PDA

View Full Version : Should Jon Venables be kept locked up?


Ferg
Mar 6th, 2010, 04:03 PM
:tape:

Vanity Bonfire
Mar 6th, 2010, 04:08 PM
Yes. Sorry, but he's clearly a person who is still vicious and dangerous to society on the whole.

Ferg
Mar 6th, 2010, 04:17 PM
Yes. Sorry, but he's clearly a person who is still vicious and dangerous to society on the whole.

Yeah... I mean, I can understand why people might want to try to rehabilitate criminals and stuff but if theres something wrong, theres no fixing them and theres no point tryng.

Certinfy
Mar 6th, 2010, 04:20 PM
Yes.

Kart
Mar 6th, 2010, 05:32 PM
Well what did he do this time ?

I've been waiting to hear but as of yet all I heard is that he had a fight with someone at work.

Kart
Mar 6th, 2010, 05:33 PM
Sorry, I didn't read the poll properly. I voted for the third option.

Poova
Mar 6th, 2010, 05:52 PM
Well what did he do this time ?

I've been waiting to hear but as of yet all I heard is that he had a fight with someone at work.
The latest story is a sex offence. I don't believe that for a second though. It's all just hot air and rumours at the moment.

I voted for the third option for now, by the way. If it's only a minor breach I'll lean more towards the second option, but if it's something serious then of course they should throw the book at him.

Kart
Mar 6th, 2010, 05:59 PM
The only information I've heard confirmed is that he broke the conditions of his release.

However, which of those conditions is not clear.

After all, one of the rules was not to return to Merseyside (or wherever it was) and I can't say it seems reasonable to lock him up forever if that's all he did.

Ferg
Mar 6th, 2010, 09:47 PM
Seems like The Sun werent making it up for once...


One of the killers of James Bulger is facing 'extremely serious allegations' after being recalled to prison, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has admitted.
Jon Venables, now 27, has been taken back into custody after breaching the conditions of his release.
Justifying his decision not to disclose details of the recall, Mr Straw said: 'Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done.

'No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do.'
He spoke amid claims today that Venables had been accused of committing a sex crime.

The Sun newspaper claimed it has uncovered the 'exact details' of the alleged offence, but said it was unable to publish them in full for fear Venables' new identity would be revealed.

Direwolf
Mar 6th, 2010, 11:44 PM
No to prison!

Fingon
Mar 7th, 2010, 01:09 AM
Sorry to say, but what they did, not now but when they killed that little boy is inexcusable, I don't care they were 10, it was incredibly vicious.

I would not like to have him as a neighbour.

I don't believe in rehabilitation of this type of criminals, you can rehabiliate a thief, a fraudster, but not someone who murders a 2 years old for the fun of it.

I know they were minors but how many 10 years old act like that? how many adults do things like that?

What upsets me is the obsession in some countries (including Canada) to protect more the criminals than the victims. People convicted of really vicious crimes get out, and they are given a new identity, they are protected, they don't notify the community that a child rapist/murderer is among them, they want to give them a "second chance", "they cannot rebuild their lives if they are known for what they did", dinosaur shit, their victims cannot rebuild their lives can them. And then they say "the chances of them committing a new crime are small", yes, but if someone convicted of a henious crime is released and commits another one, what can they tell the victim and the victim's family? , was it an statistical anomaly?

screw it, when you do certain things there is no turning back, end of story. Here in Toronto there was a teenager convicted of rape that was being kept in a $300,000 house with two supervisors 24/7, and he had tons of video games to play, meanwhile, decent people are hungry and homeless and struggle to make end meets. Really, some human rights advocates and lawyers make me want to vomit.

the solution is a bullet in the head, trust me, they won't commit another crime after that.

Kart
Mar 7th, 2010, 01:28 PM
^ I agree with you to an extent - there was really no rehabilitating these children once the decision was made to send them to prison.

The problem here though is that they have been released and it's too late to change that. IMHO releasing them without protecting their identities would be completely pointless so you either lock them up forever or you release them with some reasonable chance of trying to lead a normal life.

What I'm interested to know is what he's done this time. If it's a serious offence it really draws into question whether the decision to release them was right or not.

It begs the question of whether they'll let the other guy stay out of prison.

