I think you are wrong. I don't think a child of 10 is as culpable as an adult. They should not have been tried as adults and their identity should never have been released at the time. Perhaps if they had been properly rehabilitated and not exposed to the glare of the media and everyone with morbid curiosity and a vengeful desire to see them punished Venables might not be back in trouble now. The whole thing is much more complex than people seem willing or able to recognise and anyone who tries to look at the issues in more detail are dismissed by the baying masses as do gooders.
Does anyone know why their identity was released ?
I asked on here yesterday but no-one replied
`Does anyone know why these two were named as the murderers in the first place ?
My friend`s son was murdered - kicked to death by a 23yr and 17yr old.
`The teenager, who cannot be named, a minimum of eight years. ` `
If his identity is revealed, then the case against him will become tarnished and he wouldn't receive a fair trial
If his crime is revealed, then it won't be too difficult to discover his identity, then the case against him would be tarnished etc etc etc
I see no problem with his identity being revealed if he is found guilty and sent back to prison - although I'm sure there are legal reasons why this can't be done for his 'protection'
People need to separate the LEGAL side from the EMOTIONAL side on this issue.
He deserves to rot in hell for what he did, but that is not a legal standpoint
Again - thats a load of crap and people who think like you are the reason that people literally get away with murder in modern "do gooder" society.
As I've said, I feel passionately about this case because I was the same age as these boys and from the same neighbourhood - so the common excuses used in their defense (their home life and their age) anger me.
At 10 years old, you 100% know what murder is and what the consequences of actions, such as the ones they took, are.
If they had been 5 years old, I'd understand. At 10 - that is a poor excuse.
Soo, you are a do-badder? Not one person has excused what they did on this thread. What people have done is try to understand what the reasons why other then "ZOMG THEY ARE EEEEEVULLLL!!!1!"
So everyone in that area, including your good self is a product of a f**ked up environment? That doesn't say much for Liverpool and I'll never go there if that is the case. But hey, your experience trumps actual evidence. What are you doing to make life better for those that come from your awful surroundings and your terrible upbringing? (Don't get butthurt either, I am using your descriptions.)
They didn't get away with murder, they were tried, convicted, sentenced and served their time. Again, direct your ire at the CPS.
I don't expect Denise and Ralph Bulger to get over it. That is a cruel thing to say. However, other people have to.
I never want to see something like this happen again, but unless we try to get to the bottom of why children kill children, we will see it happening. All the wailing and breast-beating does the sum of f**k all.
Yeah, I`m 90% sure they managed to get the film banned from being shown on tv or something
Yeah, I'm sure that made all the difference. If it was banned from being shown on the telly it doubtless saved a lot of lives.
When one really considers the conditions that can lead a child into becoming a calous murderer it is just utterly ridiculous to think that the thing that might have tipped the balance was a film.
I hadn't been aware that there was any question of insanity in this case. Yes, I do know what they did and it was sadistic and appalling. I would suggest that this is probably behaviour learned from withing their home envvironments.
If sadistic violence and systematic abuse is considered normal for that area - then something ought to be done to protect children who live in such homes.
If it is not considered normal, then perhaps the fact that these are the sorts of homes that Thomson and Venables DID come from, might offer some insight into their violent crimes.
Their home lives were not out of the ordinary for the area - they were hit on occasion, their was some "rough housing" from siblings, and their was an alcohol problem with a parent in one of the homes - NOT unusual for the area and NOT abuse to the extent that people seem to think they experienced.
Certainly not enough to ever make me even consider that this is excuse enough for them to be let off so lightly for such a crime.
Even if they weren't insane at the time, do you honestly think that anybody can do what they did and come out of it a normal person?
I'm amazed that anybody ever expected that neither of these two would re-offend
There is no need for people to be speculating about what he has done anyway. Even if the information were published it would not stop any of the hysteria.
If the information was given out at the same time as his re-arrest statement, we wouldn't of had the media speculation we have now.
