wiggyrichard

Still can't quite get my head around the whole "let us hang 8 year old boys from the neck until dead" argument though.

That is the extreme side of the argument against the handling of the case. Most of us think

Howabout some nice mod adding a little poll to see what 'most of us think'

What options do you think for the poll, its not a simple a) or for this one!

How about was their punishment just:

a) Their punishment was strong as they were only kids at the time and didnt know any better

b)Their punishment was fitting and fair for the crime committed (taking into consideration their age)

c)Their punishment was not fitting for the crime and they should never be released regardless of their age at the time of the offence

d)The death sentance

Do you believe then that some people are born to be killers no matter what happens to them after birth? Like some sort of “evil gene” passed down from your parents??

...

There are thousands and thousands of children born every year to poor (not in the financial sense) parents, and not all of these kids go out and snatch a toddler and proceed to torture and murder him.

So are they born with a genetic defect?

Just because some people react one way to something as a child doesn't mean everyone does.

But you get the right (or should I say wrong?) combination of factors and they all combine together you can come up with a killer.

It is important to learn what these factors are so that future killers can be prevented from developing.

It's also worth attempting to undo some of the factors so the person can become a regular contributing member of society again.

But whos to say a child raised by millionaires, given privat schooling etc etc. couldnt turn into a cold blooded killer? I dont think there is a pattern.

Of course i dont stop reading the second i see something i dont agree with...

I stopped reading after this.......

Really? :?

Its called sarcasm buddy...if i told you i was MON's love child would you believe me?

Apologies

Actually, that is an admission of what we term here, Posting for Effect or PFE, which is clearly against site guidelines. you posted something which wasn't true, just for effect. Don't do that again - Bicks

I did apologies.

Anyhow, point duly noted chief, wont happen again

Of course i dont stop reading the second i see something i dont agree with...

I stopped reading after this.......

Really? :?

Its called sarcasm buddy...if i told you i was MON's love child would you believe me?

Apologies

Do you believe then that some people are born to be killers no matter what happens to them after birth? Like some sort of “evil gene” passed down from your parents??

...

There are thousands and thousands of children born every year to poor (not in the financial sense) parents, and not all of these kids go out and snatch a toddler and proceed to torture and murder him.

So are they born with a genetic defect?

Un twist your knickers fella, its a debate...

Except you aren't participating. You asked someone a question and when they answered it you stopped reading after a sentence and a half and proudly announced the fact.

Just because i and a few others dont agree with your little clan doesnt mean we are wrong and it doesnt mean you and a few others are right.

Me and my clan? :?

I guess that the post where I said

I don't think anyone fails to understand that; it is your opinion and it is a perfectly valid opinion with which I just happen to disagree. Neither of us are 'right', we hold different opinions.

in response to someone else was another post which you stopped reading/decided not to read.

Holding other opinions is fine, in fact it's great, proudly announcing that one won't even bother to read the opinion for which one has specifically asked isn't. That's why I asked why should anyone bother to further engage with you as you obviously have no interest in actually engaging with anyone else (shown also by you either ignoring or not trying to understand what I was saying in the post to which you 'replied').

Of course i dont stop reading the second i see something i dont agree with. Im a little maturer than that, and im certainly not going to fall out with anyone over a debate on an internet forum.

So we are going to have to agree to disagree on this my friend, we both live to fight another day :winkold:

The Crime - Abduction, torture, sexual assault and murder

The Punishment - Private education, 3 meals a day, private health care, entitled to play games consoles in their cells and released after X amount of years.

Oh yeah...sounds really fair to me as well :shock:

I'll repeat the question I posed: would you care to explain to me why anyone should bother to continue to engage with you in this thread?

Un twist your knickers fella, its a debate, there is no right or wrong. Just because i and a few others dont agree with your little clan doesnt mean we are wrong and it doesnt mean you and a few others are right. I personally dont think their punishment was anywhere near enough and i personally think that they should be held fully responable.

Can we still be friends? :winkold:

firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair.

I stopped reading after this.......

If that is true, would you care to explain to me why anyone should bother to continue to engage with you in this thread?

The answer he gave may have been uncomfortable, it may not have been what you wanted to hear and it may, even, not have been an answer to your question (in your opinion) but the fact is you won't know because you didn't read it.

The Crime - Abduction, torture, sexual assault and murder

The Punishment - Private education, 3 meals a day, private health care, entitled to play games consoles in their cells and released after X amount of years.

Oh yeah...sounds really fair to me as well :shock:

I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong?

No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?!

I did know right from wrong at 10. Crucially though, thats irrelevant because I'm not Jon Venables or Robert Thompson.

And by sound mind I mean 'sane' and thus capable of being tried for their actions.

So you are saying Jon Venables and Robert Thompson didnt know that the act they carried out was wrong? They didnt know that killing someone was wrong?

Are the two boys in question insane then?

