John Venables

[Oz647]

I must admit if it had been my boy they killed I would spend my life tracking them both down and stop at nothing until they were dead.

Same here but that is the reason why we have a justice system.

A justice system that not only allows them total anonymity for the rest of their lives, it actually helps them create new identities and all the encouragement they might need to start new lives.

Venables and Thomson were free from custody after only serving just over half of their sentence.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Why? If you read my first post you will see that the reason they do this is because of the fact that they would probably be murdered, hounded by mobs etc. They don't do that because they want them to go off and have a fantastic life! We live in a country where once you have served your time you are free and everyone is entitled to that right.

I think what people forget is that this isn't the only murder since 1993. The press have highlighted this case and turned these two men (10 year old boys) into hated figures. What about all the rest of the criminals. The media sway so much.

I had a relative who was beaten to death by her boyfriend. He no doubt will be out in about 6 years maybe less. I want nothing more for him to be rehabilitated so that he cannot do the same thing again. If not it means that the justice system is failing.

I agree but if the person has been released on licence he has not served his time. If he then goes on to re-offend then surely that shows that the system has not worked. If he had not been released he would have not re-offended and someone would not be assaulted/raped/killed etc. I also think it depends on the details of the murder ie: was it one of these shot a burglar jobs or was it a vicious evil twisted ******* that tortured and killed a poor 10 yr old and will more than likely go on to re-offend.

We see too many cases of people being released early and then going on to kill again.

I ask you then, Peter Sutcliffe has served his time and is apparently a low risk to the public. Should he be released and would you be happy with him living next door to you. He's served his time so he should be ok, right?

[Alex MacLeod]

I agree but if the person has been released on licence he has not served his time. If he then goes on to re-offend then surely that shows that the system has not worked. If he had not been released he would have not re-offended and someone would not be assaulted/raped/killed etc. I also think it depends on the details of the murder ie: was it one of these shot a burglar jobs or was it a vicious evil twisted ******* that tortured and killed a poor 10 yr old and will more than likely go on to re-offend.

We see too many cases of people being released early and then going on to kill again.

I ask you then, Peter Sutcliffe has served his time and is apparently a low risk to the public. Should he be released and would you be happy with him living next door to you. He's served his time so he should be ok, right?

The perpetrators were 10. The victim was 3.

[dan_ict]

I think all of us have done something wrong in our childhood.

Cant say ive killed a few people when i was 10

Were you allowed watching horror films at 10?

Yes...Why ?

[Oz647]

I agree but if the person has been released on licence he has not served his time. If he then goes on to re-offend then surely that shows that the system has not worked. If he had not been released he would have not re-offended and someone would not be assaulted/raped/killed etc. I also think it depends on the details of the murder ie: was it one of these shot a burglar jobs or was it a vicious evil twisted ******* that tortured and killed a poor 10 yr old and will more than likely go on to re-offend.

We see too many cases of people being released early and then going on to kill again.

I ask you then, Peter Sutcliffe has served his time and is apparently a low risk to the public. Should he be released and would you be happy with him living next door to you. He's served his time so he should be ok, right?

The perpetrators were 10. The victim was 3.

Sorry, got so ingrossed in my post that I missed that but my point still stands.

[MrsICTFC]

[Oz647]

[MrsICTFC]

Edited March 8, 2010 by MrsICTFC

[Oz647]

I honestly believe that it all depends on the circumstances for example,

A man kills a burglar in his own house whilst protecting his family/property. After serving part of his sentence he is released on licence and moves next door. Not a problem for me

On the other hand a burglar kills a man whilst robbing his house. Serves some of his sentence, released on licence, moves next door. I'm not happy about it.

Both guilty of murder but due to the circumstances I would accept one but not the other.

This is why I could never accept that the two killers should be free. The vile and vicious way in which they killed Jamie Bulger IMO shows that they are either evil through and through or mentally unstable. Either way they are more than likely to re-offend.

Yes, he may have driven a car without a licence or stole a bag of sweets but somehow I doubt it's that simple.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Oz647

[+DoofersDad]

I think I'm with Oz on this one but it raises a lot of questions.

The idea of rehabilitation in general is laudable. Many people offend because they get influenced by a bad crowd or because they are young and don't understand the implications of what they do or things get out of hand and they panic. This can involve quite serious crimes - perhaps even resulting in someone's death - but people do learn to realise that what they have done was bad and they can become genuinely remorseful. Jimmy Boyle was one who did a lot of good work once he understood the harm that his former gang culture life did.

However, just as many can be rehabilitated, there are a huge number of people convicted of serious crimes who are released only to re-offend. Killers and rapists who kill and rape again. Often these people have been thoroughly assessed by the experts and are deemed to be safe to return to society. But some slip through the net and therefore releasing them presents a risk to the general population. So who do we give the benefit of the doubt to - the killer who has served his time or the general public? I know it may seem unfair on someone who is genuinely remorseful for the crime they committed but why should they and not the innocent member of the public get the benefit of the doubt?