LucyFromLondon
Mar 7th, 2010, 02:07 PM
I suppose some will say I'm a typical 'reactionary' but I think he should have been locked up for life the first time around. I make no apologies for loathing the soft approach to criminals and their demads for 'human rights'. Some of us would never even consider torturing and murdering a poor child - it fills me with horror thinking what the poor child went through. The way we tolerate such criminals really upsets me. Victims of such foul people have the sentence of agonising emotional pain for the rest of their lives. Why should someone like Venables have a chance of rehabilitation? Jamie Bulger's mother can't ever get over it and Jamie is dead.

veryborednow
Mar 7th, 2010, 02:33 PM
I think some of the posts in this thread are utter bullshit.

This type of criminal can't be rehabilitated? Mary Bell, Robert Thompson (so far) , Anne Perry to take but three examples from the top of my head....

In prison for the rest of their life from the age of ten? Why? Most murderers aren't imprisoned for the rest of their life - why should two people, who killed at an age which wouldn't see them held legally responsible for their actions in most countries, and deemed not to be a threat to society - shouldn't be given another chance? The licencing system sounds like a reasonable mechanism to maintain a close eye on what they've been up to and seems to have clicked into gear when needed.....

I can't stand all this tabloid populist shit. I am thankful that being a member of the EU means we can't 'put a bullet in the back of their head' and that politicians can't manipulate jail time to please easily manipulated plebs.

Bezz
Mar 7th, 2010, 03:01 PM
I think we all need to wait until we find out exactly what he has done before we can make a proper judgment ( if we ever do). Ive always thought that there age was significant, an average 10 year old doesnt think the same way as an average adult, so i think its sensible to assume that when they killed bulger they were not acting how an adult murderer would. I do believe they meant to hurt him but to actually set out that day to go and kill achild, i really dont think thats the case.

I agree some ppl can be rehabilitated no matter what crime they commited, whether it be a thief, murderer or rapist. You will always get some criminals that never can, and maybe jon venables is one of them and if thats the case he should be locked up. But like veryborednow said, thompson has kept out of trouble for now and so have the other two ppl he mentioned, plus the countless criminals which never re-offend.

The Dawntreader
Mar 7th, 2010, 03:02 PM
This guy is obviously a precarious member of society. It's obviously unclear as to what has transpired, but you would hope that if it was something serious, then the correct measures be taken. I'm not condoning at all the extremists view of locking him up 'for life'. That creates a vengeance system, rather than a justice system.

The James Bulger murder was a tragedy for all concerned IMO. Obviously the act was horrific and inconceivable, but they were TEN years old. I feel sorry for whatever made these two boys so disturbed, so malformed emotionally to do this. That's why i thought those men who charged and spat at their police vans when they were taken to court, was completely unjustifed.

LucyFromLondon
Mar 7th, 2010, 03:28 PM
I think some of the posts in this thread are utter bullshit.

This type of criminal can't be rehabilitated? Mary Bell, Robert Thompson (so far) , Anne Perry to take but three examples from the top of my head....

In prison for the rest of their life from the age of ten? Why? Most murderers aren't imprisoned for the rest of their life - why should two people, who killed at an age which wouldn't see them held legally responsible for their actions in most countries, and deemed not to be a threat to society - shouldn't be given another chance? The licencing system sounds like a reasonable mechanism to maintain a close eye on what they've been up to and seems to have clicked into gear when needed.....

I can't stand all this tabloid populist shit. I am thankful that being a member of the EU means we can't 'put a bullet in the back of their head' and that politicians can't manipulate jail time to please easily manipulated plebs.

I think we will have to agree to disagree, and I understand fully that you will think I'm some sort of low brow who doesn't feel for people who are so damaged that they do dreadful things but then can be rehabilated. However, I believe that murderers should be in prison all their lives regardless of whether or not they can be rehabilated. The victims and their loved ones never can be rehabilated. The victims had their lives taken from them. Ten year olds may not be 'legally' responsible but I believe that they are responsible. I believe that 10 year olds know that torturing and murdering a child is wrong. Yes, you will think that I am a pleb but I believe that a significant problem with society is that people are taught through accepting such horrific crimes that the murder of others is something that can be gotten over. And for the loved ones it can't particularly when the perpetrators get out of jail and a protected new life at the tax payers' expense. If someone genuinely takes responsibility for their actions then they should live the rest of their lives NOT hidden but out in the open like the rest of us. And as for the EU, I believe that the EU has a lot to answer for! But as I say no doubt you will label me in some way as small minded.

