Anais said anyone talking about evil has no business studying criminology
Quite right too. Evil is a concept to do with morality. Criminology is the study of why crimes happen and how the can be prevented and what to do with criminals and victims.
The moment you say "Its because they were evil," you have given your self a let-out from having to think seriously about it.
If she really was studying in any meaningful sense, her English would be better.
It's possible English isn't her first language but I suspect she's not telling the whole truth. In another post she claims to be a paediatric nurse.
ETA. Just read the post again, it says paediatric first aider. I have no idea what this means. I'm a learning assistant in a primary school and have a first aid certificate which is renewed every 3 years. I work with children as young as 3 but I don't think I'd call myself a children's first aider, just a "first aider".
A child killer who tortured and killed his partner's child has been killed in Long Lartin prison. The attack on the child was so horrific that every single limb was fractured.
I'd just like to add something. Much of the debate seems to centre on the fact that they knew at 10 years old what is wrong and what is right.
I take issue with this TBH ....................we are not born knowing right from wrong - it is something we learn (mostly from our parents). If we are not shown love, care and affection it can be hard to demonstrate it as we simply don't know how to show it. We might learn later in life - we might not. At ten years old what goes on in our own homes is 'the norm' - that is the way things are done - that is the 'right' way as we know it. Everyone's 'standard' of what is right and what is wrong varies. A child bought up where cheating the benefit system or stealing is part and parcel of their every day life may well see this as right or indeed acceptable.
Whilst I'm pretty sure that T&V knew what they were doing was wrong I don;t think they fully comprehended or empathised at all.
I'm rambling but I firmly believe (like reading and writing) a sense of right and wrong is learned. No one expects a child to read without being taught do they?
Haven't got a lot of time right now TBH - and this isn't as clear as I'd like but - I just thought I'd share my thoughts.
I loved Aggs post aboiut 'the village/community' incidentally.
Brady is a psychopath and a narcissistic unreformable murderer.
Psychopathy/sociopathy in some cases being, so I've read anyway, not just incurable but essentially untreatable. I don't know how right that is, but I've seen it said.
Evil is a word that does not belong in the field of criminology and is never used by anyone seriously studying the stubject.
Evil's a rubbish word. Who even uses it and wants to be taken seriously? It's devoid of analysis.
Its a word that summons emotions rather than thought. As I said earlier, its simpler to label and then forget - more smug, too.
And I don't understand the "You wouldn't think that way if it was yours" thing. Do you know, I rather hope I would, just to hang on to my sanity.
It is generally accepted that psychopathy is untreatable. However, not all psychopaths are criminal or deviant - most are functional. The theory which is most widely accepted is that while nature forms the psychopath, nurture forms the criminal psychopath.
It is generally accepted that psychopathy is untreatable. However, not all psychopaths are criminal or deviant - most are functional. The theory which is most widely accepted is that while nature forms the psychopath, nurture forms the criminal psychopath.
That's very interesting. I didn't know that. This is why I actually contribute to and read these threads. Because in amongst all the hysteria that inevitably breaks out (and 'evil' is a very emotive word and essentially comes from religious beliefs - not necessarily those of the person using it in a post, but that's more than likely where its origins lie), you actually get to learn something.
I watch a lot of crime documentaries (I also watch a lot of Holocaust documentaries and have many books. I guess this makes me a weird obsessive in some people's eyes). I have actually been quite astonished by some of the acts which have been perpetrated by murderers on their victims. Just as heinous (and in some cases more so) than the two children involved in the Bulger murder.
This doesn't excuse that they did. Nothing can. But you have to look beyond the act and see the person committing it. And try to ascertain why; or the background to it. Otherwise, we never learn anything. We never discover how to try to prevent such things happening in the future.
I believe that if people cared nearly as much about current problems than what happened 20 years ago, the world or at least the UK would be a better place.
It's possible English isn't her first language but I suspect she's not telling the whole truth. In another post she claims to be a paediatric nurse.
ETA. Just read the post again, it says paediatric first aider. I have no idea what this means. I'm a learning assistant in a primary school and have a first aid certificate which is renewed every 3 years. I work with children as young as 3 but I don't think I'd call myself a children's first aider, just a "first aider".
I just completed a peadiatric first aid course because my agency requires us to do this every three years, but this qualifucation does not really give me the skills needed ot comment on the James bolger case. I do however have other qualifications and accuires knowledge that might allow a comment or two.
What happened to Jamie was awful and the two boys who did this really needed to be put in secure units for a prolonged period to receive treatment and behaviour modification therapy. Their behaviour (like that of others) is unacceptable in society, and cannot be tollerated. I am fully in agreement that any crime of this kind must carry a serious pennalty, but the pennalty must be accompanied with reeducationm counselling and behaviour modification therapy. (especially if it is the intention of the courts to release the offender at some time in the future)
Thompso and Venables were I believe sent down for an 'indeterminated period' they were put in therapy and should have been ready for licenced release after a decent period of time. But for the media and Jamie's mother, I believe this would have happenned by now I understand that Jamies mother I can understand her objections to the release but I do not really understand why the two young offenders are singled out by the press every time they are due for release etc. I feel an injustice is happening for these two young people. Their human rights are being violated and so is their right to confidentiality (they should be freed under licence, and allowed the same rights as others have had, yes they killed a child, but lets face it they are no more 'evil' than many other people that walk our streets. give them a new name/identity/location and monitor their movements. atleast they might have some life.
"Studying" Criminology and Sociolgy I am currently reading up on youth cultures and transitions.
I believe the killing of Jamie Bulger is the worst singular crime that I personally have read up on not down to the torture and acts but more because of alleged innocents taking innocence It could be possibly because I am a mother.
One of those boys is more evil than Ian Bradey, evil from a child and the evil would have only gone on to grow even worse into adulthood if not subdued its only the fact he was caught and now monitored that he doesn't go on to commit more crimes. That evil is walking around in out society.
I personally find it harder to comprehend a child/young person sadistically killing than that of an adult, also James age I take into consideration.
Another case is Jesse Pomeroy and I just cant for the life comprehend a child bruitally killing a child and having little remorse.
Some believe some people were born evil and others nurtured into being evil.
I find the moors murders deaths as equally terrible but I have an understanding of why they happened, Ian was and is a psychopath, intelligent and evil. He thrived on what he did and needed memories to get off on. He enjoyed and still does enjoy the power of been able to toy with peoples emotions. He did not only thrive off the kill he thrives of the effects of the kill on others.
Again Dahmer an adult when he commited his crimes and although his numberous victims 18 I believe, were horrific for his cannibalism, rape and the fact he hacked his victims to pieces and yes to victims of young people/minors but I find his killings easier to read than that of the death of Jamie Bulger.
It could be possibly due to I remember the Bulger case very well and we are constantly reminded of the pain in a visual form via his family.
Dhamer/Brady/West/Hidley all had justice served, where imo the murderers of James Bulger did not.
We all have different opinions.
I believe at eight you should be classed at criminally responsible as long as their are no mental implications and a sentence should fit the crime regardless of age.
You can not rehabilitate EVIL.
Haven't you read about Peter Barratt and James Bradley? They were two 8 year olds who murdered a 2 year old boy, George Burgess, in Stockport in 1861. It was a long time ago but they were even younger than Venables and Thompson.
Haven't you read about Peter Barratt and James Bradley? They were two 8 year olds who murdered a 2 year old boy, George Burgess, in Stockport in 1861. It was a long time ago but they were even younger than Venables and Thompson.
And neither Barrett or Bradley went on to kill again (or even come into contact with the criminal justice system again). In fact, one was released before the five year period was up because he behaved so well.
Not once did the trial judge use the word 'evil'. He said they had been 'wicked boys' but that his desire was to send them to a place that could turn them into 'good boys and good men'.
It is generally accepted that psychopathy is untreatable. However, not all psychopaths are criminal or deviant - most are functional. The theory which is most widely accepted is that while nature forms the psychopath, nurture forms the criminal psychopath.
What do you do with them (psychopaths like Brady) though, should they be just locked up for the rest of their lives?
If they seem to be completely impossible to rehabilitated could they try some procedure (mayby medical with their consent) to pacify them i.e. as barbaric as it sounds a lobotomy? That way they could be released after a reasonable amount of time (20-25 years). Or is it just too dangerous to let them out ever.
With T & V I think that the sentences they received were right as children should be treated more leniently, not go unpunished but with more emphasis on rehabilitation. And any re-offending handled appropriately, with the initial crime in mind though.
I don't think it needs changing - I think it should simply be kept in context. I din't see it as having context in a court of law and in deciding guilt/punishment TBH.
There's a panoply out there. I'm many things but a thesaurus ain't one of them
I just find it a very self-limiting term. It has a start point, an end point and that's that. It has no capacity for illuminating difficult subjects. In other words, apart from anything else, it's mind-numbingly simplistic. And that doesn't really get anyone anywhere does it?
Comments
You do come across as very arrogant, the way you dismiss people.
Who is this directed at?
& nobody has suggested that Ian Brady is anything but evil.....
Anais said anyone talking about evil has no business studying criminology
Quite right too. Evil is a concept to do with morality. Criminology is the study of why crimes happen and how the can be prevented and what to do with criminals and victims.
The moment you say "Its because they were evil," you have given your self a let-out from having to think seriously about it.
It's possible English isn't her first language but I suspect she's not telling the whole truth. In another post she claims to be a paediatric nurse.
ETA. Just read the post again, it says paediatric first aider. I have no idea what this means. I'm a learning assistant in a primary school and have a first aid certificate which is renewed every 3 years. I work with children as young as 3 but I don't think I'd call myself a children's first aider, just a "first aider".
Brady is a psychopath and a narcissistic unreformable murderer.
Evil is a word that does not belong in the field of criminology and is never used by anyone seriously studying the stubject.
Equally, what if you opened up an email attachment to see a picture of your child with "this is what Jon Venables looks like today" ?
It works both ways ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-21473294
Bet most have never heard of him.
I'd just like to add something. Much of the debate seems to centre on the fact that they knew at 10 years old what is wrong and what is right.
I take issue with this TBH ....................we are not born knowing right from wrong - it is something we learn (mostly from our parents). If we are not shown love, care and affection it can be hard to demonstrate it as we simply don't know how to show it. We might learn later in life - we might not. At ten years old what goes on in our own homes is 'the norm' - that is the way things are done - that is the 'right' way as we know it. Everyone's 'standard' of what is right and what is wrong varies. A child bought up where cheating the benefit system or stealing is part and parcel of their every day life may well see this as right or indeed acceptable.
Whilst I'm pretty sure that T&V knew what they were doing was wrong I don;t think they fully comprehended or empathised at all.
I'm rambling but I firmly believe (like reading and writing) a sense of right and wrong is learned. No one expects a child to read without being taught do they?
Haven't got a lot of time right now TBH - and this isn't as clear as I'd like but - I just thought I'd share my thoughts.
I loved Aggs post aboiut 'the village/community' incidentally.
Hear hear.
Its a word that summons emotions rather than thought. As I said earlier, its simpler to label and then forget - more smug, too.
And I don't understand the "You wouldn't think that way if it was yours" thing. Do you know, I rather hope I would, just to hang on to my sanity.
That's very interesting. I didn't know that. This is why I actually contribute to and read these threads. Because in amongst all the hysteria that inevitably breaks out (and 'evil' is a very emotive word and essentially comes from religious beliefs - not necessarily those of the person using it in a post, but that's more than likely where its origins lie), you actually get to learn something.
I watch a lot of crime documentaries (I also watch a lot of Holocaust documentaries and have many books. I guess this makes me a weird obsessive in some people's eyes). I have actually been quite astonished by some of the acts which have been perpetrated by murderers on their victims. Just as heinous (and in some cases more so) than the two children involved in the Bulger murder.
This doesn't excuse that they did. Nothing can. But you have to look beyond the act and see the person committing it. And try to ascertain why; or the background to it. Otherwise, we never learn anything. We never discover how to try to prevent such things happening in the future.
I just completed a peadiatric first aid course because my agency requires us to do this every three years, but this qualifucation does not really give me the skills needed ot comment on the James bolger case. I do however have other qualifications and accuires knowledge that might allow a comment or two.
What happened to Jamie was awful and the two boys who did this really needed to be put in secure units for a prolonged period to receive treatment and behaviour modification therapy. Their behaviour (like that of others) is unacceptable in society, and cannot be tollerated. I am fully in agreement that any crime of this kind must carry a serious pennalty, but the pennalty must be accompanied with reeducationm counselling and behaviour modification therapy. (especially if it is the intention of the courts to release the offender at some time in the future)
Thompso and Venables were I believe sent down for an 'indeterminated period' they were put in therapy and should have been ready for licenced release after a decent period of time. But for the media and Jamie's mother, I believe this would have happenned by now I understand that Jamies mother I can understand her objections to the release but I do not really understand why the two young offenders are singled out by the press every time they are due for release etc. I feel an injustice is happening for these two young people. Their human rights are being violated and so is their right to confidentiality (they should be freed under licence, and allowed the same rights as others have had, yes they killed a child, but lets face it they are no more 'evil' than many other people that walk our streets. give them a new name/identity/location and monitor their movements. atleast they might have some life.
Haven't you read about Peter Barratt and James Bradley? They were two 8 year olds who murdered a 2 year old boy, George Burgess, in Stockport in 1861. It was a long time ago but they were even younger than Venables and Thompson.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-child-murdered-by-children-1616746.html
Slightly unfortunate that's in the arts and entertainment section of the paper.
Yeah I'm slightly confused by that myself.
It's a good write up though.
Not once did the trial judge use the word 'evil'. He said they had been 'wicked boys' but that his desire was to send them to a place that could turn them into 'good boys and good men'.
What do you do with them (psychopaths like Brady) though, should they be just locked up for the rest of their lives?
If they seem to be completely impossible to rehabilitated could they try some procedure (mayby medical with their consent) to pacify them i.e. as barbaric as it sounds a lobotomy? That way they could be released after a reasonable amount of time (20-25 years). Or is it just too dangerous to let them out ever.
With T & V I think that the sentences they received were right as children should be treated more leniently, not go unpunished but with more emphasis on rehabilitation. And any re-offending handled appropriately, with the initial crime in mind though.
What word would you like it changed to?
I don't think it needs changing - I think it should simply be kept in context. I din't see it as having context in a court of law and in deciding guilt/punishment TBH.
There's a panoply out there. I'm many things but a thesaurus ain't one of them
I just find it a very self-limiting term. It has a start point, an end point and that's that. It has no capacity for illuminating difficult subjects. In other words, apart from anything else, it's mind-numbingly simplistic. And that doesn't really get anyone anywhere does it?
It's just shorthand and it's dull.
Is it really neccessary to insult those who disagree with your views? You do it frequently (although usually slightly more subtle).