View Full Version : Jamie Bulger - one of his killers back in jail
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm
One of the killers of two-year-old James Bulger is back in prison after breaching the terms of his release.
Jon Venables, 27, was released on life licence in 2001.
He was detained with his friend Robert Thompson in 1993 - when both boys were aged 10 - for the horrific murder of the toddler in Bootle, Liverpool.
The Ministry of Justice said: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody following a breach of licence conditions."
Details of the nature of the breach were not released.
Venables' solicitor, Laurence Lee, told the BBC: "He could have been recalled on licence if he committed an offence, it could be that he returned to Merseyside, it could be he might have approached the family.
"There is no evidence so far that he did any of these things."
Venables was released from custody in 2001 and given a new identity
Retired Det Supt Albert Kirby, who led the murder inquiry, said he was surprised Venables was back behind bars.
He added: "I've always thought, with regards to that particular boy, that from what we've heard over the years there was every possibility he would have avoided going back into prison."
A relative of Denise Fergus, James's mother, said the family had no plans to comment on Venables' return to prison at this time.
But Mr Kirby told BBC News he had spoken to James's mother and the news had brought "a whole load of anxiety" back to her.
He said: "There's always been a lot of anxiety as to where both boys are.
"To hear something like that this evening; it brings back to her a lot of the concerns, quite understandably, that she and any other parents in these sorts of circumstances would have."
On 13 February, 1993, Venables and Thompson abducted James from a shopping centre in Bootle and killed him on a railway line.
A week-long appeal followed, with CCTV footage being released of the little boy holding the hand of one of his killers as he was led out of the Strand shopping centre.
The toddler had been approached and befriended by the two boys while his mother, Denise, was in a shop.
James's body was found by children playing on a freight railway line near Walton Lane police station.
He had been beaten to death with bricks and an iron bar.
The 10-year-old killers were arrested days later and became the youngest to be charged with murder in the 20th Century.
Eight months later they were convicted following a 17-day trial at Preston Crown Court and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Trial judge Mr Justice Morland told the pair they had committed a crime of "unparalleled evil and barbarity".
In 1999 the European Court of Human Rights decided they should not have been tried in an adult court.
Despite public outcry, two years later the parole board recommended their release as they "were no longer a danger to society".
More than 300,000 people signed a petition saying the sentence of eight years was too short.
Both Thompson and Venables were given new identities when they were released after serving eight years in custody
An order prohibiting the publication of details which could reveal their whereabouts has remained in place since their release.
8 years was never enough - one is back where he belongs.
Boozeburglar
03-Mar-10, 00:09
I have a feeling that these guys are more likely to be good candidates for rehabilitation than most.
Give them a chance I say.
I have a feeling that these guys are more likely to be good candidates for rehabilitation than most.
Give them a chance I say.
They have been, and one is back in jail. What does that say for rehabilitation?
Boozeburglar
03-Mar-10, 00:12
You know the details relating to his return????
After reading this, my thought would be that, if they took their freedom seriously they would know the exact terms of their release and if truly rehabilitated, remorsed or whatever, then I'd have thought they would monitor their behaviour and actions, so as not to be taken back to jail.
Whatever the reason for Jon Venables having his licence revoked his case will have to go back to the Parole Board. It may be that he hasn’t fulfilled a condition of his parole or he may have committed another crime. There are numerous reasons for this to happen. Meanwhile the ‘red tops’ will try to bump their circulation by speculating. No doubt we’ll find out in due course.
Boozeburglar
03-Mar-10, 00:40
It may mean that the system is working.
Whatever the reason for Jon Venables having his licence revoked his case will have to go back to the Parole Board. It may be that he hasn’t fulfilled a condition of his parole or he may have committed another crime. There are numerous reasons for this to happen. Meanwhile the ‘red tops’ will try to bump their circulation by speculating. No doubt we’ll find out in due course.
I suspect heads will role if this info was leaked. I strongly suspect the information about the return to prison should not have been made public.
I don't believe in rehabilitation.
I believe in punishment.
I don't think this crime has been punished.
More details in this morning's Times here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7047287.ece)
porshiepoo
03-Mar-10, 09:12
There's no way those boys have been punished sufficiently for their actions and should not have been released, ever!
Rehabilitation is wasted on the likes of those two boys!
My 2 girls were James' age when those monsters took him and i can still remember how I felt that 2 lads of their age could do something so heinous to anyone let alone a 2 year old boy.
Boozburglar: I just do not understand why you would think they should have a second chance in life, I really don't.
When they took James they had planned to take a child, they had every opportunity during that 2 mile walk to leave him or take him back. Instead they taunted him, tried to drown him, assaulted him, abused him and then left him in such a position that a train ran over him. The whole time he was crying for his mummy!
I personally hope that someone finds out the new identity of those boys and gives them exactly what they deserve.
I just hope that whatever condition Venables has 'breached' has not cost the life of another innocent person.
I always wondered though how those people who didn't intervene on that 2 mile trip have coped over the years.
Venables and Thompson told one lady that stopped them that they had found James and were taking him to the police station. Shockingly the woman let them carry on despite being uneasy about it.
There were a fair few others that stopped or were concerned on that trip also.
I know hindsight is a wonderful thing but I'd like to think that in that situation I would follow it through and take charge.
Maybe an innocent life could have been saved.
vigilante action is never the answer, it is dangerous and wrong. I can completely understand why people do it, but more people get hurt.
John Little
03-Mar-10, 10:55
I really don't understand people shouting about punishment now these people are in their 20s; what more should we do?
Take a look at this - I am in it aged 10. The same age as Thompson and Venables when they committed their awful crime.
http://www.caithness.org/schooldays/milleracademy/1962/milleracademycentenary1962b.htm
My class look fairly average to me - not monsters but 10 year old kids.
So what do some people want?
String 'em up?
Would that make people feel good? A society where we kill kids?......
onecalledk
03-Mar-10, 12:14
whilst i no way am defending the two 10 yr olds who did this awful thing we are forgetting in our digust and horror of what they did that they were CHILDREN.
Children who did what they did are severely damaged and that damage was done by the adults in their lives. No children of that age should have done what they did to that poor child but they would have learnt what they did from others in their lives. Children LEARN evil, they learn their world from the adults around them, so what does that say about the lives of the two boys who murdered Jamie Bulger ?
The two boys who recently were in the news after attacking 2 children in england are the same. The story of what they were exposed to was shocking. It was enivitable they would go on to harm those around them.
I remember reading the same sort of horror when the case was in the papers years ago.
We as a society FAIL our children every day. When 2 yr old children are left with their parents and found dead with broken backs and appauling injuries the people to blame are society.
It is all too easy for people to turn a blind eye or blame work pressures or to hide behind "protocol". Last week was the jailing of the "mother" of a child who STARVED her child to death. Police and social work didnt have the power to stop her! A neighbour who saw this little girl said she didnt want to interfere when she saw her scavaging for food in the back garden. What sort of society have we become when we think of ourselves and the trouble we could be in over the needs of an innocent child?
Children in this country will unfortunately continue to die whether at the hands of their peers or adults until this country does something to stop it.
This is the 21st century for goodness sake yet children have no more rights in law than they did in victorian times. As someone so rightly pointed out in a previous thread there is no human rights law signed by this country for the children in this country. Children have NO VOICE in this country legally.
So yes the crimes these two committed were shocking and horrible but I would put money on they themselves having endured some appauling abuse to go on to do this to another child.
A parent is supposed to nurture, protect and love their children. They are meant to educate between right and wrong and keep them on track. So what happens if that parent is a drug addict or sexual predator? The law gives rights to the adult NOT the child...........
There are thousands and thousands of children in this country right now going through hell at the hands of those who should protect them, unless something is done to stop these adults then we will keep producing children who are capable of killing .......
K
Until the full facts of this case are known, I think that people should refrain from making knee jerk reactions in response to media headlines.
I also ask myself, if this was a Caithness based case would the Org allow thread? There have been several instances of local police enquiries being "removed"
Until the full facts of this case are known, I think that people should refrain from making knee jerk reactions in response to media headlines.
No knee jerk reactions as far as I can see, He is a convicted killer, let out on license, he has broken his license , no get out of jail free card, back to jail to serve his full sentence.
A much better media frenzy than the one you posted about dogs killing a deer.
porshiepoo
03-Mar-10, 13:20
I only hope that another one of his licence conditions is that if he breaks those conditions he loses his right to anonymity.
I understand people saying that this was something he did as a child, but does that somehow make it more acceptable? Not IMO. Does it somehow mean that we should assume he is rehabilitated? Nope, not IMO.
Perhaps these boys were subjected to some awful abuse within their home life, maybe they were let down by the adults in their life and maybe they were even let down by the system and in hindsight just maybe some kind of violent reaction was inevitable.
Does all of that mean that they are well adjusted individuals now? That society is safe while they are in it? That they are not capable of doing it all again.
Certainly not. And I'm guessing that Jamies parents are hoping and praying that Venables is off the streets for good.
IMO there are some crimes that just cannot be forgiven or forgotten.
Anfield, don't be so ridiculous. This is a worldwide topic and will be subject to worldwide debate.
If you don't like it don't participate in this thread but please do not attempt to cause a stir and get this thread locked.
You are entitled to your opinion, as are we. You've made your opinion quite clear and I assume that you will not be participating in this topic any further. Good for you, that's your right.
However, there are some people that do wish to talk about it and give their opinion. That is our right, please respect it as we respect yours!
porshiepoo
03-Mar-10, 13:27
I really don't understand people shouting about punishment now these people are in their 20s; what more should we do?
Take a look at this - I am in it aged 10. The same age as Thompson and Venables when they committed their awful crime.
http://www.caithness.org/schooldays/milleracademy/1962/milleracademycentenary1962b.htm
My class look fairly average to me - not monsters but 10 year old kids.
So what do some people want?