veryborednow
Mar 7th, 2010, 04:11 PM
I think we will have to agree to disagree, and I understand fully that you will think I'm some sort of low brow who doesn't feel for people who are so damaged that they do dreadful things but then can be rehabilated. However, I believe that murderers should be in prison all their lives regardless of whether or not they can be rehabilated. The victims and their loved ones never can be rehabilated. The victims had their lives taken from them. Ten year olds may not be 'legally' responsible but I believe that they are responsible. I believe that 10 year olds know that torturing and murdering a child is wrong. Yes, you will think that I am a pleb but I believe that a significant problem with society is that people are taught through accepting such horrific crimes that the murder of others is something that can be gotten over.
I think we will have to disagree, in the very least because I don't think the justice system should be linked to the emotional states of Sun readers.
And for the loved ones it can't particularly when the perpetrators get out of jail and a protected new life at the tax payers' expense. If someone genuinely takes responsibility for their actions then they should live the rest of their lives NOT hidden but out in the open like the rest of us.
A new identity is not synonymous with not accepting responsibility for ones action, nor would living with their old identity be synonymous with taking responsibility. They have new identities to protect them from the type of people whose idea of justice would be to kill them - unaware of the irony of their actions. They shouldn't have been publicly identified in the first place.

gentenaire
Mar 7th, 2010, 04:32 PM
However, I believe that murderers should be in prison all their lives regardless of whether or not they can be rehabilated.

And what is your definition of murder?
Should someone who discovers the true identity of Robert Thompson and decides to kill him, be locked up for life? Should someone who thinks he knows Thompson's true identity and accidently kills an innocent person be locked up for life?

LucyFromLondon
Mar 7th, 2010, 05:20 PM
And what is your definition of murder?
Should someone who discovers the true identity of Robert Thompson and decides to kill him, be locked up for life? Should someone who thinks he knows Thompson's true identity and accidently kills an innocent person be locked up for life?

Hi. My definition of murder is the deliberate taking of someone's life regardless of motive and emotional state of mind or upbringing. In answer to the questions:

Yes and yes.

If these 2 murderers were given life imprisonment (which I think they should) then none of the scenarios would occur (if protected in prison from such retaliation). And if murderers were in prison FOR LIFE then the victims' loved ones would have some peace of mind that justice had been served. I just find it immoral that someone can take a person's one and only life and then be free in a few years to live and have a free life. For me it demeans the sanctity of life. The law in the UK gives tarrifs for a life imprisonment - something I find illogical. Life should be life. Just my opinion!

LucyFromLondon
Mar 7th, 2010, 05:25 PM
I think we will have to disagree, in the very least because I don't think the justice system should be linked to the emotional states of Sun readers.

A new identity is not synonymous with not accepting responsibility for ones action, nor would living with their old identity be synonymous with taking responsibility. They have new identities to protect them from the type of people whose idea of justice would be to kill them - unaware of the irony of their actions. They shouldn't have been publicly identified in the first place.

Yes, we will never agree! But I don't read the Sun. I just think the sanctity of life overrides so called legal human rights. If someone take a person' life they should spend the rest of their's in jail. My heart goes out to the victims of murder and their families, not the murderers. It must feel abhorrent to know that millions of people support the criminals' case not their and that taxes are spent protecting the criminals from the emotional sentence they will never be able to be protected from. The families of the victims of Myra Hindley have never recovered. And as for Mary Bell - she got free to marry have children and she tried to sell her book and story. The latter case is of particular interest to me as she was from my family's area and my Gran remembers her case well.

Kart
Mar 7th, 2010, 05:34 PM
This type of criminal can't be rehabilitated?

Speaking purely from my comment about it - my point was more that rehabilitation was going to be limited because they were locked up at such a young age. I'm sure they had psychological support etc but I don't see how locking up a child in its formative years in an institution is a real attempt at rehabilitiation.

Of course, with the media frenzy at that time, there was no way they'd get anything else.

gentenaire
Mar 7th, 2010, 06:26 PM
Hi. My definition of murder is the deliberate taking of someone's life regardless of motive and emotional state of mind or upbringing.

