Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 She has no right to sit in a trial for him any more than I do.I'd argue she actually has less rights to. Her presence at a trial with influence any verdict against the defendant. If the jury knows the person they are ruling on is Venables (which the inference from her being there will be) then he has no chance of a fair trial, therefore she should be barred from sitting in any trial concerning him as if she is identified in the public gallery it will lead to a mistrial. Shockingly I hadn't considered this, very good point. It'll be difficult enough to get a fair trial already in this climate (I'd hate to be any 27yo bloke on breach of a life licence hearing in the near future, for instance), but if she was in attendance then the chances of justice being done are nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWeedMcGrass Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Do the supporters of their release agree that all children under a certain age are entitled to a rehabilitation irrespective of the crime?. What is the age when Children are supposed to 'understand' the differences between right and wrong and the magnitude of their actions?. Also why should they be treated differently to a 20 year old who had the same troubled childhood with the critical difference being that he did not offend till he/she was much older. He/she is also a victim of society and could do with a chance to reform. However , two 20 year old young men would have faced a sentence of life in prison for the same crime committed by the kids. So why the difference in punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Do the supporters of their release agree that all children under a certain age are entitled to a rehabilitation irrespective of the crime? I'd argue that it is the duty of any society and its penal system to try and rehabilitate anyone that it intends to release back in to 'free' society for the sake of the society into which the person will be released, first and foremost. I think it's something which people often miss (and apologies to those who haven't) that rehabilitation is as much (if not more, in my opinion) for the benefit of society as it is for those individuals whom society tries to rehabilitate. EDIT: So why the difference in punishment? Firstly for the reasons the Don outlines below but, also from my point of view, the point that I mentioned earlier in the thread which was picked up by Rodders. We don't allow children to decide what adults legally have the right to do; we treat them differently. Surely, if we are to treat them in exactly the same way as adults (and before anyone accuses me of apologizing for anyone and their actions, I am not) in this then we must do in other respects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Do the supporters of their release agree that all children under a certain age are entitled to a rehabilitation irrespective of the crime?. What is the age when Children are supposed to 'understand' the differences between right and wrong and the magnitude of their actions?.Funnily enough I've answered this point in the thread, yet it gets ignored because it doesn't tie in with the "lock them away for life" brigade. The age that the law states a child is responsible for their actions is 10, the age of criminal responsibility. One of the lowest ages in the world btw, with the UN pushing for it to be raised to at least 12. At the time of the bulger murder there was also the matter of doli incapax, which meant anyone under the age of 14 was assumed to not know the difference between right and wrong unless the prosecution could prove beyond doubt that they knew what they were doing was wrong, and not just mischievous behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 Do the supporters of their release agree that all children under a certain age are entitled to a rehabilitation irrespective of the crime?. What is the age when Children are supposed to 'understand' the differences between right and wrong and the magnitude of their actions?. Also why should they be treated differently to a 20 year old who had the same troubled childhood with the critical difference being that he did not offend till he/she was much older. He/she is also a victim of society and could do with a chance to reform. However , two 20 year old young men would have faced a sentence of life in prison for the same crime committed by the kids. So why the difference in punishment? I'll start here by saying I've never been a student of law. This is all from the udnerstanding I have having taken an interest before now. Children are entitled to rehabilitation because as a society we do not, for want of a better term, consider them 'developed as a person', or if you want to simplify that further we consider the adult the finished article and the child the prototype. We assume children will change, indeed we expect it. Thus a child criminal has the right to rehabiliatation. The age at which one can be considered responsible for their actions is in this country 10, in others it's younger in others older. I actually think the idea of a hard and fast rule with this is a bit pointless as people do not develop at the same age. I've been pretty mature all my life, I know people even now who act like kids. I would advocate a lower limit at which really to say someone was entirely responsible for their actions is impossible, probably between 8-10, as I think this is the point at which children become more aware of themselves as a member of a community rather than an individual. After that I would advocate each case be done on it's own merits to discover how responsible they might be. A person's childhood is accounted for, if necessary in any case, no matter the age, IIRC. They have to be able to argue why and be convincing in that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWeedMcGrass Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Its treading a thin line between risking the release of an offender who could go back into crime and providing a fair chance to the guilty party to get their life back on track and also become productive citizens in the process. It is better to err on the side of caution in this case. The risk of re-offending carries greater weight in my humble opinion and it is the Govt's priority to see that such offenders do not get the chance to reoffend rather than taking a huge risk and letting them out on the word of a few 'experts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWeedMcGrass Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 @Chindie That is exactly what I've been trying to say , i.e the criteria for a kid to be considered as incapable of making the distinction, is completely arbitrary. We all develop differently , like you say and it is not uncommon to come across kids with varying levels of maturity at the same age. My point is , it could be exploited by young criminals who are fully aware of what they are doing , to escape punishment and responsibility. Its a very big risk to take , in my opinion. Only in the rarest