I think you are wrong. I don't think a child of 10 is as culpable as an adult. They should not have been tried as adults and their identity should never have been released at the time. Perhaps if they had been properly rehabilitated and not exposed to the glare of the media and everyone with morbid curiosity and a vengeful desire to see them punished Venables might not be back in trouble now. The whole thing is much more complex than people seem willing or able to recognise and anyone who tries to look at the issues in more detail are dismissed by the baying masses as do gooders.
I'd be surprised if anyone who was so damaged to commit a crime like that could ever be fully rehabilitated, to be honest. So we can't truly know what would have happened.
Neither were Thomson and Venables - or does that not matter because they didn't actually end up being murdered themselves?
Would you have had no problem at all if Thomson and /or Venabes had become murder victims themselves withing their own homes or environments? They weren't being protected - maybe if they had been, James Bulger would still be alive.
As I've already stated, the extent of the abuse they suffered at home was grossly inaccurate. They came from broken homes yes, their parents had some issues yes, they were occasionally hit yes - they were not battered black & blue on a daily or even monthly weekly basis.
Of course I would have had a problem if they had been murdered at the hands of their families - but they werent.
A 2 year old was murdered - not only murdered, TORTURED - at their hands.
And that is what we're talking about, not the possibility of what COULD have happened to them like that is somehow supposed to justify what they did!
Soo, you are a do-badder? Not one person has excused what they did on this thread. What people have done is try to understand what the reasons why other then "ZOMG THEY ARE EEEEEVULLLL!!!1!"
So everyone in that area, including your good self is a product of a f**ked up environment? That doesn't say much for Liverpool and I'll never go there if that is the case. But hey, your experience trumps actual evidence. What are you doing to make life better for those that come from your awful surroundings and your terrible upbringing? (Don't get butthurt either, I am using your descriptions.)
They didn't get away with murder, they were tried, convicted, sentenced and served their time. Again, direct your ire at the CPS.
I don't expect Denise and Ralph Bulger to get over it. That is a cruel thing to say. However, other people have to.
I never want to see something like this happen again, but unless we try to get to the bottom of why children kill children, we will see it happening. All the wailing and breast-beating does the sum of f**k all.
No I never said EVERYBODY and I never said that I came from that kind of family - I said that it happens a LOT in that area, as I expect it happens in most under-priveleged areas across this and other countries.
Yeah, I'm sure that made all the difference. If it was banned from being shown on the telly it doubtless saved a lot of lives.
When one really considers the conditions that can lead a child into becoming a calous murderer it is just utterly ridiculous to think that the thing that might have tipped the balance was a film.
I don't think they said the film was the reason - but they emulated certain scenes from it within the murder.
I'd be surprised if anyone who was so damaged to commit a crime like that could ever be fully rehabilitated, to be honest. So we can't truly know what would have happened.
I agree. I also dont think that you can be fully rehabilitated after commiting a crime like that - whatever your mental state was to begin with
No I never said EVERYBODY and I never said that I came from that kind of family - I said that it happens a LOT in that area, as I expect it happens in most under-priveleged areas across this and other countries.
So in your esteemed opinion, what caused them to do this?
Insanity is a legal defence of mental illness. By that reasoning, then they were not in control of their minds and therefore would NOT be able to know right from wrong or that once you kill something, it's gone forever. By you saying they were insane, then they were railroaded by the justice system and never should have stood trial or been convicted in the first place.
This is why you really shouldn't talk what you don't know.
Their home lives were not out of the ordinary for the area - they were hit on occasion, their was some "rough housing" from siblings, and their was an alcohol problem with a parent in one of the homes - NOT unusual for the area and NOT abuse to the extent that people seem to think they experienced.
Certainly not enough to ever make me even consider that this is excuse enough for them to be let off so lightly for such a crime.
Even if they weren't insane at the time, do you honestly think that anybody can do what they did and come out of it a normal person?
I'm amazed that anybody ever expected that neither of these two would re-offend
Do you have a background in psychiatry or psychology - or is this just gut instinct or stubbornness?
My understanding was also not of a"being hit on occasion" - but rather systematic sadistic abuse (in particular from an older brother). Both boys were bullied on a regular basis. I think that makes for a pretty miserable existence, don't you?