String 'em up?
Would that make people feel good? A society where we kill kids?......
Lovely picture, but if you were a convicted Kidnapper, abuser, torturer and murderer I would be saying the exact same thing about you.
To answer the latter part of your question I would have to answer it as if I were the one that had lost my child in such a heinous way.
The answer would be yes, string em up, put them down, do whatever it takes to make sure they'll never do such a thing again.
I understand the argument that the parents are to blame also and i can go along with that - to a point! My answer to that would be, castrate or neuter the parents. ;)
Heck if an animal is not suitable for breeding that's what we do, why not do it to people that are not suitable to have kids? There's plenty of em!
Parents nowadays have their kids taken from them at birth if they're deemed unfit parents, just stop them reproducing in the first place.
onecalledk
03-Mar-10, 13:35
I understand people saying that this was something he did as a child, but does that somehow make it more acceptable? Not IMO. Does it somehow mean that we should assume he is rehabilitated? Nope, not IMO.
Perhaps these boys were subjected to some awful abuse within their home life, maybe they were let down by the adults in their life and maybe they were even let down by the system and in hindsight just maybe some kind of violent reaction was inevitable.
Does all of that mean that they are well adjusted individuals now? That society is safe while they are in it? That they are not capable of doing it all again.
Certainly not. And I'm guessing that Jamies parents are hoping and praying that Venables is off the streets for good.
IMO there are some crimes that just cannot be forgiven or forgotten.
totally agree with you and as I said in my post I am not defending them. However the fact that this discussion has been reignited has once again highlighted that this country needs to look at how we treat our children FROM BIRTH.
The case involving the two boys in england WOULD NEVER have happened had society put in place lessons learned from the Jamie Bulger case years ago. In fact had social services intervened a lot earlier a lot of what those two boys did would not have had a chance to happen.
Perhaps as a society we should stop believing that children are always better of WITH their parents.......
I agree about the anonymity and wonder why it was in the press at all if this is not going to be waved. The horror of what they did will never be forgotten and this must be extremely distressing for Jamie Bulgers parents who must feel they are once again reliving the horror.
We are also assuming that the two boys were rehabilitated, were they? what was done by way of rehabilitating? is it possible to undo the trauma and harm done to a child of that young age that drives him to take the life of another child? None of these details are given just that he is back in prison.
The press in their sensationalism is failing to acknowledge the human tragedy behind their headlines.......
K
If they had done that to my 2 year old then 10 or 110 I would want them dead. Any young child that can do that is sick and should spend the rest of the days locked away like the animal they are. Say what you want this is my opinion let them rot in hell.
there are animals i say hang them high
there are monsters they are not human in my eyes what a waste of tax payers money
krackenkid
03-Mar-10, 14:26
totally agree, they should never have been released, and one day people will find out there true identities, what worrys me is if they have a child of there own? will they tell there partner/wife who they really are and what they did??
i think we have a right to no who they are and where they live, so we can keep our children safe, if you had a pedophile living next door i'm sure you'd want to no boozebugler.
totally agree, they should never have been released, and one day people will find out there true identities, what worrys me is if they have a child of there own? will they tell there partner/wife who they really are and what they did??
i think we have a right to no who they are and where they live, so we can keep our children safe, if you had a pedophile living next door i'm sure you'd want to no boozebugler.
Oh lord I had not even thought that far ahead. Imagine finding out one of them had fathered your bairn how devastating.
John Little
03-Mar-10, 17:35
"The answer would be yes, string em up, put them down, do whatever it takes to make sure they'll never do such a thing again."
"there are animals i say hang them high "
"there are monsters they are not human in my eyes what a waste of tax payers money "
Look guys. Let's take a reality check here. Go down to your local primary - try not to get taken for a perve. Take a good look at the ten year olds milling round the gate.
Then imagine hanging one of them.
If you can seriously consider that- as adults- then the monstrous deeds of two ten year olds pale into insignificance compared with the sick proposal that it should be acceptable to hang kids.
People who want to hurt kids worry me and I would not want to live next door to them.
Until the full facts of this case are known, I think that people should refrain from making knee jerk reactions in response to media headlines.
I also ask myself, if this was a Caithness based case would the Org allow thread? There have been several instances of local police enquiries being "removed"
'People should refrain'? who are you?
annthracks
03-Mar-10, 18:00
Any members of a parole board who release a murderer or rapist or paedophile to commit again should receive the same punishment as the sicko that they've allowed out amongst us!!
come on they knew exactly what they were doing 10 year olds or not that little boy was tortured by two monsters not normal ten year olds in my eyes
Mystical Potato Head
03-Mar-10, 18:04
"The answer would be yes, string em up, put them down, do whatever it takes to make sure they'll never do such a thing again."
"there are animals i say hang them high "
"there are monsters they are not human in my eyes what a waste of tax payers money "
Look guys. Let's take a reality check here. Go down to your local primary - try not to get taken for a perve. Take a good look at the ten year olds milling round the gate.
Then imagine hanging one of them.
If you can seriously consider that- as adults- then the monstrous deeds of two ten year olds pale into insignificance compared with the sick proposal that it should be acceptable to hang kids.
People who want to hurt kids worry me and I would not want to live next door to them.
Perhaps of some of those kids got a good boot up the arse or a skelp or two around the lugs from their parents they would maybe realise what is right and wrong.
Too many times you can walk down the street and see little kids being proper little shites and hear parents meekly telling their kids not to do this or that and the kids dont pay a blind bit of notice to it.
But the do gooders wont allow a skud round the ear without making a song and dance about.
I'm not advocating cruelty here,just a good boot up the arse so the pain level makes them cry,they'll soon stop misbehaving then.
Tubthumper
03-Mar-10, 18:08
Fair point MPH. I get the feeling though that giving their parents a good boot up the jacksy might have helped.
Some of these feral wretches we keep hearing about are the result of ill-advised breeding. And nothing that is happening is deterring that.
Mystical Potato Head
03-Mar-10, 18:26
Fair point MPH. I get the feeling though that giving their parents a good boot up the jacksy might have helped.
Some of these feral wretches we keep hearing about are the result of ill-advised breeding. And nothing that is happening is deterring that.
Undoubtedly some of these so called parents are the sole cause for their kids total lack of control or respect for anyone or anything.
"The answer would be yes, string em up, put them down, do whatever it takes to make sure they'll never do such a thing again."
"there are animals i say hang them high "
"there are monsters they are not human in my eyes what a waste of tax payers money "
Look guys. Let's take a reality check here. Go down to your local primary - try not to get taken for a perve. Take a good look at the ten year olds milling round the gate.
Then imagine hanging one of them.
If you can seriously consider that- as adults- then the monstrous deeds of two ten year olds pale into insignificance compared with the sick proposal that it should be acceptable to hang kids.
People who want to hurt kids worry me and I would not want to live next door to them.
I agree with your sentiments, even America draws the line at executing children. Unfortunately after reading some of the posts on here there would be no shortage of people in this country who would hang a child.
A few posters blame the parents, but what made he parents the way they turned out to be?
Modern society has created this mess, but seems unable to offer any solutions.
I agree with your sentiments, even America draws the line at executing children. Unfortunately after reading some of the posts on here there would be no shortage of people in this country who would hang a child.
A few posters blame the parents, but what made he parents the way they turned out to be?
Modern society has created this mess, but seems unable to offer any solutions.
Don't blame society for evil people. Some people just are, but society has to take responsibility for dealing with them. I'm with Robert Heinlien on this.
John Little
03-Mar-10, 19:34
"I'm not advocating cruelty here,just a good boot up the arse so the pain level makes them cry"
That would send you to jail my friend.
See page 11
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/Assaultsonchildren&Crueltytoachild%20ConsultationguidelineFINAL-2007-06-21-JS.pdf
I'm with Anfield. It's our sick shallow society that creates monsters. Take a look on Youtube. Or watch some of the movies those two from Edlington watched. Monsters are made; they don't make themselves.
One thing I do know. Ye bring up a wean to think violence settles things and ye'll get a violent grownup.
.
onecalledk
03-Mar-10, 19:40
Violence against children is wrong full stop. There is a fine line between smacking a child as a punishment and attacking a child. Unfortunately there are parents out there that go way over the line hence we have the laws that we do.
Extreme violence by all accounts made those 2 boys into the "monsters" that they became. CHildren are NOT born evil. If we go down that route of thinking then we may as well sterilise the whole country!
I am NOT defending what the children did but children are sponges and soak up the lessons they learn from those around them. I would imagine (cos i dont personally know any of you) that all those who posted to this thread who are parents are loving , fair parents who do the best for their children. So you would chastise your child and teach right from wrong which is the role of a parent. But for every decent parent out there there are people who are not fit to look after a dog never mind a child!
The parents of the 2 boys responsible for the Bulger murder were never prosecuted although they had other children they had taken into care. Are they not as responsible for what happened as their offspring was ??? Do they bear NO responsibility for CREATING the monsters those children turned into ?
Unfortunately today in the 21st century when you look at an average playground of primary school pupils 1 in 9 of those children is affected by domestic violence if not more. In the case of the little girl that was starved to death by HER OWN mother she was home educated, whilst most of the home educated kids are safe how many of them are STILL in the situation that little girl was in? they are not on anyones radar .....
If we come from the standpoint that children are born evil then we abdicate our responsibility as a society. Our children are the adults of tomorrow. Look around and see the state of the world as it is. THe world is a much more violent out of control place than it was a few years ago. WE have teenagers accepting that violence is ACCEPTABLE in intimate relationships, we have children attacking children ........
SOmething has to be done to reverse the harm that is being done and soon........
K
"Anger mounts as Straw refuses to reveal why Bulger killer Jon Venables is back behind bars"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254956/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-returned-prison.html#ixzz0h96rv6cs
skinnydog
03-Mar-10, 21:26
How about the judge that let them out offering to let them live in her street? I think she would be less than happy to volunteer for that one......
northener
03-Mar-10, 22:06
I don't buy into this idea that the parents or society are necessarily to blame for every single crime that is comitted by kids.
Some people have a nasty streak in them from the day they are born, given the right catalyst - be it another person, or a set of circumstances - and, suddenly, who knows what they are capable of.
Every community has children amongst them that are just plain 'wrong'.
Emotionally charged statements such as 'the innocent children' simply re-enforce the belief that children are simply automatons - incapable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and that somehow they are completely blameless for their actions. Don't you believe it.
Unfortunately, we'll now be swamped with the Tabloids shrieking their fury and having a good ole rabble rousing session with an indignant public. The ugly mob is on the move again.....
Some people have a nasty streak in them from the day they are born, given the right catalyst - be it another person, or a set of circumstances - and, suddenly, who knows what they are capable of.
Every community has children amongst them that are just plain 'wrong'.
Children can be born with a whole range of clinical conditions which may affect their future life. Luckily the number of complaints which are carried into adulthood is reducing all the time, thanks to the advances in medical science.
However, I would be very interested in finding out what scientific/medical tests are used to ascertain whether or not a child has a ""nasty streak in them from the day they are born" I certainly have not come across such research
Furthermore, your comment that "..Every community has children amongst them that are just plain 'wrong'.." is interesting, offensive. and possibly discriminatory .
What scientific tests/papers are you relying to come to this ridiculous conclusion
jock leith
04-Mar-10, 01:40
After reading most of the replies to this thread, a lot of people blame the way that those two boys were brought up.With lack of parental guidance etc.
If you are of this mindset, are you letting your kids play some of the games on their Playstations etc,most of them are very violent with lots of killings and gore
Who will you blame if your kids commits a crime on the same scale as those two did.?????????????????????????
JDL
After reading most of the replies to this thread, a lot of people blame the way that those two boys were brought up.With lack of parental guidance etc.
If you are of this mindset, are you letting your kids play some of the games on their Playstations etc,most of them are very violent with lots of killings and gore
Who will you blame if your kids commits a crime on the same scale as those two did.?????????????????????????
JDL
Hopefully most parents won't let kids play certain games until they feel they are mature enough. Also if you are a good parent I would hope you have managed to instill in them the difference between reality and a video game and a sense of right and wrong. You can't simply blame video games.
Violence against children is wrong full stop. There is a fine line between smacking a child as a punishment and attacking a child. Unfortunately there are parents out there that go way over the line hence we have the laws that we do.
Extreme violence by all accounts made those 2 boys into the "monsters" that they became. CHildren are NOT born evil. If we go down that route of thinking then we may as well sterilise the whole country!
I am NOT defending what the children did but children are sponges and soak up the lessons they learn from those around them. I would imagine (cos i dont personally know any of you) that all those who posted to this thread who are parents are loving , fair parents who do the best for their children. So you would chastise your child and teach right from wrong which is the role of a parent. But for every decent parent out there there are people who are not fit to look after a dog never mind a child!
The parents of the 2 boys responsible for the Bulger murder were never prosecuted although they had other children they had taken into care. Are they not as responsible for what happened as their offspring was ??? Do they bear NO responsibility for CREATING the monsters those children turned into ?
Unfortunately today in the 21st century when you look at an average playground of primary school pupils 1 in 9 of those children is affected by domestic violence if not more. In the case of the little girl that was starved to death by HER OWN mother she was home educated, whilst most of the home educated kids are safe how many of them are STILL in the situation that little girl was in? they are not on anyones radar .....
If we come from the standpoint that children are born evil then we abdicate our responsibility as a society. Our children are the adults of tomorrow. Look around and see the state of the world as it is. THe world is a much more violent out of control place than it was a few years ago. WE have teenagers accepting that violence is ACCEPTABLE in intimate relationships, we have children attacking children ........
SOmething has to be done to reverse the harm that is being done and soon........
K
Very well said. That. with a skelp(like I got when I did wrong), pretty well sums it up. And Monkey see....monkey do!
northener
04-Mar-10, 09:59
Children can be born with a whole range of clinical conditions which may affect their future life. Luckily the number of complaints which are carried into adulthood is reducing all the time, thanks to the advances in medical science.
However, I would be very interested in finding out what scientific/medical tests are used to ascertain whether or not a child has a ""nasty streak in them from the day they are born" I certainly have not come across such research
I'm sorry to hear that my lack of "scientific evidence" does not meet with your approval. Perhaps you could explain why children from stable backgrounds, in decent schools, with caring parents choose to inflict pain and torment upon their those around them?
Unless, of course you are of the opinion that bullying and cruelty is only the preserve of low income families in social housing? Now there's a discriminatory remark for you to chew on.....
Furthermore, your comment that "..Every community has children amongst them that are just plain 'wrong'.." is interesting, offensive. and possibly discriminatory .
What scientific tests/papers are you relying to come to this ridiculous conclusion
My "ridiculous conclusion" is based upon my opinion. Period.
onecalledk
04-Mar-10, 10:48
There is scientific research that shows that a childs is hardwired as it were by the age of 2. ANYTHING that happens to that child by that age will be ingrained and is very difficult if not impossible to change at a later age.
In the USA years ago a little child was found in atrocious conditions in a farmhouse. She had been devoid of human contact and had not been taught to speak or communicate with those around her by her "parents". This little girls spent her entire life til she was found tied to a bed in a dark room. The psychiatrists who worked with this little girl found that no matter how much they tried to "educate" her it didnt work. Brain scans on the little girl showed that the frontal part of her brain was missing a key part which normally forms in humans by the time they reach 2 yrs of age. This is a developmental process that cannot be reproduced later on in the childs life. It is a normal developmental process that happens to us all.
The research bears out that the most significant years of a childs life are 0 - 2 yrs old. EVERYTHING that child experiences til that age affects the development of this frontal part of the brain. Since the little american girl was kept in such awful conditions this part of her brain didnt develop and there was no way of changing this. She could be rehabilitated to a point but would never return to "normal".
So what has that got to do with the topic ? look around at how our society treats its young. How many toddlers live in households that use violence as an answer to all problems. Shouting matches, violence etc are fully absorbed by children TOO YOUNG to speak. They have little vocal skills but are fully aware of body language .
We dont go on about rampaging 2 yr old in nurseries as being a problem but that 2 yr old who is damaged by their surroundings is a time bomb constantly ticking.
Lots of adults just dont believe that children who are young can be affected by things around them. 0-2 is CRITICAL for the ongoing development of children. The pre school child is also at a lot of danger from its surroundings.......
By the time you get to an older child or teenager you are fighting an uphill and often lost battle !
Its is extremely worrying the attitude of society towards children these days. Violent video games are an easy scapegoat, WHO creates these video games ? How many people let there children watch pop videos without actually realising the sublimal messages that are contained in them. We are slowly sexualising and demonising our own children. Children have images and violence thrust at them from a very young age. For goodness sake we live in a society which thinks it acceptable to sell pole dancing poles (!) to 6 yr old girls !
As a society we need to stop and think what message we are giving our children. We CANNOT just blame the children when a tragedy happens, society has its role to play in creating it !
K
I'm sorry to hear that my lack of "scientific evidence" does not meet with your approval. Perhaps you could explain why children from stable backgrounds, in decent schools, with caring parents choose to inflict pain and torment upon their those around them?
Unless, of course you are of the opinion that bullying and cruelty is only the preserve of low income families in social housing? Now there's a discriminatory remark for you to chew on.....
My "ridiculous conclusion" is based upon my opinion. Period.
Could not put it more succinct myself.
I'm from a council house estate, beaten up by my father (knocked out at times) - had rather a rough bringing up - but I don't go around like the person mentioned here.
In fact I have - maybe because of my formative years -, disliked intensely 'Bullies' who attempt either to impose their view upon others though physical or so-called egocentric views. I do not know if this is some defect or other of those types; nature/nurture?.
But we all have our opinions, whether gained by personal experience, .. can't really say that much as I accept in some cases I can bow to the superior knowledge of those who have maybe undertaking intensive educational learning upon the subject?
northener
04-Mar-10, 11:13
Here's a question for those who believe that evil is always 'formed' (for want of a better description) as opposed to already being part of a persons makeup from birth:
Are Psychopaths born or created?
daddycool
04-Mar-10, 12:15
Here's a question for those who believe that evil is always 'formed' (for want of a better description) as opposed to already being part of a persons makeup from birth:
Are Psychopaths born or created?
I think the answer is both. Mental illness can be caused by life experiences and drugs etc as well as genetic factors and congenital defects.
My opinion is that despite the despicable acts that these children committed, they too are victims and it would have been very unlikely that they would have committed the atrocious crimes had they grown up in a caring and nurturing family and because of that they did deserve the chance to be rehabilitated. Obviously something has gone wrong in Venables case and it may be that he does need to be locked up but without knowing the full facts I will not make a judgement.
Here is another question: At what point does a victim become a monster? Imagine that poor Baby P had survived and the appalling abuse he suffered had gone undetected, then at age 8 he had inflicted the same type of abuse he had suffered onto another child. Would you call him a poor victim or an evil monster?
porshiepoo
04-Mar-10, 13:16
Here's a question for those who believe that evil is always 'formed' (for want of a better description) as opposed to already being part of a persons makeup from birth:
Are Psychopaths born or created?
Ahhhh, the age old question Nature or Nurture?
I don't think there's any real evidence that could point toward a genetic trait however I remember reading research on this kind of thing and many of the leading experts believe that you're not born a Psychopath but the foundations are there.
We have to remember that not all psychopaths come from violent or abusive backgrounds, just as many of them come from loving, caring backgrounds.
Personally I think that there are very early signs of Psychopathic behaviour in extremely young children but society is afraid of the stigma attached to 'labeling' a child with such a name.
The term 'Psychopath' conjures up many different images to many different people but generally it's along the lines of a nutter.
The actual truth couldn't be more different as a psychopath has the ability to charm as well as to be violent. They just go through life unbridled with the emotions we 'normal' people have that prevent us doing the kind of thing this thread is discussing.
They are depraved, emotionless, fearless people that have the capacity to plan, manipulate and distruct without any thought or feeling of others.
Born or made? Born or made? Haven't a clue!
Apologies, I'm way off topic.
To all those who claim that a young person can not be rehabilitated back into society, can I offer the case of Mary Bell.
She was 10 when she committed her crimes, and on her release from prison led a normal life and integrated completely back into society.
She also had a child who only found out about her mothers past when "investigative reporters" discovered their location and they had to flee.
Her accomplice in one of these murders has also been accepted back into society and has so far remained out of touch of reporters.
Below is a link to a story which compares Mary Bell to Venables/Thomson, and at the end of it is a poem, written by Mary bell to her mother
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/james-bulger-two-hearts-in-darkness-the-mystery-is-why-the-easy-answer-is-evil-gitta-sereny-has-the-unique-experience-of-covering-britains-two-most-sensational-cases-of-children-killing-children--trials-separated-by-25-years-but-with-much-in-common-their-similarities-may-yield-important-clues-1507262.html
daddycool
04-Mar-10, 13:37
After reading most of the replies to this thread, a lot of people blame the way that those two boys were brought up.With lack of parental guidance etc.
If you are of this mindset, are you letting your kids play some of the games on their Playstations etc,most of them are very violent with lots of killings and gore
Who will you blame if your kids commits a crime on the same scale as those two did.?????????????????????????
JDL
I don't let my kids play those kind of games but it is impossible to shield them from everything that I would rather them not be exposed to.
All the same, if one of my kids committed a crime like that then I would completely blame myself as my main purpose in life is to bring my children up to be responsible, caring, to know right from wrong and to be be a valuable contribution to society.
northener
04-Mar-10, 13:50
Ahhhh, the age old question Nature or Nurture?
I don't think there's any real evidence that could point toward a genetic trait however I remember reading research on this kind of thing and many of the leading experts believe that you're not born a Psychopath but the foundations are there.
We have to remember that not all psychopaths come from violent or abusive backgrounds, just as many of them come from loving, caring backgrounds.
Personally I think that there are very early signs of Psychopathic behaviour in extremely young children but society is afraid of the stigma attached to 'labeling' a child with such a name.
The term 'Psychopath' conjures up many different images to many different people but generally it's along the lines of a nutter.
The actual truth couldn't be more different as a psychopath has the ability to charm as well as to be violent. They just go through life unbridled with the emotions we 'normal' people have that prevent us doing the kind of thing this thread is discussing.
They are depraved, emotionless, fearless people that have the capacity to plan, manipulate and distruct without any thought or feeling of others.
Born or made? Born or made? Haven't a clue!
Apologies, I'm way off topic.
I'd say you're bang on topic, P.
I used the term 'Psychopath' in its' correct form for my argument. Whilst I agree with Anfield that many crimes are comitted as a result of social background, emotional and physical depravation and basically having a crap start in life, there are those who seem to become involved in criminal activity froma young age who have not had this poor start - or any evidence of problems in a domestic setting.
There is almost a popular expectation that any child involved in serious crime must be dressed in a certain way, must come from a certain socio-economic group and must have a background of domestic abuse.
I do not believe that this is a true reflection of the situation, certainly remembering a couple of children from my own background and from what I've seen working in an environment where young people are congregating would lead me to suggest things are not as straightforward as it would seem....
Like I said, sometimes all that is needed is a catalyst.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-10, 14:08
I'd say you're bang on topic, P.
I used the term 'Psychopath' in its' correct form for my argument. Whilst I agree with Anfield that many crimes are comitted as a result of social background, emotional and physical depravation and basically having a crap start in life, there are those who seem to become involved in criminal activity froma young age who have not had this poor start - or any evidence of problems in a domestic setting.
There is almost a popular expectation that any child involved in serious crime must be dressed in a certain way, must come from a certain socio-economic group and must have a background of domestic abuse.
I do not believe that this is a true reflection of the situation, certainly remembering a couple of children from my own background and from what I've seen working in an environment where young people are congregating would lead me to suggest things are not as straightforward as it would seem....
Like I said, sometimes all that is needed is a catalyst.
Completely agree.
A good example of a child showing possible signs of Psychopathic behaviour is a child that hits another child. If the child that has been hit cries but there is no response from the one that did the hitting, is this Psychopathic behaviour? The lack of remorse from the hitter would certainly suggest so but how many parents would be willing to accept such a diagnosis?
changilass
04-Mar-10, 14:13
Even if the parent was willing to accept it Porshie, its doesn't follow that they would be able to get any help.
Trying to get medical professionals to accept that you know your child and his/her needs is not always easy.
The whole system needs an overhaul.
onecalledk
04-Mar-10, 14:19
A good example of a child showing possible signs of Psychopathic behaviour is a child that hits another child. If the child that has been hit cries but there is no response from the one that did the hitting, is this Psychopathic behaviour? The lack of remorse from the hitter would certainly suggest so but how many parents would be willing to accept such a diagnosis?[/quote]
Psychopathic behaviour follows certain traits and can be diagnosed by psychiatrist. There is no evidence that either of the 2 boys accused of killing Jamie Bulger have that diagnosis.
Unfortunately medical terms for mental illness are chucked about willy nilly and the true term meaning is lost.
Children hit other children, fact. Anyone working in a nursery would attest to that. Children often bite other children. THat does not mean that they are psychopaths in the making, it does however need to be addressed by the parents and those caring for the child that this is not tolerated behaviour.
Early childhood trauma can set off mental illness as can other things as well. If we look at drugs then there is a body of evidence that shows that teenage boys taking cannibis have a very high chance of developing mental illness such as schizophrenia later on in life........
There are lots of things that come into play so I would think its difficult to pin point just one thing that will point to a child being a "monster" when they grow up.
It comes back to parenting, societies roles in the modelling of acceptable behaviour and genetic make up ......
K
porshiepoo
04-Mar-10, 15:03
A good example of a child showing possible signs of Psychopathic behaviour is a child that hits another child. If the child that has been hit cries but there is no response from the one that did the hitting, is this Psychopathic behaviour? The lack of remorse from the hitter would certainly suggest so but how many parents would be willing to accept such a diagnosis?
Psychopathic behaviour follows certain traits and can be diagnosed by psychiatrist. There is no evidence that either of the 2 boys accused of killing Jamie Bulger have that diagnosis.
Unfortunately medical terms for mental illness are chucked about willy nilly and the true term meaning is lost.
Children hit other children, fact. Anyone working in a nursery would attest to that. Children often bite other children. THat does not mean that they are psychopaths in the making, it does however need to be addressed by the parents and those caring for the child that this is not tolerated behaviour.
Early childhood trauma can set off mental illness as can other things as well. If we look at drugs then there is a body of evidence that shows that teenage boys taking cannibis have a very high chance of developing mental illness such as schizophrenia later on in life........
There are lots of things that come into play so I would think its difficult to pin point just one thing that will point to a child being a "monster" when they grow up.
It comes back to parenting, societies roles in the modelling of acceptable behaviour and genetic make up ......
K[/quote]
I haven't actually claimed that Venables or Thompson have been diagnosed as Psychopaths.
Yes, children hit each other all the time but the reaction from a child with possible Psychopathic tendencies will be very different from that of a 'normal' child. (hate the term 'normal' but there you have it)
If the parents do become involved in the scenario you mention, how much impact will their intervention have on the child if in fact the 'mental' condition they have is something they were born with? Or for arguments sake, they were born with the foundations of a 'mental' condition?
Do we blame the parents because they bore the child?
Taking a drug and suffering a mental condition is completely different from being born with the susceptibility of a mental condition.
Hmmmmm, having said that. Is addiction an inherited disease?
The arguments for and against parental blame are limitless I'm afraid!
onecalledk
04-Mar-10, 15:35
"Taking a drug and suffering a mental condition is completely different from being born with the susceptibility of a mental condition"
its not though is it, because if you werent born with the susceptibility it wouldnt be so much of a problem. In the case of cannibis its teenage BOYS who are most at risk, that would point to the genetic make up of a male rather than a female as there is no evidential risks for teenage girls ....
K
porshiepoo
04-Mar-10, 15:46
"Taking a drug and suffering a mental condition is completely different from being born with the susceptibility of a mental condition"
its not though is it, because if you werent born with the susceptibility it wouldnt be so much of a problem. In the case of cannibis its teenage BOYS who are most at risk, that would point to the genetic make up of a male rather than a female as there is no evidential risks for teenage girls ....
K
That's why I ended that statement with the question about it being a possible hereditary disease.
Alas, we'll not know for a long time to come.
Until then all we can do is speculate and have our own opinion.
I dont hold the evil deed he did when he was 10 against him but then then wee Jamie Bulger wasnt my son.
I think we need to know why he has been recalled but Venebles will need to be protected for the rest of his life wherever he is.
porshiepoo
04-Mar-10, 16:18
I dont hold the evil deed he did when he was 10 against him but then then wee Jamie Bulger wasnt my son.
I think we need to know why he has been recalled but Venebles will need to be protected for the rest of his life wherever he is.
Apparantly he got into a fight at work and had to be pulled off some guy. He's also supposedly had a drug problem since being released.
He will be protected no doubt, but I don't think he should be, Just my opinion though!
Apparantly he got into a fight at work and had to be pulled off some guy. He's also supposedly had a drug problem since being released.
He will be protected no doubt, but I don't think he should be, Just my opinion though!
Sources say the murderer, who is now 27, 'flipped' and attacked a colleague and had been using ecstasy and cocaine since his release in 2001.
It also emerged that Venables has been hospitalised twice since he was freed after becoming involved in violent altercations.
It was claimed he was stabbed more than two years ago during a row after a man tried to chat up his girlfriend.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255274/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html#ixzz0hDq09NzW (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255274/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html#ixzz0hDq09NzW)
Sounds well "rehabilitated" to me. Why did they ever let him out?
Sounds well "rehabilitated" to me. Why did they ever let him out?
I can understand why they let him out. That doesnt mean you dont have a valid gripe.
I see it as a progessive attempt to understand and rehabilite the most wicked of offenders, wherever there may be a chance of reversal of previous behaviour.
It's part of a developing psychology of the person and like space travel itll take a long time to reach it target.
I can understand why they let him out. That doesnt mean you dont have a valid gripe.
I see it as a progessive attempt to understand and rehabilite the most wicked of offenders, wherever there may be a chance of reversal of previous behaviour.
It's part of a developing psychology of the person and like space travel itll take a long time to reach it target.
I get that, a bit tough on the people he gets into "violent altercations" with though don't you think?
porshiepoo
04-Mar-10, 16:58
I completely agree Ducati. Yet more people have had to suffer at the hands of Venables.
From what I've read he's had a better education than what most of our kids will get, 24hr support in case he needs 'help', even a holiday paid for by us so that he was somewhere 'safe' when the 10 year anniversary came round and to top that he also seems to have some 'right' to benefits when he's not working just to keep him out of trouble.
What a fantastic message that sends out to the youth of today huh!
The mind really does boggle.
He's had more support and guidance than even the family of his victim. It's disgusting!
And even now when he has proven that he is not rehabilitated, he is still protected and coddled.
Bring back the death penalty I say.
I remembered this story from around the same time as the Jamies murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/803151.stm
I remembered this story from around the same time as the Jamies murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/803151.stm
Very interesting. Shows there are alternatives.
Sources say the murderer, who is now 27, 'flipped' and attacked a colleague and had been using ecstasy and cocaine since his release in 2001.
It also emerged that Venables has been hospitalised twice since he was freed after becoming involved in violent altercations.
It was claimed he was stabbed more than two years ago during a row after a man tried to chat up his girlfriend.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255274/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html#ixzz0hDq09NzW (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255274/James-Bulger-killer-Jon-Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html#ixzz0hDq09NzW)
Sounds well "rehabilitated" to me. Why did they ever let him out?
I assume your "sources" are 100% over this, or is this just another headline to sell newspapers, they have been known to do this before you know
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Daily+mail%22+and+libel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
shows just some of the libel actions that Daily Mail have been involved in.
Why don't people just wait to see what the real reason is, after all he is now locked up.
I assume your "sources" are 100% over this, or is this just another headline to sell newspapers, they have been known to do this before you know
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Daily+mail%22+and+libel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
shows just some of the libel actions that Daily Mail have been involved in.
Why don't people just wait to see what the real reason is, after all he is now locked up.
You "read" it and draw your own conclusions
BTW are you this condescending in your normal conversations? If you are you must get punched a lot LOL
And even now when he has proven that he is not rehabilitated, he is still protected and coddled.
Bring back the death penalty I say.
Nothing has been proven. If you take what the Daily Mail says at face value that is up to you but it doesn't prove anything.
I am glad we live in a country where the death penalty is no more.
Nothing has been proven. If you take what the Daily Mail says at face value that is up to you but it doesn't prove anything.
I am glad we live in a country where the death penalty is no more.
Daily Mail aside, he has broken the terms of his release and they didn't seem that draconian?
Daily Mail aside, he has broken the terms of his release and they didn't seem that draconian?
I don't know what the terms of his release were. If he has broken them then it is right he is back in jail but it is too simple to say he is not rehabilitated. People makes mistakes and do silly things, that doesn't make them evil.
Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of Napo, the probation union, said: "The fact that the statement has been put out today does not mean he has been recalled within the last 24 hours.
"It's more likely that information about his whereabouts has leaked and the Ministry of Justice has taken a proactive step to limit the damage. He will now be in an adult prison somewhere in England and Wales."
...this was in today's Guardian (so it MUST be true)
From the Liverpool Echo so we may here more?
"This is expected to happen within 28 days of his recall last week.The three-person panel, including a judge, will rule whether he should stay in prison or be released.
But if fresh criminal charges are or have been laid, that situation could radically change. The Parole Board decision, usually kept private, is expected to be made public due to the high interest in the case."
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/04/james-bulger-s-dad-tells-government-to-hang-head-in-shame-after-silence-on-killer-jon-venables-prison-return-100252-25959307/ (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/04/james-bulger-s-dad-tells-government-to-hang-head-in-shame-after-silence-on-killer-jon-venables-prison-return-100252-25959307/)
John Little
04-Mar-10, 22:46
"BTW are you this condescending in your normal conversations? If you are you must get punched a lot LOL"
He's asking what evidence you base your thinking on.
How is that condescending??????
And why must he get punched a lot?
I completely agree Ducati. Yet more people have had to suffer at the hands of Venables.
From what I've read he's had a better education than what most of our kids will get, 24hr support in case he needs 'help', even a holiday paid for by us so that he was somewhere 'safe' when the 10 year anniversary came round and to top that he also seems to have some 'right' to benefits when he's not working just to keep him out of trouble.
What a fantastic message that sends out to the youth of today huh!
The mind really does boggle.
He's had more support and guidance than even the family of his victim. It's disgusting!
And even now when he has proven that he is not rehabilitated, he is still protected and coddled.
Bring back the death penalty I say.
No doubt "..From what I've read etc etc etc.." means that you obtained this information from an official report/case file of Venables, or did you, as I suspect, read it in a newspaper.
As for bringing back the death penalty, you will enjoy your trip to China as they still have it and executions are held in public. Having this "deterrent" does not stop crime in China does it, just like it never stopped murders in the UK when we had it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, would you hang children?
"BTW are you this condescending in your normal conversations? If you are you must get punched a lot LOL"
He's asking what evidence you base your thinking on.
How is that condescending??????
And why must he get punched a lot?
Read the whole thing-if you don't understand words try something easier. Why do you need 6 question marks??????
No doubt "..From what I've read etc etc etc.." means that you obtained this information from an official report/case file of Venables, or did you, as I suspect, read it in a newspaper.
As for bringing back the death penalty, you will enjoy your trip to China as they still have it and executions are held in public. Having this "deterrent" does not stop crime in China does it, just like it never stopped murders in the UK when we had it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, would you hang children?
Hmm,I rest my case
Hmm,I rest my case
Have you got anything to add to the discussion or are you just going to insult people who are putting their opinions across?
Read the whole thing-if you don't understand words try something easier. Why do you need 6 question marks??????
I think you need a new dictionary. This is condescending. Stating an opinion on something is not.
I think you need a new dictionary. This is condescending. Stating an opinion on something is not.
not stating opinion they were being condescending.
What is your problem? If people want to criticise and condescend fine, but not with impunity.
I issued a mild and (I thought light hearted) admonishment to someone I felt had been rather condescending on more than one occasion to more than one orger. As you can tell, I am unrepentant. So, dry your eyes, wind yer neck in and lets get back to the topic.
As for bringing back the death penalty, you will enjoy your trip to China as they still have it and executions are held in public. Having this "deterrent" does not stop crime in China does it, just like it never stopped murders in the UK when we had it.
"executions are held in public" - Are they?
porshiepoo
05-Mar-10, 10:34
[quote=Anfield;670594]As for bringing back the death penalty, you will enjoy your trip to China as they still have it and executions are held in public.
That's actually quite an offensive remark you have made there.
Believing that the death penalty may prove to be a deterrent does not mean I am some sick individual that would get pleasure from witnessing any death let alone a 'live' death.
Also, the reason I am visiting China is to participate in a very worthwhile charitable event to raise money for research into conditions and genetic diseases affecting women and their babies and I'm training very hard to complete 450km in 5 days.
Your statement above was ignorant, offensive, derogatory toward myself and what I am trying to achieve for charity and could in many ways have a negative effect on those who read it and know of me.
John Little
05-Mar-10, 10:38
"executions are held in public" - Are they?
Aye - they are.
"I issued a mild and (I thought light hearted) admonishment to someone I felt had been rather condescending on more than one occasion to more than one orger. As you can tell, I am unrepentant. So, dry your eyes, wind yer neck in and lets get back to the topic."
I seem to remember something about the beam in your own eye before the mote in the other guy's.
You are a rather arrogant man. I don't think I'll bother replying to you again.
[quote]
That's actually quite an offensive remark you have made there.
Believing that the death penalty may prove to be a deterrent does not mean I am some sick individual that would get pleasure from witnessing any death let alone a 'live' death.
Also, the reason I am visiting China is to participate in a very worthwhile charitable event to raise money for research into conditions and genetic diseases affecting women and their babies and I'm training very hard to complete 450km in 5 days.
Your statement above was ignorant, offensive, derogatory toward myself and what I am trying to achieve for charity and could in many ways have a negative effect on those who read it and know of me.
Well said porshiepoo, in my opinion you are right to be offended.
Just to add some experiencial perspective, I lived in Liverpool at the time of this atrocity and believe me these boys (now men) should count themselves very lucky that the braying mob didn't get their hands on them, because they would have been strung up from the nearest lamp post.
I am firmly against capital punishment in case anyone cares.
You are a rather arrogant man. I don't think I'll bother replying to you again.[/FONT]
That would suit me very well, thankyou
They were children, who became the way they are for a reason. What they did is heinous. But does the reponsibility and the vileness of their actions lie only on their shoulders, as the children that they were?
If we look at BabyP, where free thinking, choice making, responsible adults were to blame for the horrific crime perpertrated against that child, while we did condemn and hold resposible the people who actually perpertrated the crime, we also held responsible those that indirectly responsible. The Social workers and medical staff associated with this case carried their part in the responsibility for this crime ( and rightly so, before anyone thinks I am saying they shouldn't have). It is easy in this case to see how there is not just one responsible. That there is not just one criminal act.
Yet, in this case, envolving three children, the only ones carring any responsibility for this crime are the two that were put in jail. Not their families. Not their teachers. Not any adult envolved in their lives shared responsibility in this crime. In my opinion ( and it is just my opinion) a deamon needed to be created to allow us to understand this crime. So these two children were made this deamon. But they were two 10 year old boys let down by the village that was supposed to be raising them.
"executions are held in public" - Are they?
Aye - they are. "I issued a mild and (I thought light hearted) admonishment to someone I felt had been rather condescending on more than one occasion to more than one orger. As you can tell, I am unrepentant. So, dry your eyes, wind yer neck in and lets get back to the topic." I seem to remember something about the beam in your own eye before the mote in the other guy's.
You are a rather arrogant man. I don't think I'll bother replying to you again.
Honestly, I've no idea what you are on about. Your "I issued" rather takes the biscuit in calling me arrogant - it was a fair enough question, I did a quick search and it seemed that in 2003 they were ceasing public executions - maybe in your wisdom you could point me in the right direction, sir?
But then your ultimate sentence rather precludes you from doing that doesn't it.
Super, no more admonishments!;)
PS I see you have been here just a month, but we have 'Mod's for that (admonishments)
Now let's get back on thread
onecalledk
05-Mar-10, 12:34
They were children, who became the way they are for a reason. What they did is heinous. But does the reponsibility and the vileness of their actions lie only on their shoulders, as the children that they were?
If we look at BabyP, where free thinking, choice making, responsible adults were to blame for the horrific crime perpertrated against that child, while we did condemn and hold resposible the people who actually perpertrated the crime, we also held responsible those that indirectly responsible. The Social workers and medical staff associated with this case carried their part in the responsibility for this crime ( and rightly so, before anyone thinks I am saying they shouldn't have). It is easy in this case to see how there is not just one responsible. That there is not just one criminal act.
Yet, in this case, envolving three children, the only ones carring any responsibility for this crime are the two that were put in jail. Not their families. Not their teachers. Not any adult envolved in their lives shared responsibility in this crime. In my opinion ( and it is just my opinion) a deamon needed to be created to allow us to understand this crime. So these two children were made this deamon. But they were two 10 year old boys let down by the village that was supposed to be raising them.
exactly the point I am trying to make. They were not "only" children, both boys had siblings and those siblings were taken into care afterwards. The parents have a major hand in this, they CREATED those children and god knows what they did to the other children they had. They werent prosecuted for child neglect or child cruelty (which the should have been!) they disappeared behind the headlines of what their child did.
The baby P case is an interesting point in this, HAD baby p survived the brutality he lived in then he would have turned out probably to be psychopathic considering what went on in that house.
By putting responsibility onto the shoulders of the adults in this case it does not absolve what those two boys did. Its an emotive subject and I think that a lot of people are seeing "monsters" and not making any relation to a 10yr old CHILD.
There was a case in the media not so long ago about 2 children that were left in a car together along with an iron bar which was sitting on the floor of the vehicle. The two children both aged about 3 yrs old were left ALONE in the car. When one of the mothers came back to the car she found a blood splattered toddler and the other child with the iron bar in his hands ...... there is a raging debate on that case about the responsiblity and whos responsiblity it is. Can we call the one doing the hitting a psychopath, a monster ? medical opinion is that 3yr old children are incapable of being premeditatingly (!) violent. That is the child had NO IDEA of the damage he could do with iron bar. .......
So it goes back to responsibility and that has to rest with society. I would also highlight that money, poverty, background has LITTLE to do with whether the child will turn out to be violent. Its attitude, values, principles and love that creates a rounded child. Its madness to assume that child brought up in poverty in a housing estate will turn out "trouble".
Children brought up in what looks like an "ideal" home environment can just as easily be living a life of extreme violence. Never judge a situation by what it appears to be. Sadly lots of children live in households with domestic violence and have parents who are "respectable" people, it makes them even harder to find on the radar, they dont fit the "profile" of a child who is at risk. The ones with violent parents or drug addicts as parents "should" be the easy ones to spot cos at some point they will appear on someones radar .........
If these boys came from a poor background and had got into trouble before then why has no one pointed the finger at social work who were VERY swift to remove the siblings of these boys .......
K
Honestly, I've no idea what you are on about. Your "I issued" rather takes the biscuit in calling me arrogant - it was a fair enough question, I did a quick search and it seemed that in 2003 they were ceasing public executions - maybe in your wisdom you could point me in the right direction, sir?
But then your ultimate sentence rather precludes you from doing that doesn't it.
Super, no more admonishments!;)
PS I see you have been here just a month, but we have 'Mod's for that (admonishments)
Now let's get back on thread
I think he was referring to me there bek's, slightly confusing because he quoted both of us :lol:
John Little
05-Mar-10, 13:21
Bekisman - my first remark was answering your question about public executions which is correct as far as I am aware.
My second quotation and remark was not addressed to you at all.
Apologies for confusion caused.
Bekisman - my first remark was answering your question about public executions which is correct as far as I am aware.
My second quotation and remark was not addressed to you at all.
Apologies for confusion caused.
Fair enough, confusion reigned there for a bit - I know China still executes but not sure if it's still 'public' - I remember seeing mutilated bodies on the Pearl river in Macau in '68 and killing is habit there.
2boyz1girl
05-Mar-10, 19:01
I think those two boys should of been put away for life. Life for life in my eyes. I have children ages with them and at that age they know exactly what they are doing! Really angers me that they got new identities etc on their release, Why????? If they came to harm tough luck, let them get what they deserve. Sickos. Bring back hanging, then we might see a decline in murder.
I think those two boys should of been put away for life. Life for life in my eyes. I have children ages with them and at that age they know exactly what they are doing! Really angers me that they got new identities etc on their release, Why????? If they came to harm tough luck, let them get what they deserve. Sickos. Bring back hanging, then we might see a decline in murder.
Like they have in America & China
I think you will find that despite having the death penalty, that murders still occur in those countries , just like it did when we had it.
So lets suupose one of your offspring goes off rails and ends up in a similar position to Venables ( it does happen you know, no matter how good or bad a parent you are)
Would you let someone hang your 11 year old?
2boyz1girl
05-Mar-10, 23:20
It just makes me sick that the horrible little beep is back inside when it should have been dealt with a long time ago. Doesnt matter what age the killer is, at the end of the day that's wot they are a KILLER!! I can only hope none of mine end up like that 2 little sickos, if they did well they will pay the price. James Bulgers mother and father are still paying.
"It was initially reported that Venables, 27, was recalled to prison after a fight at work but The Sun reported that was untrue.
"It reported it had uncovered the 'exact details' of the alleged offence but was unable to publish them in full because it might lead to Venables' new identity being uncovered.
"Straw said the recall to custody involved some 'extremely serious [sex crime] allegations' "
(Source - Yahoo News - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html )
"It was initially reported that Venables, 27, was recalled to prison after a fight at work but The Sun reported that was untrue.
"It reported it had uncovered the 'exact details' of the alleged offence but was unable to publish them in full because it might lead to Venables' new identity being uncovered.
"Straw said the recall to custody involved some 'extremely serious [sex crime] allegations' "
(Source - Yahoo News - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html )
I wonder why they want to prosecute him again at all? I thought breech of licence was sufficient grounds to recall him to serve the remainder of his sentence
"It was initially reported that Venables, 27, was recalled to prison after a fight at work but The Sun reported that was untrue.
"It reported it had uncovered the 'exact details' of the alleged offence but was unable to publish them in full because it might lead to Venables' new identity being uncovered.
"Straw said the recall to custody involved some 'extremely serious [sex crime] allegations' "
(Source - Yahoo News - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html )
The return to jail crime gets worse by the day...
onecalledk
06-Mar-10, 17:57
I think the governments handling of this is appauling. To feed "snippets" of what this is over (his recall to jail) is not helpful. I find it incredulous that they have anonymity one minute yet then hints are given the next. Either lift the anonymity and tell the country what he HAS done this time to be in jail again or say nothing.
They have gone too far now to say nothing more so they might as well just announce WHY his licence was revoked. If not then people start making 2 and 2 equal 5 which helps no one at all least of all Jamie Bulgers mother who is not being told anymore than the general public.
This whole situation makes a mockery of the system. Threatening to jail a paper that releases info when a minister than gives little snippets is stupidity.
K
Take your pick:
"The Sun" state that they have exact details and that Venable was recalled because of a sex attack
"Liverpool Echo" state that it was because he got involved in a fight with workmates
"The Daily Mirror" on the other hand can reveal Venables has frequented a series of different clubs and bars including Krazy House, The Funky Box, Bar Fly and Walkabout.
Jack Straw said it was a "serious allegation", notice the word allegation i.e. not a fact.
.
"The Sun" state that they have exact details and that Venable was recalled because of a sex attack
Jack Straw said it was a "serious allegation", notice the word allegation i.e. not a fact.
Anfield, you have missed out the word "extremely" from Straw's statement (he actually is quoted as saying, "extremely serious allegations") and you have changed "allegations" (plural) to "allegation" (singular).
By the way, use of "allegation" is commonplace for legal reasons and should not be used to infer, as you are doing, that there may not be any substance to this little creep's return to custody.
onecalledk
06-Mar-10, 21:07
][quote=Anfield;671533]Take your pick:
"The Sun" state that they have exact details and that Venable was recalled because of a sex attack
"Liverpool Echo" state that it was because he got involved in a fight with workmates
"The Daily Mirror" on the other hand can reveal Venables has frequented a series of different clubs and bars including Krazy House, The Funky Box, Bar Fly and Walkabout.
Jack Straw said it was a "serious allegation", notice the word allegation i.e. not a fact.
It has also been stated that any newspaper publishing details will have the editor put in prison for breaking the anonymity rules. They are not allowed to print what has actually happened or be jailed.
K
.
It has also been stated that any newspaper publishing details will have the editor put in prison for breaking the anonymity rules. They are not allowed to print what has actually happened or be jailed.
K
This implies that either the newspapers are telling lies on purpose or the people responsible for publishing these "facts" will go to jail too. If they knew the truth would they risk publishing it?
Seems like The Sun story matches pretty close with what the Government has said. How strict are these rules? How close to the truth do you have to be before this is enforced?
It's gone too far now. As has been said the Government should have said nothing. All this speculation from the papers and half stories from the Govt don't help anyone, least of all the family of Jamie Bulger. I think the only option now is for the full story to come out. Are they waiting for the trial for whatever offense it was to be completed?
It could be that the truth will never come out.
Let us assume that Venables has committed some type of crime.
He will be charged, and prosecuted, under new name, as the name Jon Venables can not be mentioned in any court case or newspapers which may identify him.
If found guilty he will be sentenced for his new offence, which as i am typing this, has now been announced by the Sunday Mirror to be a "child porn offence". This new claim is an "EXCLUSIVE" by Justin Penrose, Crime Correspondent"
So to the list of "exclusives" and "exact details" we can now add this crap.
Take your pick:
"The Sun" state that they have exact details and that Venable was recalled because of a sex attack
"Liverpool Echo" state that it was because he got involved in a fight with workmates
"The Daily Mirror" on the other hand can reveal Venables has frequented a series of different clubs and bars including Krazy House, The Funky Box, Bar Fly and Walkabout.
Jack Straw said it was a "serious allegations", notice the word allegations i.e. not a fact.
Sunday Mirror - Child porn
News of the World tba
The People tba
To read more of Justin Penrose look at link for his website
http://www.journalisted.com/justin-penrose.
Sara Jevo
06-Mar-10, 23:52
I don't believe in rehabilitation.
I believe in punishment.
I don't think this crime has been punished.
The justice system is about punishment AND rehabilitation. Thank goodness for that, too.
Sara Jevo
06-Mar-10, 23:56
Like they have in America & China
I think you will find that despite having the death penalty, that murders still occur in those countries , just like it did when we had it.
So lets suupose one of your offspring goes off rails and ends up in a similar position to Venables ( it does happen you know, no matter how good or bad a parent you are)
Would you let someone hang your 11 year old?
I'd hoped we'd moved on from the cave era and deemed hanging of children to be inappropriate.
I expect, like others, wondered what a release license actually involves in this case.
This link, from the BBC website seems to explain:
Q andA Bulger killer's release license
What are the rules governing the life of Jon Venables, who was convicted of the murder of James Bulger? BBC News explains how the parole system works.
Why was Jon Venables released from prison in 2001? etc etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8547652.stm
I was wondering what was the age which children are held to be criminally responsible.
In Europe, only Ireland - where the age of criminal responsibility is 7 - has a lower age than Scotland 8. It is 10 in England, 12 in the Netherlands and Canada, 13 in France, 14 in Russia, Japan, Germany and Italy, 15 in Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 16 in Spain and Portugal and 18 in Belgium, Brazil and Peru.
- does this mean that in Belgium, for example some 17 year person is NOT criminal reponsible? seems like it.
John Little
07-Mar-10, 13:21
Interesting. You raise several issues.
As to age of criminal responsibility there are perhaps degrees. It is perhaps one thing to hold a child criminally responsible for nicking some stuff from Woolies in Thurso... but murder is a different thing especially if calling for the death penalty. I and some friends pinched stuff from Woolies which was easy in those days because they had those desks with little glass partitions and things in them, and no CCTV. My Dad found out and had the police round. Let us say that after Thurso police guy with the big moustache had finished talking to me- no court was necessary and I never stole again in my life.
Murder. I used to be against the death penalty. For most of my life- I remember living in Calder Drive when the news came over the radio that someone had been hanged - it may have been Hanratty. We know now thanks to DNA that he was guilty- though there was uncertainty for years.
But over the years yoiu read stuff. You know - four grown men bursting into a 72 year old man's house to burgle it, and finding him at home so beating him to death with his own stick.
It is no feature of a liberal society that it fails to protect its citizens from those who are prepared to go beyond the bounds of civilisation. And I know the pros and cons of the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
But I do confess that seeing the murder rate rise so during my lifetime, I do now lean towards restoring the death penalty for what the Americans call first degree murder. Cruel calculated murder by an adult is one thing.
I respect the feelings of people who do not agree with the death penalty. I've been there and I understand it.
But 10 year olds being hanged for murder?
I can't go for that.
The thought makes me sick to my stomach - it's a return to the Bloody Code of the 19th century
Ten year olds do not think like adults - they do not calculate and premeditate like adults. Something else is going on here and I think it needs a very good psycho-analyst to make sense of it.
Believe me I understand well the knee jerk reaction that they are monsters and should be stamped on - I feel that notion twist in my own gut too.
But these were kids - the same age as my grand children.
To hang such would make monsters of us all imho - your mileage may vary - and probably does.
But hey - you are entitled to your opinion too.
Ten year olds do not think like adults - they do not calculate and premeditate like adults.
I don't fully agree with this. Children can be very manipulative and calculating...
David Banks
07-Mar-10, 13:55
Interesting. You raise several issues.
As to age of criminal responsibility there are perhaps degrees. It is perhaps one thing to hold a child criminally responsible for nicking some stuff from Woolies in Thurso... but murder is a different thing especially if calling for the death penalty. I and some friends pinched stuff from Woolies which was easy in those days because they had those desks with little glass partitions and things in them, and no CCTV. My Dad found out and had the police round. Let us say that after Thurso police guy with the big moustache had finished talking to me- no court was necessary and I never stole again in my life.
Murder. I used to be against the death penalty. For most of my life- I remember living in Calder Drive when the news came over the radio that someone had been hanged - it may have been Hanratty. We know now thanks to DNA that he was guilty- though there was uncertainty for years.
But over the years yoiu read stuff. You know - four grown men bursting into a 72 year old man's house to burgle it, and finding him at home so beating him to death with his own stick.
It is no feature of a liberal society that it fails to protect its citizens from those who are prepared to go beyond the bounds of civilisation. And I know the pros and cons of the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
But I do confess that seeing the murder rate rise so during my lifetime, I do now lean towards restoring the death penalty for what the Americans call first degree murder. Cruel calculated murder by an adult is one thing.
I respect the feelings of people who do not agree with the death penalty. I've been there and I understand it.
But 10 year olds being hanged for murder?
I can't go for that.
The thought makes me sick to my stomach - it's a return to the Bloody Code of the 19th century
Ten year olds do not think like adults - they do not calculate and premeditate like adults. Something else is going on here and I think it needs a very good psycho-analyst to make sense of it.
Believe me I understand well the knee jerk reaction that they are monsters and should be stamped on - I feel that notion twist in my own gut too.
But these were kids - the same age as my grand children.
To hang such would make monsters of us all imho - your mileage may vary - and probably does.
But hey - you are entitled to your opinion too.
John,
I do not share your desire for a return of the death penalty.
Item 1: The legal system, including the courts in Canada have proved to be examples of such inexact science that, since the abolishment of the death penalty, several people have had 20 or more years in jail and then found to be not guilty. You are not so lucky with belated not-guilty findings in the US.
Item 2: And more importantly, I do not believe parliament has the right to take a person's life. Some claim that 'life in prison' is worse than the death penalty, something with which I do not agree.
If I read you correctly, you have changed your opinion on the death penalty for adult 1st degree murder. Can you tell us why?
John Little
07-Mar-10, 14:19
Oh pretty much what you might expect. I have been appalled by the sheer savagery of some murders over this last few years. That pensioner murder that I mentioned really got to me. There was one a couple of months ago where a teenage youth was tied to a tree, petrol poured over him and he was set on fire and I got to thinking of Neville Chamberlain for some reason.
He was a prime example of a civilised christian gentleman who thought that you could reason other leaders into accepting sensible and peaceful solutions to problems. He did not realise that some people were not interested in his values- appeasement and persuasion failed and eventually we had to settle it by violence.
Just because you want to live in a Liberal society does not mean that you have to abdicate responsibility for doing what is necessary to protect the lives of most from the savagery of the few. If you live in a liberal society then much of what you enjoy is actually given to you by that society - your freedoms, your care, your education etc. Without that framework we are back to nature.
I know what you are saying - that the state has no right to take life.
Yet without that state what would we have I wonder?
Yet the state has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens. It may conscript, imprison, restrict freedoms and a whole range of powers which are used to varying degrees in peace and war.
The death penalty does not deter as a generality.
I know that.
But if the knowledge that bludgeoning a pensioner to death, or burning a teenager alive might even stand a small percentage chance of keeping that pensioner or teenager alive, then in my mind the weight of probability should be on the victim's side.
And some people only understand force. Anyone in any doubt of that must summon up the ghosts of Hitler, Napoleon, William Wallace and ask them otherwise.
David Banks & John Little.
You have both written excellent posts on the fors and againsts of capital punishement, and have restored my faith in the Org being a vehicle where you can have a sensisble debate. without the need to trade personal insults.
Like John Little, I do get depressed at how fast our society is degenerating to the extent where "normal" murders now do not even make news items.
The wickedness of some the crimes committed does leave one thinking of what can we do to stop it?.
But is taking a life the correct approach, I have my doubts, and as the number of innocent people convicted for crimes they did not commit rises, I have come to a personal decision that it would be wrong to bring back the death penalty.
The justice system do have powers to contain offenders, but they fail to impose them.
John Little
07-Mar-10, 14:39
What really swung me was DNA. Hanratty protested his innocence all the way to the gallows. His family campaigned for years to have a postumous pardon. Then advances in DNA analysed the semen on Valerie Storey's panties and matched with Hanratty. No doubt at all.
