered for the education of the greater public? How much education do they need?

I'm all for unearthing the motivations and circumstances surrounding these kinds of crimes, but not for exploiting an anniversary and calling it art or education or being arrogant enough to think that informing the parents isn't important, even from a human decency point of view.

Well said. He's choosing an emotive topic to cash in on the Making a Murderer etc Netflix bandwagon.

It's sick.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2019 9:53pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

Where did I say I was offended? I think it’s a ****, self serving move on behalf of the director. I’m not offended, I just think it’s a prick move. What difference does it make if he questions this or if I question it or you question it? We aren’t experts in psychology and it serves no real purpose. There are experts that can do that and don’t have to be on camera doing it.

This is just voyeurism.

So don't go to the film. Simple. Save you having to express your anger/outrage/offence or whatever it is you are trying to express.

I don't go to all sorts of thing because they offend everything from my morals to my taste...so what?

DeanAustin · 03-01-2019 9:58pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So don't go to the film. Simple. Save you having to express your anger/outrage/offence or whatever it is you are trying to express.

I don't go to all sorts of thing because they offend everything from my morals to my taste...so what?

You really are missing the point. My very strong opinion is that the film should never have been made as it serves no positive purpose and just causes the family of James more unnecessary trauma. Whether I go and watch it or not doesn’t change that. Whether millions go and see it or dozens go and see it, the damage has been done to James’ parents by having this story prominent in the media again.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2019 10:05pm

DeanAustin wrote: »

You really are missing the point. My very strong opinion is that the film should never have been made as it serves no positive purpose and just causes the family of James more unnecessary trauma. Whether I go and watch it or not doesn’t change that. Whether millions go and see it or dozens go and see it, the damage has been done to James’ parents by having this story prominent in the media again.

So you are getting offended/outraged on somebody else's behalf.

I happen to disagree with you, if a serious filmmaker/artist feels they can shed light on an issue, I think it is imperative that they be allowed to do that without censorship.

As I said, nobody seems to have a problem when tabloids and the usual outrage brigade want to vent their one dimensional 'evil' theories.

03-01-2019 10:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, nobody seems to have a problem when tabloids and the usual outrage brigade want to vent their one dimensional 'evil' theories.

Many have said they do. Most people make the distinction between acts that are evil in their depravity, and the concept of evil inherent in a person.

Those boys aren't monsters, thats the tricky thing. But what they did is monstrous.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 03-01-2019 10:15pm

Candie wrote: »

Many have said they do. Most people make the distinction between acts that are evil in their depravity, and the concept of evil inherent in a person.

Those boys aren't monsters, thats the tricky thing. But what they did is monstrous.

Hmm. Is that much of a distinction? How do we tell the monstrous from the non monstrous except in actions?

Mad_maxx · 03-01-2019 10:18pm

kneemos wrote: »

Wish people would drop this "evil" bull****. Like it's an explanation for anything.

So you don't think that some people are evil?

03-01-2019 10:22pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Hmm. Is that much of a distinction? How do we tell the monstrous from the non monstrous except in actions?

I guess that's a question for wiser heads than me because I don't know. If a kid has no empathy and doesn't understand how his actions affect others, is he evil or is he a broken person who does evil things? Is his ability to depersonalize another person enough to commit such acts of depravity evil in itself, or only evil because of the actions he visited on them? If he is only capable of the acts but never does them, is he still evil? Where does it begin, in the mind or in the act and does the distinction even matter?

I pity the people who have to unravel all this, it must take some toll on them. I don't know, I can't know. Possibly the psychs who worked with the killers don't know. And I really doubt anything new or revealing is going to be exposed in this guys film either.

FrancieBrady · 03-01-2019 10:29pm

Candie wrote: »

Many have said they do. Most people make the distinction between acts that are evil in their depravity, and the concept of evil inherent in a person.

Those boys aren't monsters, thats the tricky thing. But what they did is monstrous.

The film maker was quite clear about his opinion of the crime.

Gimme A Pound · 03-01-2019 10:40pm

The Black Oil wrote: »

Yep, I saw this on a UK forum in 2010 when the issue with Venables and child abuse imagery arose. It's a case that's almost impossible to discuss without the seething anger being front and centre, obscuring debate.