What about self defense? What about soldiers?

I personally feel a life sentence should be life for those who're a danger to society. Paedophiles, serial rapists, the odds of them reoffending are very high so they're better off behind bars.

But murderers....I think everyone could potentially be a murderer. Murderers who didn't kill for money or a sexual motive, I think they can be rehabilitated.

Victims never truly recover, that's true, but whether or not the killer is behind doesn't change that fact. A murderer who's rehabilitated and has a job can actually pay back the relatives.

Also, imagine what prisons would be like if everyone there had no chance of ever getting out. They'd have nothing to lose and order would be extremely hard to maintain. With the system of linking good behaviour behind bars to the possibility of an earlier release, they can keep some order.

Fingon
Mar 8th, 2010, 02:04 AM
^ I agree with you to an extent - there was really no rehabilitating these children once the decision was made to send them to prison.

I agree partially, sending someone to prison is not a way to rehabilitate them, it's one of the point where the system shows it hipocrisy, young age or not, if anything, jail will make them worse, but I agree at a young age it's even worse.

However, I don't believe they can be rehabilitated, even if they are not sent to prison, that kind of henious crime means there is something extremely wrong with them, maybe it is not their fault, maybe it's genetic or it's the parent's fault but at the end, there was/is something extremely wrong and that costed the life of a 2 years old.

And think about it, could a normal, it's a catch 22 situation. If they realize the extend of what they've done, I don't think they can live with that, that would chase them until they are dead, no sane person could live with the though of having tortured and murder a child.

And if they don't feel that way, then they are not normal, that's why I hardly accept the excuse of mental illness, for someone to do something like that, they have to be mentally ill, even if it's not recognized by psychiatrists, but if we go that way, then 90% of the murders would be due to mental illness. And that's why I think that for certain crimes, there is a line that has been crossed and there is no way back.


The problem here though is that they have been released and it's too late to change that. IMHO releasing them without protecting their identities would be completely pointless so you either lock them up forever or you release them with some reasonable chance of trying to lead a normal life.

would the second choice be fair to people that have to interact with them? would you like the thought of your children being near a child murderer (and a vicious one)? what would happen if they kill another child? would they say "ooops, let's try again"? I don't think that should be an option, they should be locked down for ever, at a minimum.

What I'm interested to know is what he's done this time. If it's a serious offence it really draws into question whether the decision to release them was right or not.

I know that statistically, most crimes are committed by people who have already committed a crime before (the first one is the tough one) and most people convicted of serious offenses are very likely to reoffend, as I said, there is something wrong with them to commit that kind of crimes, wether it's schizofrenia, or they are in drugs, or they are simply psycophaths, it's not something a normal person would do.

Again, if you steal an orange, ok, pay for it and then start a new life, if I don't know about it, the most I can lose is an orange.

But if you murder a child? if anything else, the chance of that person doing it again should be enough to keep then in. They already ruined several lifes, the little boy's, the parents, brothers and sisters (if he had any), grandparents, friends, etc. I prefer to ruin THEIR life than to risk another young life being taken and another group of normal people having their lifes shattered for ever.

It begs the question of whether they'll let the other guy stay out of prison.

probably, unless he screws up as well.

Fingon
Mar 8th, 2010, 02:15 AM
What about self defense? What about soldiers?

I personally feel a life sentence should be life for those who're a danger to society. Paedophiles, serial rapists, the odds of them reoffending are very high so they're better off behind bars.

But murderers....I think everyone could potentially be a murderer. Murderers who didn't kill for money or a sexual motive, I think they can be rehabilitated.

really?

At least those who kill for money or a sexual motive have one motive (not that I am justifying them).

what about those who kill for revenge, or for the pleasure of it?, those who kill a baby because he/she is crying, or because the mother is cheating on the guy.

What about the guy who throw a little girl to the alligators? or the one who bury alive another little girl?

What about Paul Bernardo, although he did rape his victims, he actually tortured them, for his own pleasure?

No, I don't think murderers can be rehabilitated.