For you to try to "normalise" such appalling home circumstances is rather puzzling. Surely if such poor homes are endemic in that part of the city, people like yourselves ought to be up in arms about it - not glibly accepting that it's normal ....................... until the outcome is a couple of boys capable of murder. Then there's an outcry - but only when the most serious of crimes is committed.
Surely the right thing to do is to try to ensure that children like these are not left to live like this in the first place - not wait until someone is actually murdered before acknowledging that it is unacceptable?
I personally don't think Denise as the right to know, unless his new crime poses a risk to her or her family now, however I can wholeheartedly understand why she would feel like she should be told, those two boys have ruined her whole life, and taken her little boy away in such a brutal manner that she will never ever get over what those two did.
All this speculation in the papers is going to make it virtually impossible that venebles will get a fair trial whatever his crime.
My opinion is that shouldn't have been let out in the first place, 8 years is no where long enough to justify what those two did. I have a 9 year old girl and a 13 year old boy and both know full well right from wrong.
As I've already stated, the extent of the abuse they suffered at home was grossly inaccurate. They came from broken homes yes, their parents had some issues yes, they were occasionally hit yes - they were not battered black & blue on a daily or even monthly weekly basis.
Of course I would have had a problem if they had been murdered at the hands of their families - but they werent.
A 2 year old was murdered - not only murdered, TORTURED - at their hands.
And that is what we're talking about, not the possibility of what COULD have happened to them like that is somehow supposed to justify what they did!
Read carefully what I am about to say:
I have not read a single post from anyone on this forum who has ever attempted to justify what they did.
So in your esteemed opinion, what caused them to do this?
Insanity is a legal defence of mental illness. By that reasoning, then they were not in control of their minds and therefore would NOT be able to know right from wrong or that once you kill something, it's gone forever. By you saying they were insane, then they were railroaded by the justice system and never should have stood trial or been convicted in the first place.
This is why you really shouldn't talk what you don't know.
Maybe not, but they should have been LOCKED AWAY FOREVER to prevent them from hurting other people. Which one of them has potentially already done.
I dont claim to know anything about the legal system - what I know about is what happened and the background behind it.
I feel the same. People do evil things-no one is born evil.
If a person is always smiling we say they are happy; if they moan and whinge a lot they get labelled miserable; if they do kind things we say they are kind, and if they do evil things we say they are evil, so people get labelled according to their deeds.
Do you have a background in psychiatry or psychology - or is this just gut instinct or stubbornness?
My understanding was also not of a"being hit on occasion" - but rather systematic sadistic abuse (in particular from an older brother). Both boys were bullied on a regular basis. I think that makes for a pretty miserable existence, don't you?
For you to try to "normalise" such appalling home circumstances is rather puzzling. Surely if such poor homes are endemic in that part of the city, people like yourselves ought to be up in arms about it - not glibly accepting that it's normal ....................... until the outcome is a couple of boys capable of murder. Then there's an outcry - but only when the most serious of crimes is committed.
Surely the right thing to do is to try to ensure that children like these are not left to live like this in the first place - not wait until someone is actually murdered before acknowledging that it is unacceptable?
No I dont. I have a background in child care & education and experience of working in the Rainbow Room on Merseyside (working with child victims of abuse & neglect).
And where does your understanding of their background come from? Forgive me if you are somebody I should know, but I can say with 98% certainty that is NOT the case.
Of course that is what should happen to children in abusive homes- and it DOES happen. This is the point - those boys did not come from homes that were as bad as people make out. There was nothing that called for them to be removed from the home. If that was the case, why were the other children never removed after the case was investigated?
Maybe not, but they should have been LOCKED AWAY FOREVER to prevent them from hurting other people. Which one of them has potentially already done.
I dont claim to know anything about the legal system - what I know about is what happened and the background behind it.
Oh - what do you know that the rest of us don't then?
I have not read a single post from anyone on this forum who has ever attempted to justify what they did.
I hope that makes it clear.
So if you're not trying to justify it - then what exactly is the point in repeatedly bleating on about the poor poor murderers and their poor poor backgrounds?
