ender4 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Do we actually know what he did yet or are we still using the Sunday Mirror? Because so far the speculation has been 1. he had entered Liverpool which is against the terms of his release then 2. he was using drugs then 3. he had got into a fight in work then 4. he was caught with child porn then 5. he was part of a child porn ring Or are we still a baying mob with loads of anger but we're not quite sure what the reason is? dunno about everyone else, but i know what the reason is - he shouldn't have been let out of jail in the first place. who cares what he has done now, he wouldn't have done it if he was still in jail. Under the blame culture of this country, i think the Judge/Parole Board who let him go free should be tried for this crime instead of Venables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Its hard saying this and what she went through and continues to go through must have been terrible, but she really does need to let go You make some pertinent points, but not this one I'm afraid. A child dying is one thing, but to know your child died in those circumstances? Saying "let go" doesn't really seem appropriate if I'm honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I never said hang him, but from many of the posts on here, people appear to be trying to explain away what he did or make excuses for him. Why do people have to conflate trying to reason something through with trying to excuse it? We are (mostly) rational beings so it is perfectly sensible that, in our more developed state, we try to rationalize events. When we do so, we are not, necessarily, looking to excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I'd argue that this country would be more **** if we were hanging 10 year old children. that argument would be spot on too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Right. Can someone please tell me quite why Mrs Fergus needs to be involved in this at all, and also what her calls for his anonymity are going to achieve? (at least in what we perceive to be a civilised nation?). I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved. If someone murdered a child of mine i would make it my business to know what they were doing every second of everyday for the rest of their life. This. I think she is relevant to this story. Megan's Law & Sarah's Law are surely prime examples of why people who are families of victims of crimes should be completely and utterly involved in my opinion. Including the media - both of these laws wouldn't be in place without knowledge of these situations, coverage, questioning, pushing - there's a system, but there's also nothing to say we can't challenge certain things about that system and continue to improve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Do we actually know what he did yet or are we still using the Sunday Mirror? Because so far the speculation has been 1. he had entered Liverpool which is against the terms of his release then 2. he was using drugs then 3. he had got into a fight in work then 4. he was caught with child porn then 5. he was part of a child porn ring Or are we still a baying mob with loads of anger but we're not quite sure what the reason is? dunno about everyone else, but i know what the reason is - he shouldn't have been let out of jail in the first place. who cares what he has done now, he wouldn't have done it if he was still in jail. Under the blame culture of this country, i think the Judge/Parole Board who let him go free should be tried for this crime instead of Venables. Spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Post the question again and i will gladly answer it. Here they are: What if it were two eight year olds? .... If ten year olds should be treated as adults by the law (and why stop at that age - why not eight or seven or younger?), why shouldn't they be allowed to drink/smoke/drive (if they can pass a test)/marry/leave school/leave home/be left alone by their parents and do everything else that the law says that they are not mature enough to be given the legal right to do? No, my arguement is that they should be held responsable for the crimes they committed, whatever the punishment. :? I have no idea what you are saying, here. They have been held responsible. They were prosecuted, found guilty, served the term to which they were sentenced and were put on life licence (hence this one bloke going back inside). You may disagree with the sentence and the result but that doesn't mean that they have not been held responsible for what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I'd argue that this country would be more **** if we were hanging 10 year old children. that argument would be spot on too. So instead we release the offender back into society to re-offend and then stand there saying how the rehabilitation programme he was put on didnt work and he was allowed to roam free. The country would be a safer place for my children if scumbags like these were dealt with properly and removed. If that means the death penelty then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Post the question again and i will gladly answer it. Here they are: What if it were two eight year olds? .... If ten year olds should be treated as adults by the law (and why stop at that age - why not eight or seven or younger?), why shouldn't they be allowed to drink/smoke/drive (if they can pass a test)/marry/leave school/leave home/be left alone by their parents and do everything else that the law says that they are not mature enough to be given the legal right to do? No, my arguement is that they should be held responsable for the crimes they committed, whatever the punishment. :? I have no idea what you are saying, here. They have been held responsible. They were prosecuted, found guilty, served the term to which they were sentenced and were put on life licence (hence this one bloke going back inside). You may disagree with the sentence and the result but that doesn't mean that they have not been held responsible for what they did. If they were two 8 year olds and it could be proved that they knew what the remifications of there actions were, then yes. In answer to to your second question, how can you say hand on heart that they have been held responsible and served there time? they have pretty much got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Megan's Law & Sarah's Law are surely prime examples of why people who are families of victims of crimes should be completely and utterly involved in my opinion. Including the media - both of these laws wouldn't be in place without knowledge of these situations, coverage, questioning, pushing - there's a system, but there's also nothing to say we can't challenge certain things about that system and continue to improve it. It depends on whether you think that Megan's law and its various copies are of any actual benefit. There are many arguments that it has created an illusion of protection, that actually it means that more convicted paedophiles have gone underground and that it distracts from the fact that the majority of child abuse is thought to be carried out by family members and others known to and close to the poor children involved. It may well have helped, statistically, to reduce recidivism rates but whether it has been, overall, a benefit is a very difiicult thing to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If they were two 8 year olds and it could be proved that they knew what the remifications of there actions were, then yes. What if they were 6? In answer to to your second question, how can you say hand on heart that they have been held responsible and