Nothing like a moral panic and bit of groupthink. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime

Yeah that's it - horror at a toddler being tortured and butchered is just an auld bandwagon-jumping.

You're not automatically a Sun-reading pitchfork-wielding pleb if you're sickened to the pit of your stomach by such a crime you know. You can also be an educated, critically thinking moderate with balanced views.

I find it dismaying the way there can be more concern over what people say about something than what actually happened. This isn't the only such case. Like people getting so bothered about the use of the word "evil" - it's just a descriptive term for a cruel person, and some people ARE just cruel; they don't have to be created.

People keep saying they want to find out what led to it - hasn't it been established that it was background plus personality? What more is there to learn? It's not like it's a psychological study.

Neyite · 03-01-2019 10:49pm

brendanwalsh wrote: »

It's scary how we have been desensitised to these horrific crimes. At the time this happened it was one of the most vulgar murders ever to take place. Only a few months ago two dublin teenagers did the same thing to that poor little Polish girl and there was barely a mention of it in the papers.

My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

Bulger is the name of the victim. Venables has reoffended a few times and also has compromised his new identity on several occasions leading to expensive new identities being created for him. He's supposed to have fathered a child. Thompson on the other hand has never reoffended and is rumoured to be in a same sex relationship and his partner knows who he used to be. The general consensus from some of the officers and other experts who were involved in the case and the trial, was that Thompson was the more calculated and devious one that showed no remorse. So based on that, it might be that the reason Thompson has never come to police attention is that he's just fine with what he did.

I read a book by the police psychologist who helped with the investigation from the start. It's not something I could ever read again. Especially since I had my own boy. It was horrific and you wonder how two boys turned out that way.

Charmeleon · 03-01-2019 11:21pm

Candie wrote: »

I guess that's a question for wiser heads than me because I don't know. If a kid has no empathy and doesn't understand how his actions affect others, is he evil or is he a broken person who does evil things? Is his ability to depersonalize another person enough to commit such acts of depravity evil in itself, or only evil because of the actions he visited on them? If he is only capable of the acts but never does them, is he still evil? Where does it begin, in the mind or in the act and does the distinction even matter?

I pity the people who have to unravel all this, it must take some toll on them. I don't know, I can't know. Possibly the psychs who worked with the killers don't know. And I really doubt anything new or revealing is going to be exposed in this guys film either.

Some people are born with a disposition that finds strong emotions in others amusing, whether it is a look of shock at saying extremely offensive things or enjoyment at witnessing humiliation. Some people get enjoyment by experiencing others in severe pain. They don’t learn this, it is a personality disorder and in its extreme forms it is evil.

03-01-2019 11:26pm

Charmeleon wrote: »

Some people are born with a disposition that finds strong emotions in others amusing, whether it is a look of shock at saying extremely offensive things or enjoyment at witnessing humiliation. Some people get enjoyment by experiencing others in severe pain. They don’t learn this, it is a personality disorder and in its extreme forms it is evil.

If they never act on it, are they still evil? Does the capability alone make someone evil, or is it the act that is evil?

I'm not saying I know, just that the concept of evil is a difficult one to pin down.

Grandeeod · 03-01-2019 11:42pm

I have not yet had the opportunity to see the film. I knew it was being made and am very excited to see it from a film making point of view. I fooking detest the censorship of Film or TV production. There are very many sensitive subjects that are very rarely portrayed on screen, but inevitably they become controversial issues once they appear. I thought the Ben Sheppard lad carried an agenda that is populist. He suggested that Vincent Lambe was making this film to be controversial and further his career. Now maybe Vincent is, but I can't accuse him of that based on what I know. From a personal point of view, I was involved in a production many years ago that broached a very difficult subject and it finished a particular career. It was never ever intended to be a platform for a career launch. But neither was it expected to be a a hand grenade that sank one. It was on a much smaller scale but attracted similar opinions and discussion.

While I abhor the crime committed against Jamie Bulger and I was personally in a very difficult Family law case when it happened,that had me worrying about a child I'd been separated from, I will not condemn the actions of film makers to portray aspects of the case. I'd like to think that its a brave piece of film making and that Vincent Lambe isn't trying to take the piss out of us.