Having said that, I don't think everyone who kills someone is a murderer, as you said, there can be other reasons, such as self-defense, a soldier, even some very limited cases of mental illnesses, but when it's murder, it's game over, no rehabilitation, life in prison at best (for certain cases like the guy who throw the girl to the alligators, only death penalty is an option IMO)

Victims never truly recover, that's true, but whether or not the killer is behind doesn't change that fact. A murderer who's rehabilitated and has a job can actually pay back the relatives.

pay the relatives? first I would like to know ONE case when that happened, second, they can actually buy their grief???

And no, it won't make any difference to the relatives of the victims in theory. If someone lost a child, the only consolation they might find is that the murderer is rotting in jail, but even accepting that strictly that doesn't bring the victim back, what about new victims? we can't do anything for the victim or his/her family, but at least we can prevent the murderer from destroying another family.

Also, imagine what prisons would be like if everyone there had no chance of ever getting out. They'd have nothing to lose and order would be extremely hard to maintain. With the system of linking good behaviour behind bars to the possibility of an earlier release, they can keep some order.

well, I know it's not civilized but a bullet in the head can do wonders with people with bad behaviour.

I don't think everyone should be kept behindn bars for ever, I don't think that nobody can be rehabilitated, but not murderers.

if it's hard to maintain order, lock them down evern further (that is if you don't like the bullet in the head option).

As you might have noticed, I have very little compassion for murderers, rehabilitate bank robbers, fraudsters, scammers, I am find with that, but not murderers.

gentenaire
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:14 AM
really?

At least those who kill for money or a sexual motive have one motive (not that I am justifying them).

what about those who kill for revenge, or for the pleasure of it?, those who kill a baby because he/she is crying, or because the mother is cheating on the guy.

What about the guy who throw a little girl to the alligators? or the one who bury alive another little girl?

What about Paul Bernardo, although he did rape his victims, he actually tortured them, for his own pleasure?

Those are the kind of murderers that cannot be rehabilitated.

But what about a woman who after years of abuse from her husband, decides to kill him? It's not self defense, but it's understandable. I do think she can be rehabilitated.


pay the relatives? first I would like to know ONE case when that happened, second, they can actually buy their grief???

Is it different in the US then?
Here the perpetrator has to pay all the legal fees + damages.



well, I know it's not civilized but a bullet in the head can do wonders with people with bad behaviour.

Well, the person who fired the bullet should rot in jail for the rest of his life since he's just murdered someone. Don't you see the irony of it all?

Talula
Mar 8th, 2010, 09:10 PM
To all the Venables (and their ilk) supporters: part of me would like to witness your support of rehabilitation if he or anyone like him had abducted, tortured and murdered your 2 year old. The horror of this case deserves nothing less than his lifetime jail sentence. I recall this case well and it was disgusting. Jail is NOT just about rehabilitation it is also about punishment. As I say, be careful what you wish for: you may find yourself having to see filth like Venables being defended by the likes of yourselves after you have suffered unbearable horror.

Talula
Mar 8th, 2010, 09:13 PM
I think we will have to disagree, in the very least because I don't think the justice system should be linked to the emotional states of Sun readers.

A new identity is not synonymous with not accepting responsibility for ones action, nor would living with their old identity be synonymous with taking responsibility. They have new identities to protect them from the type of people whose idea of justice would be to kill them - unaware of the irony of their actions. They shouldn't have been publicly identified in the first place.

If I abducted, tortured and murdered your child would you plead my rehabilitation? Get real.

Ferg
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:14 PM
I love some of the rehabilitation lovers trying to take the high ground here. Theres nohing good about letting an obviously sick mind out into the streets. It happens again and again, sick predators are let out and just attack people again.

Theres obviously a difference between killing someone by accident or in self defence, and that of torturing and murdering a 2 year old boy and leaving his body on train tracks. And it seems, due to Straw refusing to tell of the offence that it is very serious, and if it is child porn he needs to be locked up. Theres nothing more sick then offenders against children, and its been said again and again, there is no healing them if there is something seriously wrong with them.

Stevecw
Mar 8th, 2010, 10:44 PM
Yes he deserves life, hope he gets treated like shit in prison and then dies a miserable lonely death. Sick bastard deserves all that & worse.

Fingon
Mar 9th, 2010, 12:31 AM
Those are the kind of murderers that cannot be rehabilitated.

But what about a woman who after years of abuse from her husband, decides to kill him? It's not self defense, but it's understandable. I do think she can be rehabilitated.


