Anyone who can talk about 'evil' has no business studying criminology.
It's total fantastical nonsense. I simply don't believe you. If you were studying youth developmental psychology, you would know full well that what you are saying is rot.
And you have absolutely no authority to make such pronouncements on Robert Thompson without being privy to any psychiatric reports. Again, the fact that you have done so makes me look upon your claims to study criminology with great scepticsm.
To be fair she may be very new to studying criminology - it can take some time to develop the necessary skills required to be objective and to understand why words such as 'evil' are a cop-out.
I have spent a total of 10 years studying 'ologies' (from A Level Sociology to a degree in Anthropology and then another degree in Psychology) and I imagine you have studied a great deal more than me. I certainly remember beginning my studies with a less than objective perspective and very little understanding.
That said, I would be worried if someone with considerable experience of criminology held those views, although not everyone who studies a subject has an aptitude for it or will come out of it having a good knowledge of the subject.
I've certainly never pulled anyone up for baiting me (although others have).
My views have been pretty consistent.
Re Brady - incarceration for life is the only option in cases like that. However, I would prefer prisons which house these kind of people to provide some quality of life.
I've certainly never pulled anyone up for baiting me (although others have).
My views have been pretty consistent.
Re Brady - incarceration for life is the only option in cases like that. However, I would prefer prisons which house these kind of people to provide some quality of life.
The hypocrisy refers to your lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding of some people involved in this case.
As for the insults Mr Mackintosh asks about, a quick scan through your numerous posts on this topic in many threads will find numerous digs at people with a differing viewpoint. In most cases you cleverly avoid directing them at specific people however the one I quoted earlier is an example of when you did.
The hypocrisy refers to your lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding of some people involved in this case.
As for the insults Mr Mackintosh asks about, a quick scan through your numerous posts on this topic in many threads will find numerous digs at people with a differing viewpoint. In most cases you cleverly avoid directing them at specific people however the one I quoted earlier is an example of when you did.
Sorry, but I've followed all the Bulger threads and I would dispute this. Anais hasn't insulted anyone, directly or otherwise, whereas she has been baited and directly insulted by many. I think she's been very dignified in her responses.
You haven't provided any specific examples. Regarding Cherry Rose's English not being good enough to study criminology, I would agree as others have.
I would like to say thanks for all the personal messages I've received by the way. It does seem that the vitriolic, vengeful response to this case may not, in fact, be the majority view.
Sorry, but I've followed all the Bulger threads and I would dispute this. Anais hasn't insulted anyone, directly or otherwise, whereas she has been baited and directly insulted by many. I think she's been very dignified in her responses.
You haven't provided any specific examples. Regarding Cherry Rose's English not being good enough to study criminology, I would agree as others have.
I think the fact that a number from the other threads are enjoying some peace and quiet on the DS naughty step and Anais is still here posting says quite a lot.
Anyway, enough of discussing other posters which is actually against the T&C's
I think the fact that a number from the other threads are enjoying some peace and quiet on the DS naughty step and Anais is still here posting says quite a lot.
Anyway, enough of discussing other posters which is actually against the T&C's
I think the fact that a number from the other threads are enjoying some peace and quiet on the DS naughty step and Anais is still here posting says quite a lot.
I am sure the OP would still share this view if it was their child taken and killed in such a way.
Always easier to express forgiveness and such when you haven't experienced something quite a sick happen to you or a loved one.
I think the reason many can't forgive is not just that they killed that little boy, it was HOW they did it.
Oh come on of course I am going to feel differently, and yes you're damn right I would lack objectivity. Its only natural being a parent (of which I am not). Let me be clear I am by no means a hypocrite, being on the outside looking in if you will, affords me the privilege of being objective. It doesn't mean to say anything I have said is less right.
I didn't say we should forgive when quite frankly it isn't our place to do so, when we are not the aggrieved party. Only James' family can do that. It is their right not to forgive, but it isn't their right to determine their sentence or punishment. This is why we have an independent judiciary, although I will be the first to admit it doesn't always get things right.
BTW, the separation of the judiciary from the executive is considered one of the pillars of liberty and one of the reasons Michael Howard broke the law when he got involved with the sentencing. He far exceeded his brief and actually ended up taking the right to determine a tariff away from politicians completely (only a judge can decide now - for adults as well as juveniles).
It's also why any government e-petition which demands a tougher sentence for X or Y is bound to be thrown into the bin at westminster. All that can happen is the attorney general can request the court of appeal to look at the sentence again. Politicians cannot get involved in sentencing. And rightly so.
It's also why any government e-petition which demands a tougher sentence for X or Y is bound to be thrown into the bin at westminster. All that can happen is the attorney general can request the court of appeal to look at the sentence again. Politicians cannot get involved in sentencing. And rightly so.
Strictly speaking they can set minimum tariffs for a crime, but yes as you say they can't get involved in sentencing. I believe that is why the supreme court was created (removing the unusual situation of the Lords (politicians) being able to decide on appeals and sentencing reviews).
I have taken part (for my sins) in the recent threads which have been running regarding James Bulger. A lot of it has been reasoned debate and interesting facts (not just about the case, but about the laws of this country, from someone who knows about it).
Unfortunately, there have also been the 'hysterical few' who have been a part of the 'hang 'em high' brigade (mostly now 'on holiday') who attempted to take the discussion off course and focus on pedantry or emotive words.
There have been other murders both before and since this one. Some of them even more horrific in nature; committed against both children and adults. James suffered sustained abuse at the hands of these two children (who, as you say, would have known right from wrong, but would not had any concept of the implications of their actions. Children mature at different ages and background can certainly have an effect on that development. I have also been wondering recently if anything was discovered about their actual development? I do know that there was an abusive element to their own lives, but was there any developmental delay? I only ponder this because that can certainly have an effect on empathy in children).
However, how is this a worse crime than that committed against baby P - who suffered evern more prolonged abuse (over a matter of months, not hours) at the hands of his mother and her partner? They were adults. They were well aware of the consequences of their actions. They were mature enough to have developed empathy (not to mention one of the adults was actually the child's own mother, of course).
The fact that two children committed this heinous act is horrendous of course, and goes against everything that we as a society believe in - the age of innocence, that children are incapable of such violence. However, as we all know, even well-brought up children are capable of cruelty. Bullying in the playground, teasing of those who they see as lesser than them. It's a 'gang mentality' mostly, of course, each egging the others on. And that's more than likely what happened in this case. Alone, perhaps neither boy would have been capable of harming another child. Together, they became a lethal combination.
Children aren't capable of recognising that 'death' equals death. They have no concept of it. They also think they're going to live forever and that nothing will ever harm them. That's a child's view, simply because they haven't developed sufficiently to recognise the finality of it. A child is developing all the time; the sensibilities and empathy growing as they age. It's why there are developmental assessments on children - to ascertain how they are progressing in this area.
Every murder is horrific. The two children were villified (as rightly they should have been); but they are held up to a higher standard than an adult murderer or a serial killer. Which is wrong. They were children. They were not mature people who understood exactly what they were doing (or the consequences of it). Adults are supposed to understand these things because their brain processes have matured. Children's haven't. The concept of KNOWING wrong from right is very different from UNDERSTANDING wrong from right.
The whole thing is tragic and I cannot even begin to imagine the pain that the Bulger family have to live with every day.
You said exactly what I wanted to say, but I could not have put it so eloquently.
Every so often this case rears its head with some very strong and quite emotional views. What I feel a lot of people lack is perspective about this case. What Thompson and Venables did was horrific by any measure, and at the same time sad. I am currently having quite a strong debate with some people on twitter at the moment, and some people even think the two should have been killed or hanged when they reached 18. When I look back I question or wonder what does a person convicted of a crime have to do to have served a "just" sentence. Initially they were detained at HM Pleasure, further to a review from the ECHR and our own Chief Juctice their sentence was reduced. Now whether you do or don't agree with earlier rulings and subsquent ones since, in the eyes of the law justice was served and the two indviduals were given parole with lifetime control orders.
Naturally we now find ourselves in the era of Socia Media where a widely circulated picture purporting to be Jon Venables is now reaching peoples monitors. I admit I have looked at said picture purely out of curiosity, but wonder what if this is the wrong person? We are now facing a trial by media and the court of public opinion, which really does concern me about the future of Judge, Jury and the right to a fair trial.
When I say some people lack perspective, they forget that when the horrific even occurred, both the offenders were children who were barely over the age of responsibility. I have know doubt what they did they knew was wrong, but I sincerely believe they wouldn't have comprehended the consequences that would soon follow that awful murder. I still believe they shouldn't have been tried as adults in an adult court, this was wrong from the outset. The case is a reminder of Mary Bell from the late sixties, similar situation however she murdered another child. However she was convicted with dminished responsibility, later shown to have symptoms of psychosis. I believe if someone like to correct me a campaign was run by some tabloids on the continent and over here to have her released as some felt the sentence was over zealous. As we all know she was released and the circus that followed.
The same happened with these two individuals new identities, everything. Where do we draw the line regarding the journey someone travels from criminal punishment to rehabilitation and no longer being a danger to society? Looking objectively, this case caught the nations attention is such a way I doubt these two could ever live out their lives free from vigilantes or lynch mobs. I certainly believe in retrospect the sentence they were given I feel was proportionate given their age and also the background behind their upbringing.
What I find remarkable is some people label these two as serial killers, true heathens of society who pre planned the murder and what they were going to do.When I look back through document evidence and testimony nowhere is it spoken of it being a pre meditated act against Bulger. It has been established they came from damaged homes, abusive parents and so on. We have seen time and again what happens to children on the fringes of society, invariably they become involved in crime or in this case murder.
My point in all of this is everything is always based on emotive opinion rather than fact. We have to accept that both UK and European legal systems agreed the two offenders were given and served an appriopriate sentence. Ignoring the crimes that Venables has commited since (Yes I know they are shockng), I ask when does a person get to a point when it is seen as they have served a sentence and get to walk free? It seems these two are condemned for life, when we consider other children who have commited burglary and violent assault are allowed to put the past behind them when they reach adult age.
From Wikipedia,
"It was later revealed by one of the boys that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead him to the busy road alongside the mall, and push him into the path of oncoming traffic."
I think the fact that a number from the other threads are enjoying some peace and quiet on the DS naughty step and Anais is still here posting says quite a lot.
Anyway, enough of discussing other posters which is actually against the T&C's
Just wanted to say that I'm not on the naughty step, * waves cheerfully*
And I also wanted to say, to anyone that is bothered, I've had a turn around in my views on this subject, since reading all the posts
I'm following it all with much interest
Strictly speaking they can set minimum tariffs for a crime, but yes as you say they can't get involved in sentencing. I believe that is why the supreme court was created (removing the unusual situation of the Lords (politicians) being able to decide on appeals and sentencing reviews).
Politicians can't anymore. This case (along with one other) ended that right when the Law Lords made the judgement. They can no longer determine a tariff - only judges can do that.
By the age of 10 I knew if I stomped on an ant or a spider, it would not come back to life. However I was also aware an ant and a child are two different species and laws apply to killing children that do not apply to killing ants or spiders.
As such I didn't torture or kill anyone because I was aware of the idea of the law from about the age of 5 or 6 through playing cops and robbers. I realised if someone slayed a dragon even in fictional constraints, that meant the dragon was dead.
10 year olds that don't have profound learning disabilities know the different between life and death. Let's not pretend they are all simpletons who can't comprehend the basic nature of living by that age.
If they can become members of society, cognisant of their actions and genuinely contrite, hoping to be more and better than they were, that's one thing. Everyone deserves the chance to try right their wrongs and move beyond their criminal history if they can. However since it seems one has already been arrested again for possessing images of child pornography and abuse, I do have to wonder if the die is not cast and they are beyond redemption.
I do have to wonder if the die is not cast and they are beyond redemption.
This is ridiculously simplistic.
For starters, neither boy have had anything to do with eachother since the day they were convicted. They are - to all effects- strangers. They didn't even know eachother very long before the murder (18 months when Venables came to Thompson's school).
They are likely to have very different personalities and had different personalities when they were ten (in the police interviews, Jon Venables clearly thought Thompson was a bit of a sissy - calling him 'a girl' and poking fun of his liking for dolls).
To make a crass suggestion like that (both 'beyond redemption') is based on nothing but knee-jerk silliness.
For starters, neither boy have had anything to do with eachother since the day they were convicted. They are - to all effects- strangers. They didn't even know eachother very long before the murder (18 months when Venables came to Thompson's school).
They are likely to have very different personalities and had different personalities when they were ten (in the police interviews, Jon Venables clearly thought Thompson was a bit of a sissy - calling him 'a girl' and poking fun of his liking for dolls).
To make a crass suggestion like that (both 'beyond redemption') is based on nothing but knee-jerk silliness.
I cited one's continued indulgence in child cruelty and child pornography, suggesting a continued interest in the abuse of minors, leading to further criminal charges. I believe this occurred in 2010.
Knee jerk silliness? Opinion formed from fact, I think you'll find. Just because one of them may have been more compliant and feminine than the other doesn't make either less culpable for their actions. An accessory to a crime is still guilty of aiding the criminal.
I cited one's continued indulgence in child cruelty and child pornography, suggesting a continued interest in the abuse of minors, leading to further criminal charges. I believe this occurred in 2010.
Knee jerk silliness? Opinion formed from fact, I think you'll find. Just because one of them may have been more compliant and feminine than the other doesn't make either less culpable for their actions. An accessory to a crime is still guilty of aiding the criminal.
There was no assumption on my part about the level of culpability of either child.
What I am questionning is your ability to make a judgement about one man because of the behaviour of another. It is an outright perversion of justice - condemning by virtue of association.
There was no assumption on my part about the level of culpability of either child.
What I am questionning is your ability to make a judgement about one man because of the behaviour of another. It is an outright perversion of justice - condemning by virtue of association.
I tend to judge all child killers equally until evidence suggests otherwise, personally. Both were involved in torturing and then murdering a child. Whether one would have rather went home and played Lego is irrelevant since both did eventually kill James Bulger and neither attempt to stop the other or get help. If it comes out either have genuinely reformed and no longer have any impulses of that nature, then that will be a different matter altogether to discuss.
Just wanted to say that I'm not on the naughty step, * waves cheerfully*
And I also wanted to say, to anyone that is bothered, I've had a turn around in my views on this subject, since reading all the posts
I'm following it all with much interest
I'm bothered, and I think it's big of you.
It's hard to consider other things, I've done it too, but it's a damned high level thing:):D
And can rankle (well, I've felt it). So nothing but goods to you Ada:)
Comments
And you seem to respond in an antagonistic way to everything this poster writes.
In this instance I think she was brave enough to say what a lot (me anyway) of others were thinking.
There really is no need to lie on these forums and yet sometimes people who speak the truth are vilified.
I disagee, but I wouldn't want to make someone feel bad about themselves.
I find her views hypocritical. There's nothing brave about firing needless insults at people.
What needless insults? What hypocrisy? I'm not being antagonistic, I really can't understand what you're referring to here.
To be fair she may be very new to studying criminology - it can take some time to develop the necessary skills required to be objective and to understand why words such as 'evil' are a cop-out.
I have spent a total of 10 years studying 'ologies' (from A Level Sociology to a degree in Anthropology and then another degree in Psychology) and I imagine you have studied a great deal more than me. I certainly remember beginning my studies with a less than objective perspective and very little understanding.
That said, I would be worried if someone with considerable experience of criminology held those views, although not everyone who studies a subject has an aptitude for it or will come out of it having a good knowledge of the subject.
I've certainly never pulled anyone up for baiting me (although others have).
My views have been pretty consistent.
Re Brady - incarceration for life is the only option in cases like that. However, I would prefer prisons which house these kind of people to provide some quality of life.
The hypocrisy refers to your lack of compassion, tolerance and understanding of some people involved in this case.
As for the insults Mr Mackintosh asks about, a quick scan through your numerous posts on this topic in many threads will find numerous digs at people with a differing viewpoint. In most cases you cleverly avoid directing them at specific people however the one I quoted earlier is an example of when you did.
Sorry, but I've followed all the Bulger threads and I would dispute this. Anais hasn't insulted anyone, directly or otherwise, whereas she has been baited and directly insulted by many. I think she's been very dignified in her responses.
You haven't provided any specific examples. Regarding Cherry Rose's English not being good enough to study criminology, I would agree as others have.
I think the fact that a number from the other threads are enjoying some peace and quiet on the DS naughty step and Anais is still here posting says quite a lot.
Anyway, enough of discussing other posters which is actually against the T&C's
Agreed.
Oh come on of course I am going to feel differently, and yes you're damn right I would lack objectivity. Its only natural being a parent (of which I am not). Let me be clear I am by no means a hypocrite, being on the outside looking in if you will, affords me the privilege of being objective. It doesn't mean to say anything I have said is less right.
I didn't say we should forgive when quite frankly it isn't our place to do so, when we are not the aggrieved party. Only James' family can do that. It is their right not to forgive, but it isn't their right to determine their sentence or punishment. This is why we have an independent judiciary, although I will be the first to admit it doesn't always get things right.
It's also why any government e-petition which demands a tougher sentence for X or Y is bound to be thrown into the bin at westminster. All that can happen is the attorney general can request the court of appeal to look at the sentence again. Politicians cannot get involved in sentencing. And rightly so.
Strictly speaking they can set minimum tariffs for a crime, but yes as you say they can't get involved in sentencing. I believe that is why the supreme court was created (removing the unusual situation of the Lords (politicians) being able to decide on appeals and sentencing reviews).
From Wikipedia,
"It was later revealed by one of the boys that they were planning to find a child to abduct, lead him to the busy road alongside the mall, and push him into the path of oncoming traffic."
Just wanted to say that I'm not on the naughty step, * waves cheerfully*
And I also wanted to say, to anyone that is bothered, I've had a turn around in my views on this subject, since reading all the posts
I'm following it all with much interest
Politicians can't anymore. This case (along with one other) ended that right when the Law Lords made the judgement. They can no longer determine a tariff - only judges can do that.
They can't even make any decisions about parole.
As such I didn't torture or kill anyone because I was aware of the idea of the law from about the age of 5 or 6 through playing cops and robbers. I realised if someone slayed a dragon even in fictional constraints, that meant the dragon was dead.
10 year olds that don't have profound learning disabilities know the different between life and death. Let's not pretend they are all simpletons who can't comprehend the basic nature of living by that age.
If they can become members of society, cognisant of their actions and genuinely contrite, hoping to be more and better than they were, that's one thing. Everyone deserves the chance to try right their wrongs and move beyond their criminal history if they can. However since it seems one has already been arrested again for possessing images of child pornography and abuse, I do have to wonder if the die is not cast and they are beyond redemption.
This is ridiculously simplistic.
For starters, neither boy have had anything to do with eachother since the day they were convicted. They are - to all effects- strangers. They didn't even know eachother very long before the murder (18 months when Venables came to Thompson's school).
They are likely to have very different personalities and had different personalities when they were ten (in the police interviews, Jon Venables clearly thought Thompson was a bit of a sissy - calling him 'a girl' and poking fun of his liking for dolls).
To make a crass suggestion like that (both 'beyond redemption') is based on nothing but knee-jerk silliness.
Knee jerk silliness? Opinion formed from fact, I think you'll find. Just because one of them may have been more compliant and feminine than the other doesn't make either less culpable for their actions. An accessory to a crime is still guilty of aiding the criminal.
There was no assumption on my part about the level of culpability of either child.
What I am questionning is your ability to make a judgement about one man because of the behaviour of another. It is an outright perversion of justice - condemning by virtue of association.
I tend to judge all child killers equally until evidence suggests otherwise, personally. Both were involved in torturing and then murdering a child. Whether one would have rather went home and played Lego is irrelevant since both did eventually kill James Bulger and neither attempt to stop the other or get help. If it comes out either have genuinely reformed and no longer have any impulses of that nature, then that will be a different matter altogether to discuss.
I'm bothered, and I think it's big of you.
It's hard to consider other things, I've done it too, but it's a damned high level thing:):D
And can rankle (well, I've felt it). So nothing but goods to you Ada:)