Their home lives were not out of the ordinary for the area - they were hit on occasion, their was some "rough housing" from siblings, and their was an alcohol problem with a parent in one of the homes - NOT unusual for the area and NOT abuse to the extent that people seem to think they experienced.
Certainly not enough to ever make me even consider that this is excuse enough for them to be let off so lightly for such a crime.
Even if they weren't insane at the time, do you honestly think that anybody can do what they did and come out of it a normal person?
I'm amazed that anybody ever expected that neither of these two would re-offend
What part of 'an explanation is not an excuse' is so very hard to comprehend? No one as far as i have read has excused what they did, or said they shouldn't have been punished. People are looking for reasons, and there is an explanation (to certain extent) to be found in their backgrounds. Whilst not all do, those coming from abusive/neglectful backgrounds are more inclined to commit crimes, as abused children are more likely to be abusers as adults. There is enough evidence to suggest a link between the two, and as such it's not something to be ignored.
The human brain is not simple, it's understood very little even by experts in the field. Just because one person copes with an abusive childhood (to whatever degree) one way does not mean that everyone will cope with it that way, or that they even can.
Haven't read through the thread clusterf**k of last night, but how the hell did Hitler make an appearence?
Comments
Does anyone know why their identity was released ?
I asked on here yesterday but no-one replied
`Does anyone know why these two were named as the murderers in the first place ?
My friend`s son was murdered - kicked to death by a 23yr and 17yr old.
`The teenager, who cannot be named, a minimum of eight years. ` `
Yeah, I`m 90% sure they managed to get the film banned from being shown on tv or something
If his identity is revealed, then the case against him will become tarnished and he wouldn't receive a fair trial
If his crime is revealed, then it won't be too difficult to discover his identity, then the case against him would be tarnished etc etc etc
I see no problem with his identity being revealed if he is found guilty and sent back to prison - although I'm sure there are legal reasons why this can't be done for his 'protection'
People need to separate the LEGAL side from the EMOTIONAL side on this issue.
He deserves to rot in hell for what he did, but that is not a legal standpoint
Soo, you are a do-badder? Not one person has excused what they did on this thread. What people have done is try to understand what the reasons why other then "ZOMG THEY ARE EEEEEVULLLL!!!1!"
So everyone in that area, including your good self is a product of a f**ked up environment? That doesn't say much for Liverpool and I'll never go there if that is the case. But hey, your experience trumps actual evidence. What are you doing to make life better for those that come from your awful surroundings and your terrible upbringing? (Don't get butthurt either, I am using your descriptions.)
They didn't get away with murder, they were tried, convicted, sentenced and served their time. Again, direct your ire at the CPS.
I don't expect Denise and Ralph Bulger to get over it. That is a cruel thing to say. However, other people have to.
I never want to see something like this happen again, but unless we try to get to the bottom of why children kill children, we will see it happening. All the wailing and breast-beating does the sum of f**k all.
Yeah, I'm sure that made all the difference. If it was banned from being shown on the telly it doubtless saved a lot of lives.
When one really considers the conditions that can lead a child into becoming a calous murderer it is just utterly ridiculous to think that the thing that might have tipped the balance was a film.
Their home lives were not out of the ordinary for the area - they were hit on occasion, their was some "rough housing" from siblings, and their was an alcohol problem with a parent in one of the homes - NOT unusual for the area and NOT abuse to the extent that people seem to think they experienced.
Certainly not enough to ever make me even consider that this is excuse enough for them to be let off so lightly for such a crime.
Even if they weren't insane at the time, do you honestly think that anybody can do what they did and come out of it a normal person?
I'm amazed that anybody ever expected that neither of these two would re-offend
If the information was given out at the same time as his re-arrest statement, we wouldn't of had the media speculation we have now.
I'd be surprised if anyone who was so damaged to commit a crime like that could ever be fully rehabilitated, to be honest. So we can't truly know what would have happened.
Yeah right.
Let's not sell more papers.
As I've already stated, the extent of the abuse they suffered at home was grossly inaccurate. They came from broken homes yes, their parents had some issues yes, they were occasionally hit yes - they were not battered black & blue on a daily or even monthly weekly basis.
Of course I would have had a problem if they had been murdered at the hands of their families - but they werent.
A 2 year old was murdered - not only murdered, TORTURED - at their hands.
And that is what we're talking about, not the possibility of what COULD have happened to them like that is somehow supposed to justify what they did!
No I never said EVERYBODY and I never said that I came from that kind of family - I said that it happens a LOT in that area, as I expect it happens in most under-priveleged areas across this and other countries.
I don't think they said the film was the reason - but they emulated certain scenes from it within the murder.
I agree. I also dont think that you can be fully rehabilitated after commiting a crime like that - whatever your mental state was to begin with
So in your esteemed opinion, what caused them to do this?
Insanity is a legal defence of mental illness. By that reasoning, then they were not in control of their minds and therefore would NOT be able to know right from wrong or that once you kill something, it's gone forever. By you saying they were insane, then they were railroaded by the justice system and never should have stood trial or been convicted in the first place.
This is why you really shouldn't talk what you don't know.
Do you have a background in psychiatry or psychology - or is this just gut instinct or stubbornness?
My understanding was also not of a"being hit on occasion" - but rather systematic sadistic abuse (in particular from an older brother). Both boys were bullied on a regular basis. I think that makes for a pretty miserable existence, don't you?
For you to try to "normalise" such appalling home circumstances is rather puzzling. Surely if such poor homes are endemic in that part of the city, people like yourselves ought to be up in arms about it - not glibly accepting that it's normal ....................... until the outcome is a couple of boys capable of murder. Then there's an outcry - but only when the most serious of crimes is committed.
Surely the right thing to do is to try to ensure that children like these are not left to live like this in the first place - not wait until someone is actually murdered before acknowledging that it is unacceptable?
All this speculation in the papers is going to make it virtually impossible that venebles will get a fair trial whatever his crime.
My opinion is that shouldn't have been let out in the first place, 8 years is no where long enough to justify what those two did. I have a 9 year old girl and a 13 year old boy and both know full well right from wrong.
Read carefully what I am about to say:
I have not read a single post from anyone on this forum who has ever attempted to justify what they did.
I hope that makes it clear.
Can
you
repeat
that
please
only
more
slowly
Thanks
Maybe not, but they should have been LOCKED AWAY FOREVER to prevent them from hurting other people. Which one of them has potentially already done.
I dont claim to know anything about the legal system - what I know about is what happened and the background behind it.
If a person is always smiling we say they are happy; if they moan and whinge a lot they get labelled miserable; if they do kind things we say they are kind, and if they do evil things we say they are evil, so people get labelled according to their deeds.
No I dont. I have a background in child care & education and experience of working in the Rainbow Room on Merseyside (working with child victims of abuse & neglect).
And where does your understanding of their background come from? Forgive me if you are somebody I should know, but I can say with 98% certainty that is NOT the case.
Of course that is what should happen to children in abusive homes- and it DOES happen. This is the point - those boys did not come from homes that were as bad as people make out. There was nothing that called for them to be removed from the home. If that was the case, why were the other children never removed after the case was investigated?
Oh - what do you know that the rest of us don't then?
I said potentially. We know he's facing "very serious allegations". Chances are that there's a victim involved in some way or other.
I could be wrong. But I`ll be extremely shocked if thats the case.
So if you're not trying to justify it - then what exactly is the point in repeatedly bleating on about the poor poor murderers and their poor poor backgrounds?
What part of 'an explanation is not an excuse' is so very hard to comprehend? No one as far as i have read has excused what they did, or said they shouldn't have been punished. People are looking for reasons, and there is an explanation (to certain extent) to be found in their backgrounds. Whilst not all do, those coming from abusive/neglectful backgrounds are more inclined to commit crimes, as abused children are more likely to be abusers as adults. There is enough evidence to suggest a link between the two, and as such it's not something to be ignored.
The human brain is not simple, it's understood very little even by experts in the field. Just because one person copes with an abusive childhood (to whatever degree) one way does not mean that everyone will cope with it that way, or that they even can.
Haven't read through the thread clusterf**k of last night, but how the hell did Hitler make an appearence?