Charmeleon · 03-01-2019 11:47pm

Candie wrote: »

If they never act on it, are they still evil? Does the capability alone make someone evil, or is it the act that is evil?

I'm not saying I know, just that the concept of evil is a difficult one to pin down.

Yes, their motivation is an evil intent, Graham Dwyer was evil even before he fulfilled his fantasy of stabbing a woman to death.

Likewise, the same applies at the other extreme.

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 12:03am

Charmeleon wrote: »

Candie wrote: »

If they never act on it, are they still evil? Does the capability alone make someone evil, or is it the act that is evil?

I'm not saying I know, just that the concept of evil is a difficult one to pin down.

Yes, their motivation is an evil intent, Graham Dwyer was evil even before he fulfilled his fantasy of stabbing a woman to death.

Likewise, the same applies at the other extreme.

Graham Dwyer's is evil personified. Probably like the murderers of James bulger as a child.

Bannasidhe · 04-01-2019 12:39am

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Graham Dwyer's is evil personified. Probably like the murderers of James bulger as a child.

The thing about using terms like evil is then we get into questions like were they always evil? Were the born evil? Were they evil babies? Evil toddlers?

Can it not then be argued they cannot be blamed? Their evilness was predestined.

Where does evil come from? Are the possessed by evil?

Did something make them evil? Can you catch evil?
How do we deal with evil?
Exorcism?

Or do we say they are damaged? Sick even.
And try to determine what caused that damage/illness?
Find ways to cure it?
Find ways to determine if it is curable?
Not all sickness' have a cure.

A psychologist once show me this test she said is used to determine is someone is a psychopath. She suddenly clapped her hand an inch fro my face to see how if I would react. I did - so apparently I'm not.
Now this woman worked with children. And said that yes, sometimes they do that to see if they react. And if they don't then what I asked? Further tests.
What if you have a child who all the tests say is a psychopath but who hasn't committed any crime?
They have the potential to commit crimes - but be honest, a lot of us do should we find ourselves certain in the circumstances... when the blood is running hot.

But psychopaths don't do hot running blood do they?
Are they evil?
Do we lock them up before they can commit a crime ?

As for this film. I won't be going to see it. But I have seen films about Brady and Hindley. Their crimes were horrific. The families of their victims endured living hells. Where is the outrage? Why is that different? Is it because Hindley and Brady were adults?

Every night on multiple TV channels we have murder and rape as as the central part of our "whodunnit" entertainment - in fact looking at the CSI/Law and Order/Criminal Minds etc franchises I sometimes wondered how there are any 20 something females left in the U.S. given the frequency in which they are brutally killed.

Yes, I know it's fiction. The individual stories are fictions. Murders and rapes aren't.

Think about it. Nightly on our TV's in our living rooms we have reenactments of rapes and murders and we call that entertainment. Do we have any sympathy for the families of real victims who may see these things?

Do we condemn them?

Or do we instead wonder how come Horatio hasn't been burned to a crisp living in Miami-Dade and ponder if he is wearing SPF 1000 and would someone ever shove those effing sunglasses up his hole?

BTW - I stopped watching those shows years ago. One night I realised I couldn't stomach seeing one more murder of a young woman for my "entertainment" - even fictional.

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 12:42am

Grandeeod wrote: »

TomSweeney wrote: »

<snip>

<snip>

Do you think as Ben Sheppard asked this morning on TV that the murdered childs parents should have been told that there was a film been done about their child?

sk8erboii · 04-01-2019 12:46am

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Do you think as Ben Sheppard asked this morning on TV that the murdered childs parents should have been told that there was a film been done about their child?

Ah classic. So because someone made a documentary about whitey bulger it means liberals are now satanic pedophile worshippers.

Epic leap of logic there.

Can also refer you to a psych if you want

Grandeeod · 04-01-2019 1:04am

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Do you think as Ben Sheppard asked this morning on TV that the murdered childs parents should have been told that there was a film been done about their child?