I agree, but as you see, there are very limited cases.

I would add a father who kills his son's murderer.

Is it different in the US then?
Here the perpetrator has to pay all the legal fees + damages.


I don't know, I am in Canada. Here there was a big controversy some time ago, a woman was caught in a crossfire and a bullet hit her in her spinal cord, letting him paralized from the waist down.

It happened that she had to care for a disabled daughter and it was nearly impossible in those conditions. The guys responsible said they never intended to hit her and offered to pay a large amount of money, there was a lot of controversy because some said that justice cannot be bought, I don't know what the final decision was.

But my main point, if you lose a son, a mother, a brother, how much? 1 million? 1 billion? 1 trillion?, yes, they should pay, and then go back to jail.


Well, the person who fired the bullet should rot in jail for the rest of his life since he's just murdered someone. Don't you see the irony of it all?
I don't agree, rat exterminators are not criminals are they? the difference is that rats are better than these people.

veryborednow
Mar 9th, 2010, 09:09 PM
If I abducted, tortured and murdered your child would you plead my rehabilitation? Get real.
And that's the whole reason there's an impartial justice system. Congratulations on making the point.

Jacey
Mar 10th, 2010, 01:00 AM
And that's the whole reason there's an impartial justice system. Congratulations on making the point.



:rolleyes: Are you kidding me? "impartial justice system" yeah it sounds nice and all but really a very large percentage of people(jurors) that sit in these trials simply make up there own mind before the trial is even over. Like it or not the very few people that can be objective either live under a rock or try to over analyze the crime. Everyone is a mother, father, daughter, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, cousin, bestfriend(everyone can relate in some way or another). Whenever its a crime involving a child all bets are off. Thats why during jury selection lawyers on both sides ask the questions that will let them know what way that person will lean.

Im not trying to make a dig at your whole impartial justice system comment Im just stating a point. I know all this from being around lawyers and judges.(and not the crooked type one) ;)

Mynarco
Mar 10th, 2010, 01:15 AM
I just checked wikipedia. Oh no, I can't believe they were only kept custody till they turned 18 :o

Marionated
Mar 10th, 2010, 11:54 AM
Should never have been let out in the first place. 8 years is such a joke.

veryborednow
Mar 10th, 2010, 06:00 PM
:rolleyes: Are you kidding me? "impartial justice system" yeah it sounds nice and all but really a very large percentage of people(jurors) that sit in these trials simply make up there own mind before the trial is even over. Like it or not the very few people that can be objective either live under a rock or try to over analyze the crime. Everyone is a mother, father, daughter, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, cousin, bestfriend(everyone can relate in some way or another). Whenever its a crime involving a child all bets are off. Thats why during jury selection lawyers on both sides ask the questions that will let them know what way that person will lean.

Im not trying to make a dig at your whole impartial justice system comment Im just stating a point. I know all this from being around lawyers and judges.(and not the crooked type one) ;)
And by impartial I meant a justic system not structured by the emotions of bereaved parents rather than a grand statement on the philosophy of law - but point taken.

Kart
Mar 10th, 2010, 06:10 PM
I agree partially, sending someone to prison is not a way to rehabilitate them, it's one of the point where the system shows it hipocrisy, young age or not, if anything, jail will make them worse, but I agree at a young age it's even worse.

However, I don't believe they can be rehabilitated, even if they are not sent to prison, that kind of henious crime means there is something extremely wrong with them, maybe it is not their fault, maybe it's genetic or it's the parent's fault but at the end, there was/is something extremely wrong and that costed the life of a 2 years old.

And think about it, could a normal, it's a catch 22 situation. If they realize the extend of what they've done, I don't think they can live with that, that would chase them until they are dead, no sane person could live with the though of having tortured and murder a child.

And if they don't feel that way, then they are not normal, that's why I hardly accept the excuse of mental illness, for someone to do something like that, they have to be mentally ill, even if it's not recognized by psychiatrists, but if we go that way, then 90% of the murders would be due to mental illness. And that's why I think that for certain crimes, there is a line that has been crossed and there is no way back.
The problem is Fingon that there isn't enough evidence to justify locking them up forever because these kind of crimes are so rare.

