Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]

[Rodders]

the kid is never coming back ergo there will be no decision that will end the pain suffered by the family.

Thus there will never be "enough" to wipe out the pain.

At one point quest for vengeance is just bloodlust. There are victims families who've wanted the criminal dead, others who haven't because they know it changes nothing or are amazingly strong enough to want the perp to make amends ( where applicable, obviously not all of them would be, but for example, in a death caused by drink driving etc )

does executing a criminal bring closure or make the world a safer place? Really? Criminals commit this shit regardless of the consequences - no one dallies over doing something evil to factor in whether they'll be killed or have 20 years behind bars.

I can understand and appreciate differences of opinion over the length of the sentence handed out - they are in the hands ultimately in the judge who presides over the case and we have to hand them an element of our trust that they are making the right call. Sometimes they won't - but the idea there's no justice involved and the level of moral outrage successfully whipped up by the press for their own economic selfish ends is infuriating and embarrassing.

what is headbangingly annoying is the claim that " those who don't want the death penalty must love the criminal" type reasoning which is just grossly offensive and stupid.

and a point which I still haven't seen countered since Snowy brought it up:

Treating people all the same - as adults. To be consistent then - there should be no age barriers whatsoever on any element of life, from rewards to penalties. kids should be able to get married get drunk, have sex, join the army, at 6, 8, 10 years old then too.

One of the few reasons I'm proud of Britain is that it, unlikey 99& of other countries doesn't have kneejerk OTT reactions to these cases, although the way the climate is at the moment, I fear the worst - that's one climate change that would be a disaster. ( ok that doesn't work, the weathery one is too but bigfatraspberries anyway )

[kidlewis]

I felt the same as myb to be honest when I read what you wrote, I think it just feels shocking because the initial point you chose to make about the whole subject is the fact that you don't understand what it's got to do with the mother of the child that the man previously killed and why she is involved.

As Bicks said, it's not her business. I'm sorry if people don't understand that, but it isn't.

If you think it is, you're plain wrong.

Why is it not her business?

this isn't some ex girlfriend cheating on her new boyfriend and you having a right to know about it.

This person killed her toddler and has now re-offended, at some point in the future she has a right to know.

EDIT: also if anyone thinks the laws in this country are perfect, then you're wrong there as well.

Times change and sometimes laws should as well. Just because they are laws doesn't mean they should be set in stone forever.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

For all its well documented shortcomings , the US system of trying children as adults if the seriousness of the crime merits it, is one I agree with. I am not sure about the specifics though , if there is a lower age limit to try some one as an adult.

However 10 ain't that young these days. These kids mostly know about sex and crime from Television and delinquent mates. No matter how I try to twist it, I cannot convince myself that a human child did not know it was 'wrong' to do what they did.

[snowychap]

ofcourse it isn't foolish.

you review the rules when something goes wrong to see if those rules are still fit for purpose.

But that's not what would happen.

There would be an inquiry centering around a specific case and its circumstances (which I think we all acknowledge are pretty rare) and legislation would be drawn up based upon those specifics. That is what I meant would be foolish (not the general idea that, when something goes wrong, you look in to why it did and try to lessen the chances of the same mistake being made again).

Legislation will be bound to fail if it has been tailored to suit a specific case as it won't have been drawn up with enough flexibility to be apply to other cases and circumstances.

[Chindie]

You're hiding behind the law and lawmakers. It may be 'plain wrong' when viewed in black and white, but when taken in the context of what happened to her, the impact that this lad has had on her life and what he has taken away from her then it has everything to do with her. It's your morals that are 'plain wrong' i'm afraid.

I have no cause to hide behind anything thank you.

She has no right to be told anything. She is not related to whatever Venables is accused of doing (if she was, you'd imagine she'd not need to demand that the government tell her what he's done) and thus she is no more important to any case that might arise against Venables than you or I. Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand.

My morals are fine.

[Chindie]

Why is it not her business?

this isn't some ex girlfriend cheating on her new boyfriend and you having a right to know about it.

This person killed her toddler and has now re-offended, at some point in the future she has a right to know.

EDIT: also if anyone thinks the laws in this country are perfect, then you're wrong there as well.

Times change and sometimes laws should as well. Just because they are laws doesn't mean they should be set in stone forever.

No she does not. Read my reply above.

And no-ones said the laws of this country are perfect, I actually said the exact opposite to that earlier in the thread.

[snowychap]

Well, I do believe the victims , whether direct or indirect , are well within their rights to demand strict action against the criminal.

Of course you believe that, it is what you have been arguing over the past few pages.

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.

Where you cross the line in to being wrong regarding those who hold the view contrary to yours (at least you are if you include me in this) is when you tell them that they are not factoring victims (be they direct or indirect) in to the equation. I do factor victims in to the equation (not in the way that you might want but again that is a difference of opinion) and, more than that, I am factoring in society as a whole as a victim (in fact the indirect victim).