Thats the decision the film makers made. You can ask or you cannot ask in situations like this. There is no particular process apart from some respect. This particular film isn't an re-enactment of the event anyway, it's focused on the guilty parties and subsequent interviews. Had Jamies parents been asked, they would have said no most likely and then it boils down to the film makers respect for their wishes. I'll meet you as far as the fact that yes the parents of Jamie should have at least been told. After that, I say fair game to a degree. I'm long in the tooth enough to believe that film making on any level should not be censored once its not libelous. Offense etc etc is on the table for discussion and nothing else.

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 1:04am

Yes or no would have done pal. ! I repeat Ben sheppards question on TV this morning. Should the murdered childs parents have been informed that there was a film been made by an Irish filmmaker about their child?

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 1:04am

Yes or no would have done pal. ! I repeat Ben sheppards question on TV this morning. Should the murdered childs parents have been informed that there was a film been made by an Irish filmmaker about their child?

Gimme A Pound · 04-01-2019 1:04am

People are upset at the notion of "humanising" Venables and Thompson though - this implies a level of empathising. I know there have always been people who enjoy the usual bluster when it comes to this case, and I'm not interested in doing that, but I still understand the anger, and I'm not comfortable with the facts of the case getting lost due to focus on "What about what the killers were going through".

I know it's likely they had terrible upbringings, but while that didn't help, what they did goes beyond their backgrounds. They were the actions of people lacking empathy and enjoying the suffering of someone helpless.

They are human but what they did lacked humanity - I don't know how their age mitigates it. Being 10 explains a lot of stupid **** but not this. They were bad people, and while they likely had/have something wrong with them, being terrible people was part of it.

Charmeleon · 04-01-2019 1:04am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The thing about using terms like evil is then we get into questions like were they always evil? Were the born evil? Were they evil babies? Evil toddlers?

Can it not then be argued they cannot be blamed? Their evilness was predestined.

If they are criminally insane then yes, that is exactly how it is treated. They can’t understand the consequences of their actions and can’t be deterred by the threat of punishment.

Psychopaths on the other hand do know what they are doing is considered wrong and that they would be punished. Otherwise they wouldn’t conceal their crimes so carefully.
It is the ability to understand that their actions are deplored that makes them culpable. They can make intelligent decisions.

Where does evil come from? Are the possessed by evil?

Did something make them evil? Can you catch evil?
How do we deal with evil?
Exorcism?

Did something give a person ‘perfect pitch’ or make them gifted at maths? Yes, the chemical and physical organisation of the brain during development.

Or do we say they are damaged? Sick even.
And try to determine what caused that damage/illness?
Find ways to cure it?
Find ways to determine if it is curable?
Not all sickness' have a cure.

There is no known cure for being ambitious vs carefree, personality traits are very robust.

A psychologist once show me this test she said is used to determine is someone is a psychopath. She suddenly clapped her hand an inch fro my face to see how if I would react. I did - so apparently I'm not.
Now this woman worked with children. And said that yes, sometimes they do that to see if they react. And if they don't then what I asked? Further tests.
What if you have a child who all the tests say is a psychopath but who hasn't committed any crime?
They have the potential to commit crimes - but be honest, a lot of us do should we find ourselves certain in the circumstances... when the blood is running hot.

If they described that as a test they should be removed from employment. There are screening techniques that might loosely indicate if a particular person among many is worth looking at more closely. That tells you very little upfront. But this sounds hard to believe.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2019 1:10am

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

People are upset at the notion of "humanising" Venables and Thompson though - this implies a level of empathising. I know there have always been people who enjoy the usual bluster when it comes to this case, and I'm not interested in doing that, but I still understand the anger, and I'm not comfortable with the facts of the case getting lost due to focus on "What about what the killers were going through".

I know it's likely they had terrible upbringings, but while that didn't help, what they did goes beyond their backgrounds. They were the actions of people lacking empathy and enjoying the suffering of someone helpless.

They are human but what they did lacked humanity - I don't know how their age mitigates it. Being 10 explains a lot of stupid **** but not this. They were bad people, and while they likely had/have something wrong with them, being terrible people was part of it.

So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.

Bannasidhe · 04-01-2019 1:12am

Charmeleon wrote: »

If they are criminally insane then yes, that is exactly how it is treated. They can’t understand the consequences of their actions and can’t be deterred by the threat of punishment.

