Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]

[leemond2008]

regardless of what he has or hasn't done i dont think that the general public need know what he has done.

I dont think they should have been released but that is merely my opinion, now he has been released and 'may' have reoffended what he has or hasn't done will have no affect on my life at all and the only people who should concern themselves with what he has done are those who it has or will directly affect

if he has reoffended and ends up behind bars again then that is more than enough for me

the majority of the general public are demading to know what has happened due to morbid curiosity.

[AVFCLaura]

I have an 11 year old brother, he knows that if he so much as backchats his mother, he'll be in some degree of trouble - he certainly knows that if he was to punch someone, it's a very wrong thing to do - and so on and so forth...

This is largely because he has been brought up correctly. Values of right and wrong are not automatically instilled in us when we are born - even though society can go a way into shaping you to know these things, it's largely down to your parenting structure when you are a child and how you are brought up.

It is a very real, albeit frightening, possibility that someone like Venables had such an upbringing that what he did was some kind of result of that - or certainly largely connected. Which is why I do believe it is important to consider this and his age when thinking about his previous crime and his punishment. In many cases it is certainly concievable that a child of that age with the possibility of such background who committed such a terrible crime - could be successfully rehabilitated.

I think people aren't trying to defend what he did, just perhaps explain that there are always circumstances and there are always variables - which make such a broad stroke of justice impossible. Also that it is necessary that someone is still in posession of their basic human rights when they have comitted such a crime - especially when they were a child.

[wiggyrichard]

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).

[starsailor9774]

Well obviously the strict life licence business hasn't worked or he wouldn't have ended up in back in prison.

You don't understand a life licenee do you? It's ok to admit it. The life licence isn't capable of stopping someone from doing something - it's to discourage it, harshly, by dint of punishment if they do it. If they then do it, the life licence simply gives justification for immediate reimprisonment. It is effectively just a terms of their release. In fact, if it has ended up with someone being back in prison by breaking those terms, it's worked swimmingly, has it not?

After reading many post's from you on varying subjects, from child abusers to murderers.... I can only take away one thing from them, and that is you are an apologist for those who commit the most heinous crimes.

Right, well you're wrong then. At what point did I make out that what they did was ok? I said it was an horrific and disgusting crime. Engage your brain, should you own one (I don't hold out hope).

you try to say it's people like me, who want to bring back hanging who are the problem with society.

You are. You're reactionary idiots who seem incapable to understand compassion or, at the least humane end of things, hypocrisy.

Take a long hard look in the mirror, you'll see the real problem staring right back at you.

I won't, as I won't see anything than a normal person with an a modicum of intelligence.

So in your view a life license is only successful if the person on the life license is sent back to prison for committing a crime or allegedly committing a crime? So for all we know someone else could have been murdered but thats ok because it gives you proof the the licenses "work swimmingly"

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.

[wiggyrichard]

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!!!!

[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.

[wiggyrichard]

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.

[Pelle]

I think there are so many flaws in this thread that I don't know where to start. Too many, in fact. And I don't have the time right now. But I can say that there are few peoples that doesn't deserve a second chance. And those few persons mostly get jailed for life. Or sent to death, but that I can't agree is right. "You punish a crime with another crime" etc. And IF this Venables is accused now for a minor crime, which we don't know, and is put back in jail for a very long time then I have to say that the system works.

[kidlewis]

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.

ofcourse it isn't foolish.

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

If people were lax and didn't uphold the rules that were laid down then that is the fault of the people implementing the rules. And you have to say nothing needs to be changed

however if the system says 'all the boxes are ticked and venables is no SERIOUS threat to the public' and let him go and he goes and murders someone again, then of course the rules need to be looked at to see if that serious error could happen again.

[Rodders]

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.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Sorry , but Justice without some degree of compensation for the direct victims of the said crime is not justice at all.

Quite agree.

However Mrs Fergus is an INDIRECT victim of the crime.

Well , in this case since the victim is no longer alive , it would be fair to say her mum is a 'direct' victim o the crime. Well, sort of.

People are underestimating the scale of the crime perpetrated here.Its murder of a child , we are talking about and not some school fight. It is very hard for us to actually comprehend the enormity of Mrs. Fergus's loss simply because its only possible to do so when you are the victim of such a heinous crime.

While I do not agree with hanging the 10 year old 'kids' for this , I also agree with those who've said that they should have been incarcerated for life , or a very , very long time at least.

For a society to function properly , we need people to be civilised and understand fundamental concepts of right and wrong and most importantly , respecting life and appreciating its value. When I was 10 , I sure did not know a lot of stuff but I did know that kicking a cat to death was wrong , it feels wrong.I did not need my mum or dad to tell me that , it was ingrained into me. Basic human nature.

As with similarly sensitive topics , I don't think the opposing viewpoints expressed in this thread will ever find a common middle ground. We are talking about a difference in opinion about what justice is.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

And from a purely scientific angle , hasn't it been established that most sociopathic offenders have the "criminal behaviour" hardwired into them?

[Gingerlad]

My lad is 7yrs old. He knows full well that what those boys did is wrong. There are things the did that even the most sick and twisted adults wouldn't do. They were ten years old. They knew exactly what would happen to James, perhaps they were naive in thinking that they'd escape punishment but at ten years old they knew that torturing a 2yr old in the way they did is a very serious crime. And if they didn't know this, they shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets 10, 20 or 30yrs afterwards as they are obviously unwell and require 24hr care.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

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.

Well, I do believe the victims , whether direct or indirect , are well within their rights to demand strict action against the criminal. After all it was their life that was shattered by the inhuman and utterly senseless act of violence. The perp spends 15 years in relative comfort and is allowed to walk away with a new life because he is deemed to have been 'rehabilitated' by the justice system while the victim,the mother in this case,is left do deal with the loss of her son for the rest of her life.

Justice , you say? :|

[kidlewis]

My lad is 7yrs old. He knows full well that what those boys did is wrong. There are things the did that even the most sick and twisted adults wouldn't do. They were ten years old. They knew exactly what would happen to James, perhaps they were naive in thinking that they'd escape punishment but at ten years old they knew that torturing a 2yr old in the way they did is a very serious crime. And if they didn't know this, they shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets 10, 20 or 30yrs afterwards as they are obviously unwell and require 24hr care.

exactly,

they did know what they did was wrong and how much pain and upset they caused people.

If a kid aged 10 doesn't know what is right/ wrong then their parents need to go to jail with them.

[Chindie]

So in your view a life license is only successful if the person on the life license is sent back to prison for committing a crime or allegedly committing a crime? So for all we know someone else could have been murdered but thats ok because it gives you proof the the licenses "work swimmingly"

As the Don said before and I said here as well, the life licence can't stop someone doing something - nothing can do that. What it does is give a set of guidelines for someone paroled to stick to on the threat of reimprisonment if they don't. That's not hard to understand.

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.

I also have compassion for the victims, and I have humanity for the criminal.

It's that simple in your head which is a far, far throw from reality and coming to terms with that will help you in this life.

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.

[Chindie]

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.

[Jon]

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:

[wiggyrichard]

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.

[myb]

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.

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.