Ultimately, they were just children when they did these terrible things. At age ten, a child is still learning about life - to insist that they're beyond rehabilitation is simply not right IMHO unless you've tried to rehabilitate them.
would the second choice be fair to people that have to interact with them? would you like the thought of your children being near a child murderer (and a vicious one)? what would happen if they kill another child? would they say "ooops, let's try again"? I don't think that should be an option, they should be locked down for ever, at a minimum.
Like I said, you either lock them up forever or you don't. If you release them though, you have to be releasing them in a way that it will be successful. Letting them keep their own names when they are so well known would be pointless.

As veryborednow indicated, the real problem here is that Jon Venables should never have been identified in the first place.

AdeyC
Mar 10th, 2010, 06:26 PM
I can't stand all this tabloid populist shit. I am thankful that being a member of the EU means we can't 'put a bullet in the back of their head' and that politicians can't manipulate jail time to please easily manipulated plebs.

Well no party will give us a referendum on whether we actually want to be a member of the EU because they know it would be a resounding NO.

DevilishAttitude
Mar 10th, 2010, 06:30 PM
The answer is very simple, John Venables should NEVER have been let out of prison.

While I actually agree that he shouldn't be identifed now, my big issue is that it was absolutely crazy to let these 2 murderers to be let out without spending a day in an adult prison. Just 8 years is outrageous for the crime they committed (Some of the heinous acts they did to James Bulger has never been printed) And I totally disagree with the "They were only 10, they didn't stand a chance" Nonsense. Infact I'd go so far to say if they are able to commit such a vicious crime while they were children, what terrifying individuals would they be once they were adults, which is now proven since Venables is said to have been sent back to prison for viewing child porn and violent sexual assualt. They should never have been let out of prison IMO, and I can totally understand why Denise Fergus has been openly cynical about the government and the police's way of dealing with this.

Another thing that really annoys me, is the nauseating liberal snobbery displayed by a couple of people in this thread who seem to be that the crime committed was just a "mistake" and were getting ate up about it cos were "emotional Sun readers" Strangely enough, I don't, and have never read the Sun, but think that Venables shouldn't have ever been allowed out of jail, what does that make me?

Jon Venables should never have been let out, and he is now back where he belongs.

slamchamp
Mar 10th, 2010, 06:35 PM
who is he??:confused:

Ferg
Mar 10th, 2010, 07:29 PM
who is he??:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

veryborednow
Mar 10th, 2010, 07:41 PM
Well no party will give us a referendum on whether we actually want to be a member of the EU because they know it would be a resounding NO.
Thank God - one thing the parties have got right.

veryborednow
Mar 10th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Another thing that really annoys me, is the nauseating liberal snobbery displayed by a couple of people in this thread who seem to be that the crime committed was just a "mistake" and were getting ate up about it cos were "emotional Sun readers" Strangely enough, I don't, and have never read the Sun, but think that Venables shouldn't have ever been allowed out of jail, what does that make me?

I presume that's me. To defend myself on one point: In no way have I said the crime was a 'mistake' - but yes, I find the hysterical reaction to this crime misplaced and distasteful. As horrible as the crime was, I think a hell of a lot worse has been committed and the public reaction is comparatively muted.

Take, for example, the crimes in todays news: The dad who killed his daughter and pretended it was a suicide pact. The husband who tried to blow up his pregnant wife. The dad who has sexually abused his two daughters for years. These are crimes by adult men - without a doubt aware of the law, and social morals - one committing a crime over a sustained period of time which to me, more reprehensible than children murdering a child on a whim....

The only distinguishing aspect of all this is Venables and Thompson's age and the way that the interpretation of their age - are they 'evil' or 'unaware of social moral norms' or neither and as equally responsible for their actions as the men mentioned above? Should they be tried as adults or children? They're interesting debates, and genuine ones - my use of the term 'emotional Sun readers' is not so much a reference to certain people as to the action of the media whipping the situation into a frenzy influenced the judge's decision to identify them, politicians decisions to extend their sentence (unlawfully), and the resultant need for anonymity because certain members of the public now regard it as their duty to enact revenge.

The issue of whether they should be released to me is irrelevant - unless they were deemed to be a continued threat to the lives of the general public, they weren't going to be kept in jail forever, doesn't happen with any murderer. Notoriety isn't the key determining factor.