Psychopaths on the other hand do know what they are doing is considered wrong and that they would be punished. Otherwise they wouldn’t conceal their crimes so carefully.
It is the ability to understand that their actions are deplored that makes them culpable. They can make intelligent decisions.

Did something give a person ‘perfect pitch’ or make them gifted at maths? Yes, the chemical and physical organisation of the brain during development.

There is no known cure for being ambitious vs carefree, personality traits are very robust.

If they described that as a test they should be removed from employment. There are screening techniques that might loosely indicate if a particular person among many is worth looking at more closely. That tells you very little upfront. But this sounds hard to believe.

I agree - it is extremely complex.

Too complex to scream EVIL and have that be the last word.

I thought the test was complete ****e tbh - but don't worry, this person no longer works in Ireland. She has a well paid gig with an international organisation which has been mired in scandal in recent years.

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 1:14am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

People are upset at the notion of "humanising" Venables and Thompson though - this implies a level of empathising. I know there have always been people who enjoy the usual bluster when it comes to this case, and I'm not interested in doing that, but I still understand the anger, and I'm not comfortable with the facts of the case getting lost due to focus on "What about what the killers were going through".

I know it's likely they had terrible upbringings, but while that didn't help, what they did goes beyond their backgrounds. They were the actions of people lacking empathy and enjoying the suffering of someone helpless.

They are human but what they did lacked humanity - I don't know how their age mitigates it. Being 10 explains a lot of stupid **** but not this. They were bad people, and while they likely had/have something wrong with them, being terrible people was part of it.

So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.

Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?

Gimme A Pound · 04-01-2019 1:15am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.

Do you think the documentary can answer those questions? Will it offer a complex psychological assessment? I mean we know they had crap upbringings, but what explains the crossing of the line that others don't do, even with similar upbringings? Being terrible people (people can be just bad - we all know them), having a personality disorder... only they were responsible for what they did though.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2019 1:25am

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Do you think the documentary can answer those questions? Will it offer a complex psychological assessment? I mean we know they had crap upbringings, but what explains the crossing of the line that others don't do, even with similar upbringings? Being terrible people (people can be just bad - we all know them), having a personality disorder... only they were responsible for what they did though.

He is entitled to have a go. I guarantee it will be more earnest and worthwhile than the reams of garbage printed about this case over the years, consumed by those whom the tabloids prey on for survival.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2019 1:27am

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?

An 'outrage junkie' is different to an 'outraged junkie'.

I was referring to the ludicrous male presenter. Can't be bothered memorising his name.

Grandeeod · 04-01-2019 1:30am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.

I agree. Once again I haven't seen the film, but I was aware of it up to at least two years ago. Todays interview was lopsided. Sheppard zoned in on the absolutely populist angle and outrage that we are seeing a lot of here to a degree. This entire thread is bogged down in a historic mindset that simply accepted "Evil" as an excuse along with an easily rented film called Childs Play.

There is nothing wrong with revealing the interviews with these pair of fookers. It may be news to the the Millennials and the Directors can be included, but some older people need to get a hold of themselves and stop being so fooking anal about this little "short" film. It was a fooking horrific crime, but I really don't see the problem with exploring the roles and mindset of the pricks that did it.

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 1:32am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?

An 'outrage junkie' is different to an 'outraged junkie'.

I was referring to the ludicrous male presenter. Can't be bothered memorising his name.

Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.

namloc1980 · 04-01-2019 1:39am

They are humans but what they did was incredibly inhuman. Why they did it will never truly be known, but putting it down to them being "evil monsters" is simplistic nonsense for the tabloids to drool over.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2019 1:40am

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.

All he wanted to talk about was various hues of outrage about making the film, not what the film was about or what the motivation was.

I.E. he is an outrage junkie. It sells, obviously

donkeykong5 · 04-01-2019 1:49am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.

All he wanted to talk about was various hues of outrage about making the film, not what the film was about or what the motivation was.

I.E. he is an outrage junkie. It sells, obviously

Ah get over yourself. Jealousy terrible affliction.

FrancieBrady · 04-01-2019 1:58am

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Ah get over yourself. Jealousy terrible affliction.

Jealous?

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

Comments