[Wainy316]

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.

[Pelle]

the kid is never coming back ergo there will be no decision that will end the pain suffered by the family.

Thus there will never be "enough" to wipe out the pain.

At one point quest for vengeance is just bloodlust. There are victims families who've wanted the criminal dead, others who haven't because they know it changes nothing or are amazingly strong enough to want the perp to make amends ( where applicable, obviously not all of them would be, but for example, in a death caused by drink driving etc )

does executing a criminal bring closure or make the world a safer place? Really? Criminals commit this shit regardless of the consequences - no one dallies over doing something evil to factor in whether they'll be killed or have 20 years behind bars.

I can understand and appreciate differences of opinion over the length of the sentence handed out - they are in the hands ultimately in the judge who presides over the case and we have to hand them an element of our trust that they are making the right call. Sometimes they won't - but the idea there's no justice involved and the level of moral outrage successfully whipped up by the press for their own economic selfish ends is infuriating and embarrassing.

what is headbangingly annoying is the claim that " those who don't want the death penalty must love the criminal" type reasoning which is just grossly offensive and stupid.

and a point which I still haven't seen countered since Snowy brought it up:

Treating people all the same - as adults. To be consistent then - there should be no age barriers whatsoever on any element of life, from rewards to penalties. kids should be able to get married get drunk, have sex, join the army, at 6, 8, 10 years old then too.

One of the few reasons I'm proud of Britain is that it, unlikey 99& of other countries doesn't have kneejerk OTT reactions to these cases, although the way the climate is at the moment, I fear the worst - that's one climate change that would be a disaster. ( ok that doesn't work, the weathery one is too but bigfatraspberries anyway )

Very, very good post that I totally agree on. Maybe for the last bit, but that I don't know much about so I just can't comment on it.

And an example for that part about the victims having a say about the verdict: My friend lost his little sister when she got overrun by a too fast driven car when she was 3. No doubt he should get jailed for that but it was an accident. I don't know my friends father but I know my friend and he's the kind that would never hurt anybody and I guess his father is the same, but he tried to take the gun off the police to shoot the driver and I'd say that he'd still want to see the man dead. And I can't blame him, but it wouldn't be right. He wasn't and never will be in the right emotion to ever look on that objectively, as is the same with everyone I guess in that situation. Can't blame them, I would probably feel the same, but it's not right.

Now, this woman if she had anything to say she'd probably say "kill him" to whatever the guy's done this time, cause that's probably what she feels about him. Shoplifting? Kill him! Stolen a bike? Kill him? Robbed a bank? KILL HIM! and it has nothing to do with the crime he's done now, but her natural feelings for this guy for what he once did to her and her family. And again, can't blame her, but it wouldn't be right.

[wiggyrichard]

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.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Well, I do believe the victims , whether direct or indirect , are well within their rights to demand strict action against the criminal.

Of course you believe that, it is what you have been arguing over the past few pages.

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.

Where you cross the line in to being wrong regarding those who hold the view contrary to yours (at least you are if you include me in this) is when you tell them that they are not factoring victims (be they direct or indirect) in to the equation. I do factor victims in to the equation (not in the way that you might want but again that is a difference of opinion) and, more than that, I am factoring in society as a whole as a victim (in fact the indirect victim).

Fair enough , I can get what you are driving at without necessarily agreeing with it. Lets agree to disagree , then! :winkold:

I am just trying to explain why I hold the opinion I do and was trying to convey the same to others who are reading this thread.

[kidlewis]

If he has done something serious then he gets no further chances to be let out. If you murder someone then get a second chance, then kill again, you should never be let out again.

simples!

[Chindie]

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.

[snowychap]

EDIT: also if anyone thinks the laws in this country are perfect, then you're wrong there as well.

I thoroughly agree. The laws in this country are not perfect but the majority of those with imperfections are statutory ones rather than those arrived at through time, practice and custom.

I would say, though, that our criminal justice system is one of the better ones despite some of the efforts to make it worse over the past couple of decades.

If you don't like the laws, the sentencing guidelines, early release schemes, the lack of a death penalty, playstations for 'Enhanced' YOI or whatever then campaign to do something about it.

Democracy isn't perfect and I'm one of the first to admit that (and repeat it) but if you don't like any of the above list (or other things - the list was non-exhaustive) then get enough people together and try and change it.

[jonno_2004]

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.

yep. Full of compassion for kil--

oh wait there isn't.

The campaign for capital punishment for *edit* silly billies who intentionally fail to read or comprehend what is actually posted starts here.

My post wasn't a sweeping statement about this thread so i'm not sure why you assumed it to be unless it was a release of your 'internet agression' :winkold: .

