Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]

[snowychap]

the victims need to factored in to the equation as well, which is what many in this thread are failing to do.

I'm not sure that anyone is not factoring in the victims. What those 'many' are saying is that it is not up to the victims (direct or indirect) to determine the level of punishment in any other way than by way of them being part of the society that decides (through various processes - mostly political) the sentencing levels for particular crimes.

The victims are taken into account in terms of determining whether the crime took place, obviously, and the society does have a duty to those victims of crime to help them deal with it and the aftermath, I believe. That should not involve the criminal justice system, though.

[snowychap]

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

They probably would and it would be rather foolish.

Statutory provisions built around one single case are pretty dodgy examples of legislation.

[wiggyrichard]

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.

[snowychap]

...and with no one telling her what he has done...

Well, from what I've read (and this isn't the salacious stuff in the sundays), he hasn't been charged with anything and there is an investigation under way.

So, technically, no one can tell her (or anyone else) what he has done.

[Gingerlad]

Oh, and the life licence obviously hasn't worked. Otherwise he wouldn't have re offended.

Except a life license isn't a guarantee someone won't reoffened, it's saying the parole board don't think they will, but if they do (or it even looks likely that they will) they'll be back inside immediately. So it worked perfectly.

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.

[bickster]

How do you know he's re-offended?

[wiggyrichard]

How do you know he's re-offended?

Why else would he be in custody?

[snowychap]

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.

[AVFCLaura]

What has it got to do with her though, the reason he's back behind bars isn't related to her in the slightest, yet she is demanding to be at any trial involving him. Its got no more to do with her than it has any of us, she is not a direct nor an indirect victim of the current situation whatever that is, which yet again, none of us knows what that situation is, and the longer Mrs Fergus and her friends in the media keep going on about it, the less chance there will be an actual trial as a fair trial will become unlikely for Venebles or and fair trials for young men of the same age too!

But then wouldn't the problem be with our judiciary system if the media / previous involvement coming back to light meant it wasn't a fair trial?

I just think reactionary, my thoughts don't go straight to the mother of the child that was killed and outrage that she is now involved, my thoughts go to her only by way of sympathy and that I can never and hopefully will never be able to comprehend what she and the rest of her family is going through and will continue to go through for the rest of their lives.

Also, if there is ANYONE else involved, by way of support I would think it's only a good thing that there is some communication or link with the mother of the previous victim - if it helps them to grieve or get through, then who are we to judge. This is by no way implying there is anyone else involved, we don't know that - but just an example.

[bickster]

How do you know he's re-offended?

Why else would he be in custody?

All maner of reasons from a minor technical breach or he is actually innocent but they need to investigate and let due process take place (something which Mrs Fergus / The Media / etc appear to want to dispense with) to he's committed a crime and will be locked away as a result.

We don't know, none of us

Imagine he gets a fair trial and is found innocent, or had that possibility not dawned on you

[Gingerlad]

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.

well he's in custody so one assumes he re offended. As for the rest of what you said, I think you're smart enough to realise thats not what i'm saying.

[snowychap]

How do you know he's re-offended?

Why else would he be in custody?

Because he has broken the terms of his licence (which appears to be that there is a suspicion that he has reoffended, so he has been returned to custody whilst an investigation is being carried out).

That might all be incorrect information and he might well have carried out another offence but, from what has been said, he hasn't been charge with committing another offence.

[wiggyrichard]

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.

[snowychap]

well he's in custody so one assumes he re offended.

Indeed you do assume.

As for the rest of what you said, I think you're smart enough to realise thats not what i'm saying.

It might well not be what you are saying but it is applying the same thought process to those other aspects of criminal justice.

Man on life licence reoffends (possibly) means that life licence doesn't work.

Man in society where criminal justice system is supposed to keep law and order breaks the law means that the criminal justice system doesn't work.

[TheDon]

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.

[snowychap]

Look at the crime they committed...

What on earth has that to do with gingerlad's comments or my reply to him?

[wiggyrichard]

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?

[TheDon]

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!

[wiggyrichard]

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'.

[TheDon]

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'.

It is emotive bullcrap and entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. It's also not "fact" it's speculation. Unless you're inside the head of the kids you don't know if they did fully comprehend the outcome, that the jury felt they did doesn't make it fact. What they did is fact, their reasons for doing it and their understanding of what they did is not, it's speculation.

My point, once again, is that in many other countries, and in this one if they'd have done this only months earlier, they would have walked free because the law states at that age they AREN'T criminally responsible.

I'm not defending them, what I'm saying is that at a young age there is nothing to say they can't be rehabilitated, and no reason to keep them locked up forever if they can be.

I don't know what they were recalled for, they could have been recalled for commiting an offence, suspected of commited an offence, repeatedly missing probation appointments (not just one), because their probation officers felt they were at risk of reoffending, because their mental health workers (if they have them) felt they were at risk of reoffending, because the police felt they were at risk of reoffending.

It's not as clear cut as "they've been recalled, they've done something bad!", a lot of the terms of a life license exist to recall before they get to that stage.