That said - I am a nauseating liberal snob. I dislike tabloids and I hate most of the general publics response to all things - Princess Diana, Soham, Wootten Bassett makes me want to vomit.

tommyk75
Mar 11th, 2010, 02:14 AM
I hope this isn't a dumb question. If the guy had done this when he was 16, for example, could he have been ordered to serve only 2 years until he became an adult? I'm trying to wrap my head around the whole different way of sentencing minors...

Fingon
Mar 11th, 2010, 02:18 AM
The problem is Fingon that there isn't enough evidence to justify locking them up forever because these kind of crimes are so rare.

Ultimately, they were just children when they did these terrible things. At age ten, a child is still learning about life - to insist that they're beyond rehabilitation is simply not right IMHO unless you've tried to rehabilitate them.

there is enough evidence, a 2 years old murdered. I don't care what psychologists say, that's not normal, it will never be.

The big question is, is it worth trying to rehabilitate? shouldn't that money be invested in people who need it? not a child murderer? (and this does not only apply to Venables).

it's a cost benefit, if you do rehabilitate them, what are you gaining? no much, one more person in society, of dubious value, even rehabiliated, it's not that they are future Albert Einsteins.

And if you fail? if you know that you failed, then it's just a waste of time and money, but if you don't know it, or worse, if you can't admit it, you are endangered the lives of innocent people but letting tha animal free.

it's a bad analogy, but you would not let a tiger on the loose, you wouldn't get close to a tiger. Why? because you know a tiger is dangerous, you know a tiger is likely to attack and kill, and how do you know that? because they've done it before, same here, there are many people that are potential murderers, but you cannot lock everyone down just in case, but once they've done, they show they do it, end of story, protecting other people's lives from even a slight chance of that happening again is more important than giving then a new chance.

Like I said, you either lock them up forever or you don't. If you release them though, you have to be releasing them in a way that it will be successful. Letting them keep their own names when they are so well known would be pointless.

As veryborednow indicated, the real problem here is that Jon Venables should never have been identified in the first place.

yep but again, what is more important? their life or innocent people's lives? I don't want a murderer in my neighbourhood, rehabilitated or not, I wouldn't let my kid be near one if I know what they are, no matter how rehabiliated they are, I simply wouldn't, not in a million year, why don't I have the right to know?

As I said before, there is no return, they crossed the line and the door was shut behind them, and locked.

I do agree they should be locked up for ever though, unfortunately, our legal systems are tailored to the criminals, not the victims or potential victims. They call it being liberal, progressive, sophisticated, smart, I call it plain idiocy.


I don't know if you notice that I favour being tough on crime, though tough is too weak to express how I would treat them, call me uncivilized or barbarian, maybe I am, but I think it's just common sense.

Kart
Mar 11th, 2010, 11:00 AM
I don't know if you notice that I favour being tough on crime, though tough is too weak to express how I would treat them, call me uncivilized or barbarian, maybe I am, but I think it's just common sense.

Tough on crime ? I hadn't noticed that at all :o.

Actually I don't think it's barbaric at all, I respect it even though I don't totally agree with it.

More and more though, as I get older, I'm favouring stances on some crimes myself.

The only thing I disagree with what you wrote above is the first bit.

We don't have a death penalty in the UK (and that is an entirely seperate topic) and so if you lock all murderers up for life then we're going to end up very crowded. Now that's not a reason to let people out but it is a reason to try to rehabilitate them IMHO. At least you're making some effort to reduce some of their chances of re-offending when they come out.

I don't imagine that the psychologists will say that ten year olds killers are behaving normally but if they say progress has been made, I think you have to accept it at some point. Either that or accept that psychology is a total waste of time as a science. I'm not against the latter but it's not exactly easy to do.

What I really think we should be addressing is (a) what in our society lets ten year olds think butchering a child is ok and (b) what in our society means that Jon Venables has failed to be rehabilitated since his release. It makes no difference to his cause but it might mean we stop a repeat. To simply say he's a weird child that turned out to be crazy at a time when it's so easy for kids to access internet violence / sex / whatever is putting our heads in the sand IMHO.

Londoner
Mar 11th, 2010, 01:50 PM
I don't think he should have been let out in the first place. I beleive in 2nd chances for some things, but not what he did.