Jon Venables back in prison

[Mandingo's Donger]

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

 

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

Would you suggest that, for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh was murder?

 

Hypothetically speaking, if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

Again, you are saying that " If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are"

 

How is the legally appointed executioner not doing just that?

 

And back to the original point, how can you on one hand condemn the pre-meditated taking of a human life and on the other support it without being drowned in hypocrisy?

[Glen Quagmire]

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

 

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

Would you suggest that, for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh was murder?

 

Hypothetically speaking, if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

Again, you are saying that " If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are"

 

How is the legally appointed executioner not doing just that?

 

And back to the original point, how can you on one hand condemn the pre-meditated taking of a human life and on the other support it without being drowned in hypocrisy?

 

 

 

Strawman.

[David]

Quagey, it doesn't matter how you dice this shit up, it's not going to result in you being able to justify putting two kids on death row.

[Mandingo's Donger]

Strawman.

 

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

 

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

 

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

Edited March 4, 2010 by deathbyropeandglass

[Steveo2007]

The question of whether the public need to know why Venables was sent to prison is being discussed on Question Time now and it's a very good debate. Personally I don't believe the public have the right to know why he was sent to prison and also I don't believe the family need to know why he was sent back. In the midst of this psycho tabloid created anger, people are forgetting the basic fact and that is that the man is back inside and that is unquestionably a good thing. I also do believe that the only if the offence committed by Venables was a purely serious crime should the level of the crime be revealed but no specific details of the crime should be released, but when he is put back in, but the sake of the mothers ease of mind, she should be informed how long Venables will be back in prison.

 

Will Self being the erudite voice of reason on a QT panel means that the man should be on the panel permanently.

[Surf Digby]

Do you really think Thomson and Venebles are living the high life now, chuckling about their youthful indiscretion?

Several sources have claimed that Thomson does indeed chuckle about it, as though it were a mere indiscretion.

 

Interesting point brought up by Martin Brunt.

 

About 1,000 people go to prison in a week - how hard would it be to find any Scousers in their late twenties with a shit attitude? His anonymity's at serious risk now.

They both had elocution lessons to help eradicate their accents. They're more likely to have adopted the accents of the where they were based.

 

Tbh I just feel sorry for the mother, she's had a pretty shit life ever since, and this will just bring it all back to her. I hope she finds some peace.

It would be nice to remember he has a Dad who took it pretty badly aswell. Trash mags had a mini hate campaign against him a couple of years back due to his alcoholism.

 

Regarding the public's right to know what happened to send Venebles back inside, it's not just a matter of us knowing what kind of person he is now, it's whether we have a justice system that is best serving us. There's been rumours abound for a couple of years about behaviour that was a breach of his licence. If he has indeed spent his adult life as a violent drug user, then a) the system isn't adequately protecting us, and b) the system isn't providing adequate support and rehabilitation for him.

 

And Will Self is a huge mark for himself that thinks inserting uncommonly used words into an argument increases the validity of his point. He made himself out almost as an expert witness because he'd "read the transcript", despite him contradicting what the officers involved in the case have stated on record several times.

[The Icon]

Do you really think Thomson and Venebles are living the high life now, chuckling about their youthful indiscretion?

Several sources have claimed that Thomson does indeed chuckle about it, as though it were a mere indiscretion.

 

Is that so? Did they disclose this information to The Sun or The Mail then?

[JNLister]

About 1,000 people go to prison in a week - how hard would it be to find any Scousers in their late twenties with a shit attitude?

 

A prejudiced person would say that probably covers about 400 of them.

[Wendell Cooley]

I know/knew 10 year olds who were fully aware of the world and were still evil little fuckwits. Oh sure its because of how they were brought up (usually, though I have known people brought up well turn out to be dicks), but it doesnt stop them being evil.

 

That said, I agree that it would be more important to try to rehabilitate them from the shitty upbringing, at least give them the chance to change the direction they are taking. I feel the same about the 2 kids here in doncaster, what they did was evil, but they didnt have much of a chance with how their mum and dad treat them.

 

It's a difficult issue; of course the parents in both cases are contemptible cunts who should be strung up, but IMO some people, kids or not, are just wired wrong - the capability to do something as evil as that has to be there in the first place, because there are plenty of people who've had shitty upbringings and yet don't murder or torture small children.

 

For that reason, there has to be an element of punishment as well as rehabilitation in these sentences - like it or not, they are culpable for their actions and need to know that they'll have consequences. Allowing both of those men to live their entire adult lives as free men is no punishment at all, in my opinion. The fact that Venables has apparently gone on to re-offend seems to show that he's not yet been effectively taught that his actions will have consequences.

Erm, they were punished. They were sentenced and served their time. They'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. Do you really think Thomson and Venebles are living the high life now, chuckling about their youthful indiscretion? You say 're-offend', like he's gone out and killed another kid. He could have just failed to report back to the prison on time or something, y'know.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, 8 years (in a unit without the punitive environment of adult prison) is not a punishment that fit the crime - they didn't lose a day of their adult lives, and probably had a much more comfortable childhood and better care inside than they would have had on the outside. In my view, 'justice' has to include some measure of retribution for the victim - in this case, the sentence was entirely waited towards making sure the offenders were alright with no care towards the victim. I honestly don't know whether they're regretting their actions or 'living the high life, chuckling about their youthful indiscretions' now, because I can't fathom the mindset of the kind of sick cunt who does that to a toddler. That they had the chance to live a full, uninhibited adult life that they didn't allow James Bulger is not even close to justice, IMO.

