John Venables

Boner · Post by **Boner** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 03:40 pm

Just in case anyone doesn't know what this is about, I hate to use Wiki but it's the easiest resource to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

8 years for brutally torturing and murdering an innocent 2 year old boy.

tbh I think I'm done with this thread as just thinking about it makes me really fucking angry.

gixxer · Post by **gixxer** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 04:59 pm

ill gladly send 200 cigs a month for a year to anybody inside that shivs that wee bastard. sorry if i offend anyone but child killers have no place in society,only good thing about usa is the death penalty, we should bring it back

Kermit · Post by **Kermit** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 05:00 pm

Boner wrote:
tbh I think I'm done with this thread as just thinking about it makes me really fucking angry.

Me too and only just looked at it

^^and i will offer cash for there family on the outside to the person who murders the little cunt.

^^

steve_o76 · Post by **steve_o76** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 05:31 pm

hav to agrre with gixxer..execute them !! horiffically...lets be honest u get more for posssession of a 9bar of grass...says it all about justice

Pauli Wallnuts · Post by **Pauli Wallnuts** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 05:33 pm

he should remain anonymous until hes trial is over & then whatever the verdict he should be named, every other criminal in the british legal system is named if their over 18, the governments argument is he wont get a fair trial, so once its over theirs no excuses, problem in this country is certain types of people say 'hes not to blame, society is' i say b**loks to that, im the same age 27, & when it happened i knew exactly what right & wrong was, maybe a bit of vigilantiism is perfect in this case

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Mon 8th Mar 2010 07:38 pm

Marco wrote:I will never understand the absurd level of privacy according to serious criminals in Europe. The use of initials in the pre-trial and trial stage is understandable but once convicted this person's name should be a matter of public record, available to potential partners, employers, etc.
..

Alot of it is to do with people claiming they weren't given a free trial. This case is slightly more complicated because he has a condition that if he is considered to be a risk, he will be detained untill evidence is gathered and finalized, rather than being under observation like with drug dealers.

Like i said, im not convinced a 10 year old is aware of their actions. I think society has alot to answer for and i think this type of reaction stems from the crime shaking the core of society. We rarely here this out burst for other crimes, such as recently when a bunch of young kids near murdered two boys in Rotherham, it's essentially the same crime. The boys got taken to a ditch in a field told there was porno there, they got there and were tortured and had stones dropped on them.

I'm not defending what was done, i'm saying that our system is based around that a person is capable of change, is it acceptable to throw that away? IMO, no.

I also do not condone or want any type of Vigilante justice.

I think this does raise interesting questions, however, if its the consenus that this thread is causing not needed anger, i can delete it, i didn't mean to rock the boat. It was just a big issue not talked about on the forum so i thought i would voice it.

Boner · Post by **Boner** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 07:49 pm

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:I think this does raise interesting questions, however, if its the consenus that this thread is causing not needed anger, i can delete it, i didn't mean to rock the boat. It was just a big issue not talked about on the forum so i thought i would voice it.

No need to do that, I hope you and whoever else that wants to discuss this continue to do so, for the record I'm not angry at you for voicing your opinion.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Mon 8th Mar 2010 07:55 pm

Boner wrote: No need to do that, I hope you and whoever else that wants to discuss this continue to do so, for the record I'm not angry at you for voicing your opinion.

No worries man.

gixxer · Post by **gixxer** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 07:56 pm

the difference with the two brothers in rotherham is simple, they didnt kill those two kids, given a bit more time they prob would have killed them, also it wasnt the first time they attacked other kids. so now they get a cushy life and in a few years theyll reoffend ( ill bet my house on it )
im not religious but it says in the bible an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the punishment should fit the crime

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Mon 8th Mar 2010 08:07 pm

gixxer wrote:the difference with the two brothers in rotherham is simple, they didnt kill those two kids, given a bit more time they prob would have killed them, also it wasnt the first time they attacked other kids. so now they get a cushy life and in a few years theyll reoffend ( ill bet my house on it )
im not religious but it says in the bible an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the punishment should fit the crime

I see your point man.

However, i think it's dangerous to judge a crime because of it's consequences. For example, if someone set off a bomb in a crowded area and no-one was hurt, i would want them to face the same punishment that the person who done the same but killed people would get.

Personally, i don't believe in Religious Text's are a good basis for laws, but i think you're saying the same thing and just using it to paraphase right? So i'm going address that, is that's wrong let me know

IMO, i think the punishment should be aimed towards a chance for the person to redeem themselves and improve their lives, rather than to match the crime which was commited. But as me and you have already discussed, i'm a soft Liberal so my views on that are very different to yours right!

gixxer · Post by **gixxer** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 08:16 pm

i agree m8, i just finished saying the same thing on the coffeeshop ettiquite thread

Kermit · Post by **Kermit** » Mon 8th Mar 2010 08:21 pm

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote: IMO, i think the punishment should be aimed towards a chance for the person to redeem themselves and improve their lives, rather than to match the crime which was commited. But as me and you have already discussed, i'm a soft Liberal so my views on that are very different to yours right!

^^You need to put it away now coz your talking shit, they are child killers no matter there age. The Rotherham case was never posted on here. The kids was not taken from there mother in a busy shopping centre. The Now gay one admited to police that venables wanted to wag school and lose a kid.They knew what they was doing and it was planned.

I suppose you are hoping Sutcliffe gets his release now his tablets work(I know it wasnt kids), maybe backing Huntley to get out, or any more of the scum on this list.
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers.html

They dont deserve no second chance, simple as that. It is no petty crime its serious shit.

Are you Thompson or what??

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Mon 8th Mar 2010 08:59 pm

Kermit wrote: ^^You need to put it away now coz your talking shit, they are child killers no matter there age. The Rotherham case was never posted on here. The kids was not taken from there mother in a busy shopping centre. The Now gay one admited to police that venables wanted to wag school and lose a kid.They knew what they was doing and it was planned.

I suppose you are hoping Sutcliffe gets his release now his tablets work(I know it wasnt kids), maybe backing Huntley to get out, or any more of the scum on this list.
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers.html

They dont deserve no second chance, simple as that. It is no petty crime its serious shit.

Are you Thompson or what??

I think it is a bit difficult to say that kids at that age are fully aware of their actions, all behavior is learnt imo, it is therefore proper ( imo ) to not place 100% of the blame at their feet even more so at that age. Because ( imo ) all behavior is learnt, it is able to be un-learnt, therefore punishment should be aimed towards this end. Otherwise, there is no point to punishment, if the aim of punishment is simply punish, i cant see where hope for a better society can be learnt from.

Sutcliff et al to me are very different cases. They are for one older, so imo more aware of their actions, there was also an sexual aspects to their crime. Therefore, it seems that basic human instinct, the want of sex, seems to be playing an aspect. Referting a basic human instinct which seems to be faulty and over riding the human communal instinct is a much more difficult proposal. This makes it less of a behavior issue, as the behavior of sex etc. is arguably an internal instinct and harder to then un-learn. Rather than a total dis-respect for human right to life or dignity, which is more of a learnt behavior imo.

Not Thompson man, just someone who believes in the innate goodness of humans!

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Mon 8th Mar 2010 09:00 pm