cases , where It can be determined with certainty that the criminal is not likely to offend again as an adult and has been completely 'reformed', an early release should even be considered. Statistically , most violent offenders are likely to re-offend, even if they were kids at the time of the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 She has no right to sit in a trial for him any more than I do.I'd argue she actually has less rights to. Her presence at a trial with influence any verdict against the defendant. If the jury knows the person they are ruling on is Venables (which the inference from her being there will be) then he has no chance of a fair trial, therefore she should be barred from sitting in any trial concerning him as if she is identified in the public gallery it will lead to a mistrial. Shockingly I hadn't considered this, very good point. It'll be difficult enough to get a fair trial already in this climate (I'd hate to be any 27yo bloke on breach of a life licence hearing in the near future, for instance), but if she was in attendance then the chances of justice being done are nil. Shocking... lol I agree with The Don, but the argument and discussion originally wasn't that she should be allowed to sit at the trial. I think the point brought up that was argued was when it was asked why she was passing comment and 'getting involved'. When she campaigned against the life licence fearing he would re-offend, I think she has right to pass comment when that person has allegedly re-offended. It's not law that she is not allowed to comment or try to get involved, whether anyone will listen to her or allow her any further knowledge of the situation is up to the powers that be and yes, the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Whenever they do Chapmans parole hearings Yoko Ono would write every time to the parole board saying she didn't believe she would be safe if he was released .. her prejudicing the hearing was often cited as the reason for denying him parole .... Now unless the CIA also programmed Chapman to shot Ono as well my guess is she is perfectly safe , however what the US courts were really doing was taking the wishes of the closest relative to the victim into account and reaching a sympathetic decision you could argue the merits for Bulgars mother being involved in the case in a similar way I guess ..or you could just leave it to the courts to make the decision they feel is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Un twist your knickers fella, its a debate... Except you aren't participating in that debate. 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 pronouncing 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'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 see this Venables guy is just causing issues everywhere, hopefully he will get quadraspazed on a life glug by some thug and we can all cheer with happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 Shocking... lol I agree with The Don, but the argument and discussion originally wasn't that she should be allowed to sit at the trial. I think the point brought up that was argued was when it was asked why she was passing comment and 'getting involved'. When she campaigned against the life licence fearing he would re-offend, I think she has right to pass comment when that person has allegedly re-offended. It's not law that she is not allowed to comment or try to get involved, whether anyone will listen to her or allow her any further knowledge of the situation is up to the powers that be and yes, the law. Whatever she does prejudices a court against him I would argue, as well as any other paroled 27yos following serious charges. Can you imagine being the jury in a case, in the coming months, hearing of a 27 yo man who had commited a serious offence in the past and was now being tried for a breach of his release terms? They're all going to have 'That's Venables' going through their heads. By doing anything whatsoever she inhibits the course of justice. Seemingly she's really very keen to do that as she wants to sit in the trial, which'd be even worse. Ultimately you can point the finger at whoever decided to release the information he'd been detained of course but she doesn't help matters for justice for more than just Venables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I'm sure they realised that murder was wrong but they, for whatever reason (upbringing, most likely) I am completely sick and tired of this excuse, and yes it's an excuse for some little scrote committing criminal offences. None of us had perfect childhoods and the vast vast majority don't behave as these 2 did so can we have less of this bleeding heart liberal crap that they need to be more understood than punished for their crimes. Your mum and dad arguing the toss most of the time doesn't excuse anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 I'm sure they realised that murder was wrong but they, for whatever reason (upbringing, most likely) I am completely sick and tired of this excuse, and yes it's an excuse for some little scrote committing criminal offences. None of us had perfect childhoods and the vast vast majority don't behave as these 2 did so can we have less of this bleeding heart liberal crap that they need to be more understood than punished for their crimes. Your mum and dad arguing the toss most of the time doesn't excuse anything It's not an excuse, its an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Disagree completely Stevo, It's an excuse. It explains nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I'm sure they realised that murder was wrong but they, for whatever reason (upbringing, most likely) I am completely sick and tired of this excuse, and yes it's an excuse for some little scrote committing criminal offences. None of us had perfect childhoods and the vast vast majority don't behave as these 2 did so can we have less of this bleeding heart liberal crap that they need to be more understood than punished for their crimes. Your mum and dad arguing the toss most of the time doesn't excuse anything I do think there needs to be more laws to charge the parents, other than the pointless ASBOs which we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 It isn't an excuse at all. It isn't enough for the system to simply decree someone as 'evil' and punish them. We have to learn from these things to prevent them happening again, as much as possible. To learn we must explain. If it was an excuse, it would excuse them of something. Has it excused them of guilt? No, they clearly did the crime and served the sentence (lets not cover that ground again...) given. They've been excused of nothing. What it does do is attempt to explain things, from which we can learn, particularly in this case I'd imagine social services made a few changes and became much more wary of certain things (what, I don't know) that might prevent another case like this. To simply cast off someone as a criminal born is too simple and serves society no purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts