So if James Bulger himself had not been murdered but was inside aged 22 for mudering a child whilst high on drugs. You would applauid the fact in another reality he was murdered aged 2
So if James Bulger himself had not been murdered but was inside for mudering a child whilst high on drugs. You would applauid the fact in another reality he was murdered aged 2
There seems little point commenting on a hypothetical situation.
I would feel compassion for the hypothetical train driver. I would like to be able to get onboard with the liberal viewpoints expressed in this thread. I think theoretically they seem reasonable. Then i test myself and think what if they were moved near to me and my children. I would want them away and back inside at the very least.
This was precisely my thoughts when the Baby P case came to light. I thought, "if that child had lived, chances are he'd have committed some terrible atrocity as a result of the horrific childhood he'd endured" and the tabloids would have condemned him as an evil monster, regardless of the trauma he'd been through.
Children who sadly do commit acts of violence that horrify and disgust us always seem to come from backgrounds that lack the basic nurture that all children deserve. Surely this alone is sufficient to demolish the myth of 'evil-ness'?
I would feel compassion for the hypothetical train driver. I would like to be able to get onboard with the liberal viewpoints expressed in this thread. I think theoretically they seem reasonable. Then i test myself and think what if they were moved near to me and my children. I would want them away and back inside at the very least.
How is 2 year old James Bulger's fate worse than if a 2 year old version of Thompson or Venables had suffered the same one?
You have no idea what James Bulger would have grown up to be like, just as you would have no idea how a 2 year old Thompson or Venables would have turned out.
How is 2 year old James Bulger's fate worse than if a 2 year old version of Thompson or Venables had suffered the same one?
You have no idea what James Bulger would have grown up to be like, just as you would have no idea how a 2 year old Thompson or Venables would have turned out.
It's a pointless hypothetical question. We can only cast judgement on what we know.
It's a pointless hypothetical question. We can only cast judgement on what we know.
Precisely. And you have NO IDEA how James Bulger would have turned out in life, so therefore your sympathy for his fate is as unjustified or justified as your hypothetical lack of sympathy if the same fate had befell Thompson, Venables or indeed anyone else.
It is, it really is. Its a horrid loaded question, and i would be ashamed of myself for asking it.
Why should anyone be ashamed of asking it? I would be more ashamed of the answer "it wouldn't unduly concern me" when asked if any other 2 year old child had met the same fate if their name happened to be Thompson or Venables.
Why should anyone be ashamed of asking it? I would be more ashamed of the answer "it wouldn't unduly concern me" when asked if any other 2 year old child had met the same fate if their name happened to be Thompson or Venables.
I've no interest in assisting you, in any points you wish to score.
If you follow the particular thread of conversation that led to that comment, anais was not denying Brady redemption, she was acknowledging the fact his psychopathy is incurable (and he remains dangerous?).
.
no no
of course she is. (Bit in bold)
what grounds can she have for saying he or anyone is incurable?
Surely, the whole basis of this discussion is that everyone is curable, and everyone is deserving of a second chance.
If not, then it just becomes arbitrary - and one person's view is as good as any others.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Brady staying in for ever - but don't justify it by some pseudo scientiific mumbo jumbo about "incurable". It's just that no-one is prepared to take the risk with Brady.
The fact that recidivism exists shows that those charged with assesssing rehabilitation are just not that good at it.
The sentence for T&V wasn't 8 years, then let them out. It was 8 years, then assess if they should be let out - and the opinions of those EXPERTS charged assessing that view got it drastically wrong, at least in one of them.
And the fact that he has served a further term for the images, as well as breaking his licence terms in other ways, ouight to be prima facie evidence that he is not yet rehabilitated sufficiently for release - irrespective of the sentence for the images being completed.
what grounds can she have for saying he or anyone is incurable?
Surely, the whole basis of this discussion is that everyone is curable, and everyone is deserving of a second chance.
If not, then it just becomes arbitrary - and one person's view is as good as any others.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Brady staying in for ever - but don't justify it by some pseudo scientiific mumbo jumbo about "incurable". It's just that no-one is prepared to take the risk with Brady.
The fact that recidivism exists shows that those charged with assesssing rehabilitation are just not that good at it.
The sentence for T&V wasn't 8 years, then let them out. It was 8 years, then assess if they should be let out - and the opinions of those EXPERTS charged assessing that view got it drastically wrong, at least in one of them.
And the fact that he has served a further term for the images, as well as breaking his licence terms in other ways, ouight to be prima facie evidence that he is not yet rehabilitated sufficiently for release - irrespective of the sentence for the images being completed.
Brady is a diagnosed psychopath. It is a medically accepted fact that psychopathy is not treatable - it is not a mental illness but a personality disorder. This alone does not make a person dangerous but Brady's psychopathy is of a violent, criminal kind.
Brady remains a risk (and even he admits this actually). He continues to manipulate and take perverse pleasure in causing harm.
Comments
So why are you so concerned for this being the fate of James Bulger?
So if James Bulger himself had not been murdered but was inside aged 22 for mudering a child whilst high on drugs. You would applauid the fact in another reality he was murdered aged 2
Eh? Isn't it obvious?
There seems little point commenting on a hypothetical situation.
Go back and read over the posts again.
Yes but isnt it the same thing T or V murdered aged 2 would not be alive aged 10 to murder James.
So I see.:o
Children who sadly do commit acts of violence that horrify and disgust us always seem to come from backgrounds that lack the basic nurture that all children deserve. Surely this alone is sufficient to demolish the myth of 'evil-ness'?
You're concerned that 2 year old James Bulger was cut in two by a train.
However, if the two year old versions of Thompson and Venables had suffered the same fate you wouldn't have been.
Don't you think you need to explain why that is.
Agreed.
You haven't answered the question.
How is 2 year old James Bulger's fate worse than if a 2 year old version of Thompson or Venables had suffered the same one?
You have no idea what James Bulger would have grown up to be like, just as you would have no idea how a 2 year old Thompson or Venables would have turned out.
It's a pointless hypothetical question. We can only cast judgement on what we know.
Precisely. And you have NO IDEA how James Bulger would have turned out in life, so therefore your sympathy for his fate is as unjustified or justified as your hypothetical lack of sympathy if the same fate had befell Thompson, Venables or indeed anyone else.
It is, it really is. Its a horrid loaded question, and i would be ashamed of myself for asking it.
Why should anyone be ashamed of asking it? I would be more ashamed of the answer "it wouldn't unduly concern me" when asked if any other 2 year old child had met the same fate if their name happened to be Thompson or Venables.
I've no interest in assisting you, in any points you wish to score.
I'm not interested in point scoring, if that's your interpretation of my posts then you're way off.
no no
of course she is. (Bit in bold)
what grounds can she have for saying he or anyone is incurable?
Surely, the whole basis of this discussion is that everyone is curable, and everyone is deserving of a second chance.
If not, then it just becomes arbitrary - and one person's view is as good as any others.
Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with Brady staying in for ever - but don't justify it by some pseudo scientiific mumbo jumbo about "incurable". It's just that no-one is prepared to take the risk with Brady.
The fact that recidivism exists shows that those charged with assesssing rehabilitation are just not that good at it.
The sentence for T&V wasn't 8 years, then let them out. It was 8 years, then assess if they should be let out - and the opinions of those EXPERTS charged assessing that view got it drastically wrong, at least in one of them.
And the fact that he has served a further term for the images, as well as breaking his licence terms in other ways, ouight to be prima facie evidence that he is not yet rehabilitated sufficiently for release - irrespective of the sentence for the images being completed.
maybe they just "got away with it". played the game and got out.
(oh no - that can't be because the experts would be sure to spot a psychopath manipulating them ....)
What these comments really mean, is this, I would think
Of course if T&V were victims in the same way art the same age people would have felt just as sorry.
The difference is that JB was an innocent, and the perpetrator's were not innocents, and not worthy of the same degree of sympathy as JB.
Not nearly as horrid as someone admitting that the thought of two two year olds being brutally murdered doesn't bother him.
Mary Bell went on to raise a child herself with no issues and is now a grandmother - but more than playing the game isn't it.
Brady is a diagnosed psychopath. It is a medically accepted fact that psychopathy is not treatable - it is not a mental illness but a personality disorder. This alone does not make a person dangerous but Brady's psychopathy is of a violent, criminal kind.
Brady remains a risk (and even he admits this actually). He continues to manipulate and take perverse pleasure in causing harm.