I actually advocate stronger sentencing in some cases..

Can i just ask what sort of crime needs to be committed to advocate a stronger sentance then? Is torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a toddler not enough for you? :shock:

Can you read? I said this one had mitigating circumstances, they were kids themselves.

If an adult of sound mind did that I'd ensure they would face life in prison.

I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong?

No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?!

I actually advocate stronger sentencing in some cases..

Can i just ask what sort of crime needs to be committed to advocate a stronger sentance then? Is torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a toddler not enough for you? :shock:

But the arguement Chindie, is that the punishment was not fitting for the crime committed.

Just explain to me why as you say 'you couldnt have kept them incarcerated any longer' and why you dont agree that they should have recieved a longer sentance?

firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair.

I stopped reading after this.......

Or the death penelty for extreme cases.

- state hypocrisy

- cost

- chances of being wrong

- on the sadistic level, 'the easy way out'

- doesn't actually work as a deterrant

etc etc etc

Bloodlust, vengeance, plain and simple. None of these are justice.

You needn't reply, the debate's pointless, I just thought it was worthwhile providing the counters to something placed to matter of fact-ly.

Cost - how much do you think it has cost the tax payer so far looking after the two of them?

Chances of being wrong - In exterem cases ie. such as this where there is 100% no doubt what so ever.

'the easy way out' - If they dont want to be here, then whats the problem in killing them and putting them out of their misery.

Doesnt actually work as a deterrant - If they have committed such a crime they deserve what they get, if they commit the crime they know the consequences of their actions.

Not blood lust, just ridding society of scum and keeping the place safer for my children.

At the end of the day its your opinion against mine, no-one is right or wrong at the end of the day. I beleive in the death penelty you beleive in a slap on the wrist.

As the Don said before and I said here as well, the life licence can't stop someone doing something - nothing can do that.

Incarceration can.

They'd served their sentence and been evaluated as no longer a threat to society, the life licence being the guarentee that that freedom wasn't without restriction for their lifetime.

You couldn't have kept them incarcerated any longer. As far as the justice system was concerned they were no longer a threat to society. If (and important if) that's been proven wrong, then it only goes to show the system was right to place guidelines on their parole.

If you wish to argue they should have been imprisoned for longer, I can't say I agree, and will also say this. Venables is now 27. Even at the longest sentence they were given, he'd have been out by now.

But the arguement Chindie, is that the punishment was not fitting for the crime committed.

Just explain to me why as you say 'you couldnt have kept them incarcerated any longer' and why you dont agree that they should have recieved a longer sentance?

As the Don said before and I said here as well, the life licence can't stop someone doing something - nothing can do that.

Incarceration can.

Or the death penelty for extreme cases.

We've discussed the death penalty at length before now, I can't be arsed to go over it agan predominately because I'd achieve more trying to bang my head through a wall.

Wahey! Join my exclusive club Chinders?!

The one thing on this thread that has astonished me more than the apparent desire of some to hang 10 year olds and to see justice meted out by murder victim's families, is the inability of the same people to comprehend Snowy's point despite him, and others who share it, making it perfectly clearly, time and time again.

I think you're banging your head up against a brick wall here Snowster mate.

:nod:

Once again, your opinion is yours and not necessarily shared by everyone, get over yourself.

I have compassion for the victims of crime. I have no compassion for those who murder and rape, i have no wish to rehabilitate such people. It's quite simple you take a life then you forfeit yours. My preferred option would be death, others may prefer absolute life imprisonment, either way the offender wouldn't be free to do it again.

THIS THIS THIS A 100 TIMES OVER!!!!

What you have to understand is that a fair amount of people show compassion to those who have killed and raped.

That is their personal choice...it sure as hell isnt mine! I think ive made it perfectly clear on here over the last two days how i feel, again my personal choice and beliefs, it doesnt have to echo what others believe is right or wrong.

I have compassion for the victims of crime. I have no compassion for those who murder and rape, i have no wish to rehabilitate such people. It's quite simple you take a life then you forfeit yours. My preferred option would be death, others may prefer absolute life imprisonment, either way the offender wouldn't be free to do it again.

THIS THIS THIS A 100 TIMES OVER!!!!

Its a sad state of affairs really when people or society in general are able to to just shrug their shoulder and say 'well it doesnt concern me so im not arsed what happens' (see top post).

And as for your second point, dont be so bloody naive as to think the offence he has committed is not serious. If he had missed an appointment do you really think it would be front page news?

I cba answering the first half of your post because it just reeks of emotive bullcrap.

As for this point, no matter what he was recalled for it WOULD be front page news, because... get this.... WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS RECALLED FOR!

Its not emotive bullcrap, its the truth and hard fact, if you choose to ignore these facts then that is your choice. I know its hard to stomach but its the truth and if it scares you that two 10 year olds are capable of such thing then thats your problem...deal with it because they were capable.