It was a general statement that there are people who show compassion or maybe if that is too strong of a word, I think Chindie mentioned humanity instead; towards criminals of the worst kind and furthermore people who don't understand it should accept it rather than getting worked up into a frenzy.

[snowychap]

Fair enough , I can get what you are driving at without necessarily agreeing with it. Lets agree to disagree , then! :winkold:

I am just trying to explain why I hold the opinion I do and was trying to convey the same to others who are reading this thread.

No probs.

[wiggyrichard]

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?

[Chindie]

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.

[AVFCLaura]

I felt the same as myb to be honest when I read what you wrote, I think it just feels shocking because the initial point you chose to make about the whole subject is the fact that you don't understand what it's got to do with the mother of the child that the man previously killed and why she is involved.

As Bicks said, it's not her business. I'm sorry if people don't understand that, but it isn't.

If you think it is, you're plain wrong.

Your comment there seems to be just passing off what I would percieve to be your opinion, as fact.

Jack Straw hasn't said it's not her business either, he has in fact said he does not want to prejudice the investigation by giving details at this stage - which I think most will accept as a fair point, whether they believe she has a right to be involved or not.

Mrs Fergus says she was told in 2001 that if either of them were to breach the terms of their licence, she would be informed straightaway. I imagine a large reason as to why she is 'getting involved.'

From the point of view that if he has missed a few appointments, it might be possible to come to the opinion that she has no right to know, but what if - and we don't know of course, so just an example - he has commited a similar crime. I would think very much so she has a right to be informed.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

the kid is never coming back ergo there will be no decision that will end the pain suffered by the family.

Thus there will never be "enough" to wipe out the pain.

At one point quest for vengeance is just bloodlust. There are victims families who've wanted the criminal dead, others who haven't because they know it changes nothing or are amazingly strong enough to want the perp to make amends ( where applicable, obviously not all of them would be, but for example, in a death caused by drink driving etc )

does executing a criminal bring closure or make the world a safer place? Really? Criminals commit this shit regardless of the consequences - no one dallies over doing something evil to factor in whether they'll be killed or have 20 years behind bars.

I can understand and appreciate differences of opinion over the length of the sentence handed out - they are in the hands ultimately in the judge who presides over the case and we have to hand them an element of our trust that they are making the right call. Sometimes they won't - but the idea there's no justice involved and the level of moral outrage successfully whipped up by the press for their own economic selfish ends is infuriating and embarrassing.

what is headbangingly annoying is the claim that " those who don't want the death penalty must love the criminal" type reasoning which is just grossly offensive and stupid.

and a point which I still haven't seen countered since Snowy brought it up:

Treating people all the same - as adults. To be consistent then - there should be no age barriers whatsoever on any element of life, from rewards to penalties. kids should be able to get married get drunk, have sex, join the army, at 6, 8, 10 years old then too.

One of the few reasons I'm proud of Britain is that it, unlikey 99& of other countries doesn't have kneejerk OTT reactions to these cases, although the way the climate is at the moment, I fear the worst - that's one climate change that would be a disaster. ( ok that doesn't work, the weathery one is too but bigfatraspberries anyway )

Very, very good post that I totally agree on. Maybe for the last bit, but that I don't know much about so I just can't comment on it.

And an example for that part about the victims having a say about the verdict: My friend lost his little sister when she got overrun by a too fast driven car when she was 3. No doubt he should get jailed for that but it was an accident. I don't know my friends father but I know my friend and he's the kind that would never hurt anybody and I guess his father is the same, but he tried to take the gun off the police to shoot the driver and I'd say that he'd still want to see the man dead. And I can't blame him, but it wouldn't be right. He wasn't and never will be in the right emotion to ever look on that objectively, as is the same with everyone I guess in that situation. Can't blame them, I would probably feel the same, but it's not right.

Now, this woman if she had anything to say she'd probably say "kill him" to whatever the guy's done this time, cause that's probably what she feels about him. Shoplifting? Kill him! Stolen a bike? Kill him? Robbed a bank? KILL HIM! and it has nothing to do with the crime he's done now, but her natural feelings for this guy for what he once did to her and her family. And again, can't blame her, but it wouldn't be right.

You need to make a distinction between the two crimes mate. People get run over by drunk drivers all the time , its extremely unfortunate but it happens. Drivers do not set out to mow down pedestrians or have a demolition derby type head on collision with another vehicle, it happens due to their stupidity, caused by intoxication.

In the bulger case , it was all about doing it for kicks , just because they could and they probably enjoyed themselves carrying out the 'act'. I keep repeating this , it was not a normal, everyday crime with normal victims. They fully knew what they were about to do was going to result in serious injury at the LEAST and also that It was probably going to hurt the little fella a LOT. You just do not do such stuff if you're ok inside the head.