I think there are some crimes which are so horrendous, where the cruelty inflicted by the attacker is so sadistic and/or pre-meditated that there has to be something far wrong with them. These are people who have taken pleasure from inflicting pain and fear on their victims and that sickness will always be there inside them. Venables may only have been 10 when he committed the crime but he knew what he was doing. It seems terrible to say this of a 10 year old but I agree he should never have been released.

But where do you draw the line of who should be released and for who "life" should mean life? I don't know. And what do you do with them? If they are never going to be released and they know that, what do they do? Is there any way that they can live a useful life and pay back some of their debt to society when in prison? Where the criminal actually is genuinely remorseful they would want to be of some use. Or should we say that some crimes are such that by perpetrating them the criminal relinquishes their right to life and we bring back the death penalty?

Many argue that the measure of a civilised society is whether it still has the death penalty or not. I can't agree with that. If we agree that there are a handful of individuals who can never be released, then it may actually be more humane to them to kill them by lethal injection than to live in constant fear of retribution by other prisoners who may learn who they are and what they've done. It would also save money which can then be spent on rehabilitating lesser offenders and in preventing crime. A truly civilised society is not one which does not have the death penalty, it is one which does not need the death penalty.

[MrsICTFC]

This is why I could never accept that the two killers should be free. The vile and vicious way in which they killed Jamie Bulger IMO shows that they are either evil through and through or mentally unstable. Either way they are more than likely to re-offend.

Yes, he may have driven a car without a licence or stole a bag of sweets but somehow I doubt it's that simple.

In relation to the original topic I read this yesterday and thought it was interesting:

Nobody would wish to belittle the ghastly fate that befell James Bulger. Letting his killers attempt to redeem themselves in peace does not do that. But we should be mindful of the fact that indignation is relatively easy to satisfy, and demands no sacrifice, no exposure to horrid experience, no damage to the soul. To continue feeding indignation against a 10-year-old boy who glimpsed Hell, and who knew it, is at best unworthy, and at worst is itself a manifestation of wickedness. "

I'd apply the issue of 'right to know' to James' mother as well as the public in general. I do not think that she has a special right to insight into the lives of her son's killers - their time was served, they are not her property as they are not the media's.

I think much of the pitchfork craziness around this story is very easily explained - people WANT Jon Venables to have committed some heinous crime. They want him vilified, they want evidence that he is 'bad' or 'evil' or 'rotten inside', that there is something inherently criminal and wicked within him. Because if he is evil, we don't have to look too long or hard at the failures that turned him into a killer. We don't have to accept blame. We don't have to try to understand the warped psychology of a damaged little boy or examine how differently things might have turned out. If Jon Venables is evil, it all becomes very simple and easy - we are absolved of the blame.

My point still stands as a country we are failing if we cannot find the reasons why people re-offend.

[Oz647]

This is why I could never accept that the two killers should be free. The vile and vicious way in which they killed Jamie Bulger IMO shows that they are either evil through and through or mentally unstable. Either way they are more than likely to re-offend.

Yes, he may have driven a car without a licence or stole a bag of sweets but somehow I doubt it's that simple.

In relation to the original topic I read this yesterday and thought it was interesting:

Nobody would wish to belittle the ghastly fate that befell James Bulger. Letting his killers attempt to redeem themselves in peace does not do that. But we should be mindful of the fact that indignation is relatively easy to satisfy, and demands no sacrifice, no exposure to horrid experience, no damage to the soul. To continue feeding indignation against a 10-year-old boy who glimpsed Hell, and who knew it, is at best unworthy, and at worst is itself a manifestation of wickedness. "

I'd apply the issue of 'right to know' to James' mother as well as the public in general. I do not think that she has a special right to insight into the lives of her son's killers - their time was served, they are not her property as they are not the media's.

I think much of the pitchfork craziness around this story is very easily explained - people WANT Jon Venables to have committed some heinous crime. They want him vilified, they want evidence that he is 'bad' or 'evil' or 'rotten inside', that there is something inherently criminal and wicked within him. Because if he is evil, we don't have to look too long or hard at the failures that turned him into a killer. We don't have to accept blame. We don't have to try to understand the warped psychology of a damaged little boy or examine how differently things might have turned out. If Jon Venables is evil, it all becomes very simple and easy - we are absolved of the blame.

My point still stands as a country we are failing if we cannot find the reasons why people re-offend.

I don't really agree with the article posted but I do agree with your final note. I believe we are failing even more by giving them the chance to re-offend

Re the death penalty, why not have it as a choice for the offender ie: You are found guilty and sentenced to life without the chance of parole or you may opt for the death penalty. Some people may find life in jail too much to bare and opt to die by lethal injection. Obviously it would have to be after all the appeals and such like. If you are innocent you will not opt for this and keep fighting too clear your name thereby keeping the chance of innocent people losing their lives to a minimum. I'm sure there will be a lot of people who disagree with my thoughts on this but it's an option.

I think if I had killed someone and faced the rest of my life in jail with no chnace of parole , I'd consider it. But hey, that's just my opinion for what it's worth.