And if you honestly believe that he was recalled for a minor offence like missing an appointment then you need to get out more and realise that this world is a nasty place. I cant beleive you are trying to defend them with 'they didnt know it was wrong' 'they were to young to know what the consequences would be'.

Thats almost a defence to say they didnt know what they were doing so cant be held responsable...or am i reading it wrong? If i am then i will apologise as i understand thats probably not what you intended to imply.

My point is that that IS the defense that would have seen them walk free if they'd have done it 6months earlier, or the UN had their way.

Apparently you're convinced that a 10 year old knew exactly what they were doing, the repercussions of their actions, the seriousness of the crime, and as such deserved to lose their freedom for life.

A great deal of people think otherwise, hence why in many countries the age of criminal responsibility is higher, and in pretty much everywhere but the UK they'd have walked free (or rather, not prosecuted).

It's a massive stretch to say that a 10 year old killer can not be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society so deserves to be locked up for life for doing something that a great deal of people think they didn't understand the true implications of.

Why else would he be in custody?

For breaching the terms of his license.

There isn't just one term that says "don't commit a crime", you can be pulled in for a huge range of reasons, even down to missing appointments with the probation service.

They knew what they were doing and believe it or not it HAS been proved that they knew what they were doing. I know it may be hard to beleive my friend but two 10 year old sexually abused, turtured, mutilated and eventually murder an innocent toddler and YES they knew what they were doing, they knew that dropping a concrete slab on his head would inflict pain and possible kill him, they knew all the other horrific things that they did to him were wrongand could kill him. They were old enough to release that they couldnt be seen doing these things, they knew that the railway line was abandoned and they wouldnt be seen.

And as for your second point, dont be so bloody naive as to think the offence he has committed is not serious. If he had missed an appointment do you really think it would be front page news?

Surely a large part of the life licence is also a deterrent to the criminal to offend again. In which case it seems to have failed. Fair play, they put him back in prison. But he offended, he was given the chance to re offend. He should never have been released under any circumstances.

Has he reoffended?

By your logic any kind of licence cannot work because it doesn't remove the possibility of reoffendeing.

The same logic might say that every single criminal justice system fails the first time anyone commits (or is thought to have committed) a crime and it might go further and say that no one should be free because it is only free people who commit crimes in society.

Look at the crime they committed, of course no-one expects someone to serve life for breaking into someones garden shed.

How do you know he's re-offended?

Why else would he be in custody?

just be aware that are legal system isn't perfect. There will be cases in the future that shape the laws regarding all sorts of crime.

I bet you if venables had killed again they would review the system.

He shouldnt under no circumstances have been released again, and have the chance to reoffend.

Why limit it to just him? Why not say any criminal should under no circumstances be released to have the chance to reoffend?

Why lock someone up for life when there is a chance they could have been rehabilitated? He was a kid when he did it, probably didn't understand the true extent of his actions, probably had some major issues to make him capable of doing it in the first place, and in all likeliness could have been treated.

I doubt many of us are the person we were when we were 10. Sure none of us killed anyone (I hope), but who we are and what we are capable of has changed a great deal since then, our boundaries have changed and what was acceptable then is in many cases not now. There's nothing to say that just because you kill at 10 you're going to do it again in later life, especially if it was the result of underlying mental conditions that have been treated.

yes I agree, anyone who tortures and murder in cold blood, who understands the magnitude of what they have done, should never be released from jail.

Does a 10 year old understand the magnitude of what they have done?

I'm guessing not, and the law at the time agreed seeing as how children under 14 were presumed to not know the difference between right and wrong and them being on the cusp of the age of criminal responsibility being 10.

The UN go further and actually recommended that our age of criminal responsibility be raised to 12, something that states they clearly believe that Bulger's killers not only didn't realise the magnitude of their actions but they weren't criminally responsible for them, which would mean the pair would have walked free. I'd be interested in reading the thread that would have been created if that happened.

Thats almost a defence to say they didnt know what they were doing so cant be held responsable...or am i reading it wrong? If i am then i will apologise as i understand thats probably not what you intended to imply.

just be aware that are legal system isn't perfect. There will be cases in the future that shape the laws regarding all sorts of crime.

I bet you if venables had killed again they would review the system.

He shouldnt under no circumstances have been released again, and have the chance to reoffend.

yes I agree, anyone who tortures and murder in cold blood, who understands the magnitude of what they have done, should never be released from jail.

manslaughter and aggrivated murder should be seen in a slightly different light because circumstances are different.

BUT if someone has killed someone because 'oh my life is shit' or where the victim doesn't know the murderer and has done nothing whatsoever to aggrivate the murderer then they should be in jail for life.

Same goes for paedos.

Again different if the defendent is a mental because they didn't know what they were doing. But some people with mental disabilities know what they are doing, they just don't give a shit.

Best not get me started again