 

Though I take what the tabloids say with a pinch of salt, the reports today suggest Venables is still a fucked-up individual with every chance of posing a danger to society. Even if they're wide of the mark, I think it's highly unlikely that he'd be summarily marched back to prison and the story leaked to the press for something as inconsequential as failing to report to his parole officer on time.

You say 'sick cunt' as if it was a premeditated child murder. It was nothing of the sort. It was a couple of fucked up kids from fucked up homes who perpetrated something that started off as a 'game' and resulted in a horrific crime.

Should prison just be about punishing people? Making their time in prison as horrible as possible so that when they return to society nothing has been done to help them with the problems that landed them in prison in the first place? Yeah, chain em up! Beat them every day! Make them eat their least favourite food! The 'throw away the key' argument is banal - you can't lock people up forever. Sooner or later you're going to have to let these people back into society. Surely it's better not to have them come out angry and vengeful at the system that deprived them of their liberty, and make them more likely to repeat the crime that started the whole shitty cycle?

 

There's no chance either of them will be able to live a 'full, uninhibited adult life'.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Wendell Cooley

[ReturnOfTheMack]

I know/knew 10 year olds who were fully aware of the world and were still evil little fuckwits. Oh sure its because of how they were brought up (usually, though I have known people brought up well turn out to be dicks), but it doesnt stop them being evil.

 

That said, I agree that it would be more important to try to rehabilitate them from the shitty upbringing, at least give them the chance to change the direction they are taking. I feel the same about the 2 kids here in doncaster, what they did was evil, but they didnt have much of a chance with how their mum and dad treat them.

 

It's a difficult issue; of course the parents in both cases are contemptible cunts who should be strung up, but IMO some people, kids or not, are just wired wrong - the capability to do something as evil as that has to be there in the first place, because there are plenty of people who've had shitty upbringings and yet don't murder or torture small children.

 

For that reason, there has to be an element of punishment as well as rehabilitation in these sentences - like it or not, they are culpable for their actions and need to know that they'll have consequences. Allowing both of those men to live their entire adult lives as free men is no punishment at all, in my opinion. The fact that Venables has apparently gone on to re-offend seems to show that he's not yet been effectively taught that his actions will have consequences.

Erm, they were punished. They were sentenced and served their time. They'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. Do you really think Thomson and Venebles are living the high life now, chuckling about their youthful indiscretion? You say 're-offend', like he's gone out and killed another kid. He could have just failed to report back to the prison on time or something, y'know.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, 8 years (in a unit without the punitive environment of adult prison) is not a punishment that fit the crime - they didn't lose a day of their adult lives, and probably had a much more comfortable childhood and better care inside than they would have had on the outside. In my view, 'justice' has to include some measure of retribution for the victim - in this case, the sentence was entirely waited towards making sure the offenders were alright with no care towards the victim. I honestly don't know whether they're regretting their actions or 'living the high life, chuckling about their youthful indiscretions' now, because I can't fathom the mindset of the kind of sick cunt who does that to a toddler. That they had the chance to live a full, uninhibited adult life that they didn't allow James Bulger is not even close to justice, IMO.

 

Though I take what the tabloids say with a pinch of salt, the reports today suggest Venables is still a fucked-up individual with every chance of posing a danger to society. Even if they're wide of the mark, I think it's highly unlikely that he'd be summarily marched back to prison and the story leaked to the press for something as inconsequential as failing to report to his parole officer on time.

You say 'sick cunt' as if it was a premeditated child murder. It was nothing of the sort. It was a couple of fucked up kids from fucked up homes who perpetrated something that started off as a 'game' and resulted in a horrific crime.

 

 

I disagree, it was premeditated. They tried to abduct another child first, so it wasnt spur of the moment, and they took Bulger to a place they thought they could cover up their actions by making it look like a train hit the child. Thats not a 'game', thats a planned killing.

[Dead Mike]

Premeditated in the fact that it wasn't a crime of passion. I love how people are taking snippets from rag newspapers & passing them off as fact..

Several sources have claimed that Thomson does indeed chuckle about it, as though it were a mere indiscretion.

Which sources? Seeing as they're unnamed the sensible person whiuld have to assume fictional ones.

 

Anyone claiming that the public have a right to know about where he is now, what he doing etc is a fool. How is this workable? Would this rule only apply to criminals that have had their crimes picked up by the media or can I look forward to my weekly 'yellow pages' sized book being dropped on my doorstep updating me on the thousands of criminals be sentenced/paroled/released weekly?

[David]

I don't see how knowing what he did would even do the Bulger family any good.

 

If he did anything even coming close to major, then he'll be locked up for good, won't he?

 

As for "the public"? It was fuck all to do with us.

[King Pitcos]

Regarding the public's right to know what happened to send Venebles back inside, it's not just a matter of us knowing what kind of person he is now, it's whether we have a justice system that is best serving us.

Yeah, definitely. It's definitely not a case of bloodlust and nosiness.

[GalaxyV.2]

I think if the parents want to know then they should be able to find out, after all they should have some rights to find out in this case.

 

Straw said the details will come out over time, means something serious may have happened

[David]

I think if the parents want to know then they should be able to find out, after all they should have some rights to find out in this case.

Do the parents in every murder case have the right to know what happens to their childs killer almost twenty years later?