served there time? they have pretty much got away with it. That wasn't my second question (that was my response to you). My second question was: If ten year olds should be treated as adults by the law (and why stop at that age - why not eight or seven or younger?), why shouldn't they be allowed to drink/smoke/drive (if they can pass a test)/marry/leave school/leave home/be left alone by their parents and do everything else that the law says that they are not mature enough to be given the legal right to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 8, 2010 Moderator Share Posted March 8, 2010 dunno about everyone else, but i know what the reason is - he shouldn't have been let out of jail in the first place. who cares what he has done now, he wouldn't have done it if he was still in jail. Well now that I can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 No, my arguement is that they should be held responsable for the crimes they committed, whatever the punishment. :? I have no idea what you are saying, here. They have been held responsible. They were prosecuted, found guilty, served the term to which they were sentenced and were put on life licence (hence this one bloke going back inside). You may disagree with the sentence and the result but that doesn't mean that they have not been held responsible for what they did. ...how can you say hand on heart that they have been held responsible and served there time? they have pretty much got away with it. Because they have been and they did. You don't agree with the level of the punishment which is your prerogative but please try and understand what has happened and where my opinion and your opinion fit in to this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I'd argue that this country would be more **** if we were hanging 10 year old children. that argument would be spot on too. So instead we release the offender back into society to re-offend and then stand there saying how the rehabilitation programme he was put on didnt work and he was allowed to roam free. The country would be a safer place for my children if scumbags like these were dealt with properly and removed. If that means the death penelty then so be it. That doesn't have to mean the death penalty, though, does it? I think it's your blood lust for hanging 10 year old boys that many on here can't get their heads around. Imprisonment, fine. Imprisonment for longer than these boys/men served, again fine. hanging 10 year old boys (and even 8 year olds as you now espouse), not fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If they were two 8 year olds and it could be proved that they knew what the remifications of there actions were, then yes. What if they were 6? In answer to to your second question, how can you say hand on heart that they have been held responsible and served there time? they have pretty much got away with it. That wasn't my second question (that was my response to you). My second question was: If ten year olds should be treated as adults by the law (and why stop at that age - why not eight or seven or younger?), why shouldn't they be allowed to drink/smoke/drive (if they can pass a test)/marry/leave school/leave home/be left alone by their parents and do everything else that the law says that they are not mature enough to be given the legal right to do? Take each case on its own, they were not 6 they were 10. So are you trying to say that there is an age when a hanus crime like this becomes acceptable, and the child can not be held responsible for there actions? As i said, if it can be proved that they knew what they were doing then yes they should be dealt with. Your last question, **** smoking, drinking, getting married and stopping out late...they tortured, sexually abused, mutilated and murdered a toddler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 8, 2010 Moderator Share Posted March 8, 2010 Megan's Law & Sarah's Law are surely prime examples of why people who are families of victims of crimes should be completely and utterly involved in my opinion. Including the media - both of these laws wouldn't be in place without knowledge of these situations, coverage, questioning, pushing - there's a system, but there's also nothing to say we can't challenge certain things about that system and continue to improve it. It depends on whether you think that Megan's law and its various copies are of any actual benefit. There are many arguments that it has created an illusion of protection, that actually it means that more convicted paedophiles have gone underground and that it distracts from the fact that the majority of child abuse is thought to be carried out by family members and others known to and close to the poor children involved. It may well have helped, statistically, to reduce recidivism rates but whether it has been, overall, a benefit is a very difiicult thing to judge. Very much "this". Another vigilantes charter in my humble opinion and as you say forcing the problem underground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Megan's Law & Sarah's Law are surely prime examples of why people who are families of victims of crimes should be completely and utterly involved in my opinion. Including the media - both of these laws wouldn't be in place without knowledge of these situations, coverage, questioning, pushing - there's a system, but there's also nothing to say we can't challenge certain things about that system and continue to improve it. It depends on whether you think that Megan's law and its various copies are of any actual benefit. There are many arguments that it has created an illusion of protection, that actually it means that more convicted paedophiles have gone underground and that it distracts from the fact that the majority of child abuse is thought to be carried out by family members and others known to and close to the poor children involved. It may well have helped, statistically, to reduce recidivism rates but whether it has been, overall, a benefit is a very difiicult thing to judge. Well, that's a different subject all together, but the mere fact the laws exist and we are aware of them, in my opinion, is an example of how much impact you can have when you 'get involved' and why I think it's relevant that Mrs Fergus has been asked to pass comment on the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witton_Lane Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The country would be a safer place for my children if scumbags like these were dealt with properly and removed. If that means the death penelty then so be it. Actually the country is a safe place for your children, providing you're there to protect them from things like this. Bulgers mother wasn't, and I suspect that behind all the bitterness and anger towards the killers she feels a ton of guilt too. The one thing about this case that amazes me is that a tiny child was allowed to wander off with 2 total strangers without the parent(s) noticing. Could that happen to your child, do you think? Again, suggesting the death penalty for minors is in my opinion ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I think you're banging your head up against a brick wall here Snowster mate. :nod: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 8, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 8, 2010 Wiggy, let me turn the "imagine if it was your child" argument back on yourself. Imagine if, for some horrible reason, you had a 10 year old (or 8 year old if you wish) child and they comitted this crime of torturing and murdering a young child. Would you think it was fair to hang your 10 year old child? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts