Ten years know the difference between right and wrong.
They know that when they put a dying child on railway tracks, that it will kill them.
They weren't punished harshly enough
You speak as if all ten year olds are the same. Quite clearly they aren't. Children need to be taught right from wrong ........if they come from a family with no morals where cruelty and law breaking is the norm then that is what is 'right' in their eyes. I know not all children bought up in dysfunctional families go on to murder (thank goodness) - plenty break the law, plenty are violent and most grow up to realise that the family they were born into aren't always right.
At 10 years old we look to our family for our own normality - we need to be taught right from wrong.
To keep spouting 'at ten years old children know right from wrong' is beyond ridiculous. This is not sympathising or coming down in support of Thompson and Venables. Nor is it as some would have it being disrespectful to Denise Fergus. It's not black and white - it's attempting to make sense if it.
'Right and wrong' is too arbitrary anyway. Children know right from wrong at five. What they do not understand is the point of view of the victim and empathy does not really develop until a person is well into their teens. Consequential thinking, empathetic responses and rational understanding of control is very different from 'right and wrong'.
That is why children are treated differently from adults in the criminal justice system. And rightly so.
Denise reminds me of Lesley ann Downey's mum, who campaigned for years to keep Myra Hindley locked up for life.
She is strong woman and she has my full support. She hasn't asked for the death penalty...only that both of those who murdered her child spend at least some time in an adult prison (real punishment).
They should never never have been released so early. They were and probably still are dangerous.
'Right and wrong' is too arbitrary anyway. Children know right from wrong at five. What they do not understand is the point of view of the victim and empathy does not really develop until a person is well into their teens. Consequential thinking, empathetic responses and rational understanding of control is very different from 'right and wrong'.
That is why children are treated differently from adults in the criminal justice system. And rightly so.
You insult all ten year olds who wouldn't dream of harming a child.
Children that come from abusive broken homes do not torture and kill toddlers.
We learn from an early age empathy and sympathy.
Don't go there with the rubbish excuse that we do not know at ten that to hurt a fellow person is wrong.
They knew what they set out to do and that was proved in a court of law.
Children that come from abusive broken homes do not torture and kill toddlers.
We learn from an early age empathy and sympathy.
Don't go there with the rubbish excuse that we do not know at ten that to hurt a fellow person is wrong.
They knew what they set out to do and that was proved in a court of law.
Well .................some do. Fortunately not all. We are not all exactly the same. It's far too simplistic to say that these boys were 'born evil'. They had had a dreadful start to life - whilst some kids come through a bad upbringing with just a few misdemaenours not all do - together it would appear that they were a lethal combination.
Attempting to understand isn't excusing their behaviour or sympathising.
You speak as if all ten year olds are the same. Quite clearly they aren't. Children need to be taught right from wrong ........if they come from a family with no morals where cruelty and law breaking is the norm then that is what is 'right' in their eyes. I know not all children bought up in dysfunctional families go on to murder (thank goodness) - plenty break the law, plenty are violent and most grow up to realise that the family they were born into aren't always right.
At 10 years old we look to our family for our own normality - we need to be taught right from wrong.
To keep spouting 'at ten years old children know right from wrong' is beyond ridiculous. This is not sympathising or coming down in support of Thompson and Venables. Nor is it as some would have it being disrespectful to Denise Fergus. It's not black and white - it's attempting to make sense if it.
BIB I agree it does have a bearing and whilst some come out of it and become stable adults. Sadly its a higher number that go on to become the adults who terrorise, get into drugs, rape and murder. There are of course other children who come from stable homes and do the same but I fear these are in the Minority like the ones who "make it" through a awful dysfunctional childhood.
There was a very good chance that Thompson and Venables would have become Prison regulars when adults anyway. If they had not led James away on that fateful day.
Same as Baby Peter there was a very good chance had he survived he would have become a Thug/Criminal.
Well .................some do. Fortunately not all. We are not all exactly the same. It's far too simplistic to say that these boys were 'born evil'. They had had a dreadful start to life - whilst some kids come through a bad upbringing with just a few misdemaenours not all do - together it would appear that they were a lethal combination.
Attempting to understand isn't excusing their behaviour or sympathising.
Possibly. Or they might be two pshychopaths that unfortunately came together. I don't really care what they are or what becomes of them. I do care however about the suffering of James and now his family and I do feel the injustice of people who should mind their own business instead of criticising them.
I think the vast majority of 10 year olds know that abducting, torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a 2 year old is wrong, and it is nonsence to suggest they did not know that what they did was wrong, they lied about it to start with which shows conciousness of guilt.
They were never punished, nor were they rehabilitated, proven by the fact that one of them is back in jail for having child pornography on his computer and the other has been in trouble as well. I believe Venebles especially is, as Denise says a ticking time bomb. They should not have their identity changed, it is not protecting children.
I think the vast majority of 10 year olds know that abducting, torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a 2 year old is wrong, and it is nonsence to suggest they did not know that what they did was wrong, they lied about it to start with which shows conciousness of guilt.
They were never punished, nor were they rehabilitated, proven by the fact that one of them is back in jail for having child pornography on his computer and the other has been in trouble as well. I believe Venebles especially is, as Denise says a ticking time bomb. They should not have their identity changed, it is not protecting children.
No Thompson has not been in trouble he would have been back inside too if he had.
I think the insults thrown against the parents is disgusting, What poor little James went through whilst crying out for his mum must haunt Denise and Ralph every day of their lives.
These two boys didn't just murder James in a fit of temper. They systematically tortured him and left him on a railway line...then went home for their tea.
I also agree that they must be pyscopaths and they should both have received whole life sentences...and their useless parents done for neglect.
Possibly. Or they might be two pshychopaths that unfortunately came together. I don't really care what they are or what becomes of them. I do care however about the suffering of James and now his family and I do feel the injustice of people who should mind their own business instead of criticising them.
Do you not think that in attempting to understand it might help stop things like this happening again? Do you not think that all children have the right to a decent upbringing? To simply write it off as something that 'just happened' because they're 'probably evil or psychopathic' is a wasted opportunity. It helps to understand doesn't it?
I also agree that they must be pyscopaths and they should both have received whole life sentences...and their useless parents done for neglect.
So basically you would have punished them more than Huntley (who killed twice and sexually assaulted several times). You put them in the same category as serial killers Brady and Hindley.
Do you not think that in attempting to understand it might help stop things like this happening again? Do you not think that all children have the right to a decent upbringing? To simply write it off as something that 'just happened' because they're 'probably evil or psychopathic' is a wasted opportunity. It helps to understand doesn't it?
So they wasted an opportunity to study them for life by releasing them.
Hopefully some other poor child won't become another victim.
The sentence should not just fit the crime but the criminal. In this case, two ten year old children. Giving them an adult punishment would be wholly inappropriate. As has been mentioned, compared to most other countries in the world, they were treated very harshly indeed. In most other developed nations (and many non developed ones), they would never have found themselves in the dock of a court - much less tried as adults and given a life sentence.
Adult punishment, plush rooms, abundance of games, televisions, social workers constantly at hand, just for them, being taken to football matches, come on now.
As for the life sentence, that has been given to James parents and his extended family.
What we were dealing with was not two ordinary ten year olds though was it? they went out that day to in their own words "get a kid and get it run over" the fact that they meddled with james under garments so it would look like a pervert had got hold of him proves, they were not ordinary kids.
Sadly, if it had not been james that day, it would have been another unfortunate child.
So basically you would have punished them more than Huntley (who killed twice and sexually assaulted several times). You put them in the same category as serial killers Brady and Hindley.
Ten year old children.
No Huntley should have received a whole life sentence as well.
Yes they may have only been ten...but they have all the evil traits of Brady and HIndley.
Except neither one has shown any inclination to kill again (even Venables who reoffended). You cannot say they have 'all the evil traits' of Brady and Hindley - neither child was diagnosed a psychopath.
Except neither one has shown any inclination to kill again (even Venables who reoffended). You cannot say they have 'all the evil traits' of Brady and Hindley - neither child was diagnosed a psychopath.
So that is a crassly ridiculous statement.
They have shown no inclination...YET. What they did was inhuman and that is how many people including me view them.
Do you not think that in attempting to understand it might help stop things like this happening again? Do you not think that all children have the right to a decent upbringing? To simply write it off as something that 'just happened' because they're 'probably evil or psychopathic' is a wasted opportunity. It helps to understand doesn't it?
Really, no I don't think however we pontificate and study and try to understand, it will stop such a crime happening again. If someone has such intent on their mind they will carry it out.
As someone has just stated, they were going to get a kid that day. They lied to a passer by that they were taking James to safety. They had evil intent.
One of them told James to stay down after he got up from every blow because he wanted him dead. They left him for dead on the railways after doing inexplicably evil things to him, while he cried and begged for his mum.
I have no desire to understand them, I believe that they lied back then and that they would lie now.
A child, even though at ten can show evil behaviour and I dont feel the need to understand them. They don't deserve it.
So basically, you think they should be locked up permanently because of something you think they MIGHT do at some stage. Better lock up all men then (because they are responsible for 90% of all crime). We know from past cases that killers (adults or children) rarely kill again (1% I believe). Of children who kill, the percentage is less. (As I said before, I know of only one cases where a child who killed as a child killed again and that was in the last century - and I have done a fair amount of work on the subject).
Do you think Mary Bell should have received a whole life sentence?
I am going to read the book Mr Bulger has written we have not heard an awful lot from him over the years, only when he lost his lovely little boy. We have heard a lot from Mrs Fergus over the years and In all honesty, if it were my child, I too would constantly be in the face of the legal system who so badly let James down.
Those boys should have received a proper sentence, not a soft option. It was proved they can't be trusted by Venables re offending. It was even mentioned they went to a football match in Liverpool before they were let out! Under the terms of their sentence, they were not supposed to come back to Liverpool end of story.
Those boys, now men, could in fact be back in Liverpool. could even know family members of the Bulger family unknown to them. The other worrying thing is, they could have girlfriends, wives who know nothing of their past. They may have even had children of their own! very worrying indeed.
No it wasn't. It was proved that Jon Venables couldn't be trusted. They are not the same person.
Also, it is also impossible that they have girlfriends/boyfriends who know nothing of their past. It is part of their licence conditions that they be honest about their past with anyone they form close relationships with.
Comments
You speak as if all ten year olds are the same. Quite clearly they aren't. Children need to be taught right from wrong ........if they come from a family with no morals where cruelty and law breaking is the norm then that is what is 'right' in their eyes. I know not all children bought up in dysfunctional families go on to murder (thank goodness) - plenty break the law, plenty are violent and most grow up to realise that the family they were born into aren't always right.
At 10 years old we look to our family for our own normality - we need to be taught right from wrong.
To keep spouting 'at ten years old children know right from wrong' is beyond ridiculous. This is not sympathising or coming down in support of Thompson and Venables. Nor is it as some would have it being disrespectful to Denise Fergus. It's not black and white - it's attempting to make sense if it.
That is why children are treated differently from adults in the criminal justice system. And rightly so.
She is strong woman and she has my full support. She hasn't asked for the death penalty...only that both of those who murdered her child spend at least some time in an adult prison (real punishment).
They should never never have been released so early. They were and probably still are dangerous.
You insult all ten year olds who wouldn't dream of harming a child.
No - that is your shallow interpretation. What I've said is perfectly well known and accepted in psychology.
We learn from an early age empathy and sympathy.
Don't go there with the rubbish excuse that we do not know at ten that to hurt a fellow person is wrong.
They knew what they set out to do and that was proved in a court of law.
If you are talking about name calling and appreciately another child's feelings then yes....but any normal ten year old knows it is wrong to murder.
Jame's killers were clearly unhinged and shouldn't have been released at 18.
Well .................some do. Fortunately not all. We are not all exactly the same. It's far too simplistic to say that these boys were 'born evil'. They had had a dreadful start to life - whilst some kids come through a bad upbringing with just a few misdemaenours not all do - together it would appear that they were a lethal combination.
Attempting to understand isn't excusing their behaviour or sympathising.
BIB I agree it does have a bearing and whilst some come out of it and become stable adults. Sadly its a higher number that go on to become the adults who terrorise, get into drugs, rape and murder. There are of course other children who come from stable homes and do the same but I fear these are in the Minority like the ones who "make it" through a awful dysfunctional childhood.
There was a very good chance that Thompson and Venables would have become Prison regulars when adults anyway. If they had not led James away on that fateful day.
Same as Baby Peter there was a very good chance had he survived he would have become a Thug/Criminal.
Possibly. Or they might be two pshychopaths that unfortunately came together. I don't really care what they are or what becomes of them. I do care however about the suffering of James and now his family and I do feel the injustice of people who should mind their own business instead of criticising them.
They were never punished, nor were they rehabilitated, proven by the fact that one of them is back in jail for having child pornography on his computer and the other has been in trouble as well. I believe Venebles especially is, as Denise says a ticking time bomb. They should not have their identity changed, it is not protecting children.
No Thompson has not been in trouble he would have been back inside too if he had.
These two boys didn't just murder James in a fit of temper. They systematically tortured him and left him on a railway line...then went home for their tea.
I also agree that they must be pyscopaths and they should both have received whole life sentences...and their useless parents done for neglect.
Do you not think that in attempting to understand it might help stop things like this happening again? Do you not think that all children have the right to a decent upbringing? To simply write it off as something that 'just happened' because they're 'probably evil or psychopathic' is a wasted opportunity. It helps to understand doesn't it?
So basically you would have punished them more than Huntley (who killed twice and sexually assaulted several times). You put them in the same category as serial killers Brady and Hindley.
Ten year old children.
So they wasted an opportunity to study them for life by releasing them.
Hopefully some other poor child won't become another victim.
Adult punishment, plush rooms, abundance of games, televisions, social workers constantly at hand, just for them, being taken to football matches, come on now.
As for the life sentence, that has been given to James parents and his extended family.
What we were dealing with was not two ordinary ten year olds though was it? they went out that day to in their own words "get a kid and get it run over" the fact that they meddled with james under garments so it would look like a pervert had got hold of him proves, they were not ordinary kids.
Sadly, if it had not been james that day, it would have been another unfortunate child.
No Huntley should have received a whole life sentence as well.
Yes they may have only been ten...but they have all the evil traits of Brady and HIndley.
So that is a crassly ridiculous statement.
They have shown no inclination...YET. What they did was inhuman and that is how many people including me view them.
Really, no I don't think however we pontificate and study and try to understand, it will stop such a crime happening again. If someone has such intent on their mind they will carry it out.
As someone has just stated, they were going to get a kid that day. They lied to a passer by that they were taking James to safety. They had evil intent.
One of them told James to stay down after he got up from every blow because he wanted him dead. They left him for dead on the railways after doing inexplicably evil things to him, while he cried and begged for his mum.
I have no desire to understand them, I believe that they lied back then and that they would lie now.
A child, even though at ten can show evil behaviour and I dont feel the need to understand them. They don't deserve it.
Doubt it very much.
So basically, you think they should be locked up permanently because of something you think they MIGHT do at some stage. Better lock up all men then (because they are responsible for 90% of all crime). We know from past cases that killers (adults or children) rarely kill again (1% I believe). Of children who kill, the percentage is less. (As I said before, I know of only one cases where a child who killed as a child killed again and that was in the last century - and I have done a fair amount of work on the subject).
Do you think Mary Bell should have received a whole life sentence?
Their licence conditions means they aren't allowed to be alone with children under the age of 12 in any case.
A puerile comment. I wouldn't be happy with a burglar to babysit my child, or a BNP member.
No it wasn't. It was proved that Jon Venables couldn't be trusted. They are not the same person.
Also, it is also impossible that they have girlfriends/boyfriends who know nothing of their past. It is part of their licence conditions that they be honest about their past with anyone they form close relationships with.