That's why I speak of first degree and second degree murder. At this time I incline to giving a jury the right to decide - murder in the first degree or the second degree. Death for the first, life for the second.
Not everyone will agree - I know that. And I know why they do not. I do not mind their disagreement. I've been there too.
But I do know that what we have at the moment is not working.
One thing I like about American Legal Sytem is the "three strikes and you areout" scheme which takes repeat offenders off the streets.
Obviously this could not apply for murder and other major crimes, but for many other crimes it would be worth considering, providing that people have to complete their sentence with no 1/3 rd off for good behaviour etc.
The other thing we have to consider is how to counter the "University Of Crime" culture in prisons, and to make proper efforts to properly rehabilitate offenders, rather than locking them up 23 hours a day
Sara Jevo
07-Mar-10, 19:10
I don't fully agree with this. Children can be very manipulative and calculating...
That may be true Leanne. But thankfully the law recognises that children are NOT adults.
Perhaps the root of this whole row was the removal of anonymity for Veneables and Thompson, when reporting restrictions that prohibit identification of juveniles in court cases were removed. Had that not happened, this alleged offence would have been dealt with in a very normal way, without the media frenzy and mob baying for his hanging.
Sara Jevo
07-Mar-10, 19:15
How many children die in the UK as a result of abuse, neglect etc? I read a figure today that it is one a week for children under five.
We seem obsessed here by the death of one particular child.
Why? Because his death was the responsibility not of adults but of two 10-year-olds.
But the outcome is the same, regardless. The needless death of a child.
Why are we so focussed on this one case and not the others? Because we are being manipulated and lead like sheep by a media that senses an opportunity to exploit public perception for their profit.
Channel 4 did some research.
They found 163 child homicides over a 5-year period.
Dispatches Child Homicide Study (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/dispatches-child-homicide-study)
Why do people reserve their vitriol for a 10-year-old child, rather than the adults who killed these other children?
ok i am going to get slayed here but....the biggest problem with any offenders is that prison isnt a punishment nowadays,if prision was tougher far less offenders would re offend and just possibly some would think twice before committing a crime in the first place.my cousin did "time" in a young offenders institution and when he came out he complained about the food his parents gave him-reckoned it was rubbish compared with what he got inside :roll: prisoners have so many rights now that the only penatly they really have is loss of freedom,and even that sometimes doesnt happen so tbh i think the prisons need to get tougher and hard time be made to be just that x
That may be true Leanne. But thankfully the law recognises that children are NOT adults.
Perhaps the root of this whole row was the removal of anonymity for Veneables and Thompson, when reporting restrictions that prohibit identification of juveniles in court cases were removed. Had that not happened, this alleged offence would have been dealt with in a very normal way, without the media frenzy and mob baying for his hanging.
I do not think that there is a "media frenzy," nor that there is a "mob baying for [Venables] hanging," though on the latter issue I could quite understand it if there were.
"The Sunday Mirror alleged that the recall is linked to child pornography offences, but Ed Balls and Harriet Harman refused to comment on these claims.
"Venables, who is now 27, served a total of eight years for the the Merseyside toddler's death in 1993.
"The prison recall has caused an apparent division within the Cabinet, with Home Secretary Alan Johnson saying in midweek that the public 'had a right to know' why Venables was imprisoned again.
"But his colleague Jack Straw, with the support of Gordon Brown, said that secrecy is in the public interest."
(Source - Yahoo News - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100307/tuk-ministers-warn-media-over-venables-r-dba1618.html )
We seem obsessed here by the death of one particular child.
Why? Because his death was the responsibility not of adults but of two 10-year-olds.
But the outcome is the same, regardless. The needless death of a child.
Why are we so focussed on this one case and not the others? Because we are being manipulated and lead like sheep by a media that senses an opportunity to exploit public perception for their profit.
No, no, no! [evil]
We are not "obsessed," though you seem to be obsessed with defending the 2-year-old's killers, but we remember the manner in which Jamie was tortured, Jamie's horrific and disgusting injuries and the pure evilness of the whole crime.
John Little
07-Mar-10, 19:44
Alright. I do confess I am dying to know. No sarcasm, no anger, no snark- just a completely objective question.
Is there any person here, quite seriously and in reasoned and considered frame of mind, who would take the life of a 10 year old child who had committed murder?
I'm not going to comment on your answers - it's just curiousity.
But to paraphrase Cromwell, I conjure you to think well on it.
After all, when all the discussion is said and done this is what it comes down to.
Somebody would have to do it.
Oh aye - I admit it's a loaded question - but it is rather pertinent isn't it?
onecalledk
07-Mar-10, 20:06
How many children die in the UK as a result of abuse, neglect etc? I read a figure today that it is one a week for children under five.
We seem obsessed here by the death of one particular child.
Why? Because his death was the responsibility not of adults but of two 10-year-olds.
But the outcome is the same, regardless. The needless death of a child.
Why are we so focussed on this one case and not the others? Because we are being manipulated and lead like sheep by a media that senses an opportunity to exploit public perception for their profit.
Channel 4 did some research.
They found 163 child homicides over a 5-year period.
Dispatches Child Homicide Study (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/dispatches-child-homicide-study)
Why do people reserve their vitriol for a 10-year-old child, rather than the adults who killed these other children?
Hit the proverbial nail on the head with this post. The media is manipulating the public with the way this is being reported. I would repeat once again and please note I AM NOT DEFENDING THE KILLERS WITH THIS but 10 yr old children are not capable of such mindless violence unless they have been exposed to this level of violence. They did things that are considered "adult", their level of violence was extreme, this is violence that they were exposed to PRIOR to them acting this out. Children are not developed mentally at that age to do these things "out of the blue".
These boys lived with extreme violence DAILY. There is a huge difference between an "average" 10 yr old CHILD and a 10yr old child who has been exposed to what is considered to be "adult" stuff. Children learn what adults teach them. If that happens to be violence, sex etc then thats what they learn. However a 10 yrs old understanding of the violence etc is NOT THE SAME as an adult. They have NO WAY of processing the information the way us adults do. So while an adult may watch say a horror film and be appauled at what they see, a child will not be able to make the distinction between fantasty and reality. They will view that horror film as "normal". If they were subject to violence daily, beatings etc and then watched violent films , then their is a world of violence as BEING NORMAL. They dont have the same revulsion an average person has as they are desensitised to it.
I would once again repeat that CHILDREN LEARN WHAT ADULTS TEACH. I am not defending what they did, it was repulsive but the adults that taught them the horrors they inflicted go off scott free. They have not paid anything to society by unleashing their offspring into the community. They had their other children taken off them but were never prosecuted. This whole event may never have happened had they not "brought up" their children the way they did.
The really scary thing is that there are hundreds of these so called "parents" out there. THere are thousands and thousands of children who are being harmed by the households they survive in and society does nothing to stop it.
Society is now slowly sexualising its children, there are violent messages thrown at children daily, adult stuff that is being thrust on our youngsters and then we sit back in horror when these children grow up and appear out of control.
To be a 10 yr old child in todays society is so far removed from a 10 yr old even 10 yrs ago its unbelievable. There is little hiding place from it all with the internet etc as well. Unless we start scensoring heavily then I dread to think the powder keg we are sitting on ..........
K
Sara Jevo
07-Mar-10, 23:45
No, no, no! [evil]
We are not "obsessed," though you seem to be obsessed with defending the 2-year-old's killers, but we remember the manner in which Jamie was tortured, Jamie's horrific and disgusting injuries and the pure evilness of the whole crime.
I'm sorry you think I'm defending someone convicted of murder. I have no sympathy for this individual, not withstanding the fact he was a child at the time.
But it seems to me many people are attacking the individual when, in reality, it is the process they are unhappy with, that allows a murderer to return to society after serving 8 years.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply people in here are obsessed. It just seems that wherever I look in the media, wherever I look on the Internet, there are armchair experts everywhere, pontificating about this individual, outraged by this or that.
Metalattakk
08-Mar-10, 00:09
../ wherever I look on the Internet, there are armchair experts everywhere, pontificating about this individual, outraged by this or that.
Unfortunately, that's the price we pay for having a medium (ie., the internet) that gives everyone a voice.
To be honest if i had done this kind of thing when i was ten and it was for some other reason than i was evil i would want to die because i didnt want to remember what i did.
I'd say sorry to the world for bothering them and all the pain id caused and then take some pills.
If you follow my logic then death is the only answer but I wouldnt say I was an expert on these things...
I saw the programme "Justice For James" on Friday
Only two people, as I recall, were against the way in which Venables & Thompson were "rehabiliated" , James mother understandably, and the the policeman in charge of investigation.
The other people interviewed, argued the case for better training for people dealing with unique cases like this.
That is all very well, but how do we train staff to do a job which no one else has done before?
The rehabilitation case surrounding the children from Scandinavia could never happen here, due to us being a society of "justice must be seen to be done" i.e. by incarcerating people.
I have long held a view, that all parties in a court case should remain anonymous until after the verdict. This would in no way hamper justice and would stop innocent people from having their lives ruined, Barry George, Colin Stagg spring to mind
This of course would be unacceptable to the media, as reading stories about Mr. A, Mr B etc would not allow them to splash names and photos across pages, thus reducing sales.
News this morning informs us that the Childrens Commissioner has suggested that the age of criminal responsibility be raised from 10 to 12. The government however has once again rejected the findings of its appointed experts, because the report did not agree with its own policy (remember mass resignations of Drugs Advisory Panel)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8565619.stm
Jamie Bulger was not the first child to be killed by another child, nor will he be the last one. Let us hope that we, as a caring society, can change, so that parents can take responsibility for raising their children in a normal manner, and if mistakes are made that we have suitable steps in place to remedy.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.