Anais clearly said that the age of criminal responsibility for girls is a good few years lower than for boys, so examples where girls of 9 and 10 had been treated as adults were irrelevant. It's how the boys were/would be treated and their age of criminal responsibility that was the question.
Anais clearly said that the age of criminal responsibility for girls is a good few years lower than for boys, so examples where girls of 9 and 10 had been treated as adults were irrelevant. It's how the boys were/would be treated and their age of criminal responsibility that was the question.
Or is it me that has that muddled?
I thought it was clear. My point was how children are treated by the criminal justice system in other countries (I specificially asked about 'civilised' countries - I used Iran as an afterthought when looking at the MACR). So to suggest I somehow used it as an example of progression is utterly false.
Remember, you have to show that a ten year old child (ten - not twelve), was put through an adult criminal justice process (not a juvenile one), convicted of murder (not manslaughter or a lesser offence), given a life sentence (not a determinate one) and after release put on a life licence.
I thought it was clear. My point was how children are treated by the criminal justice system in other countries (I specificially asked about 'civilised' countries - I used Iran as an afterthought when looking at the MACR). So to suggest I somehow used it as an example of progression is utterly false.
I see from one of soupbowl's posts and it is more than obvious from your own that you have studied this area extensively. If you don't mind me asking, what exactly did you study / is your profession?
The dynamic of this debate is thus; anais is a professional in the field, and studied to a high academic standard the topics being discussed. I am mr average, who, through this thread has taken an interest. Therefore it will be the case that information is often requested. I am sure anais does not mind being challenged on few points here and there, as long as it remains courteous.
You have accused her of cherrypicking. You of course could only know this if you know of other cases that she is deliberately omitting. If your knowledge really is minimal - then it was an ignorant claim. If not, please provide examples.
As I explained before, I don't have the wealth of case law for immediate reference that you have as a professional. Also my web browsing is limited at the moment. You do move the goalposts somewhat when challenged. You cited Iran as a place these boys would not have faced criminal charges. I had a quick look, and your argument was far from watertight. You shifted focus to the US, which does't pass your own earlier definition of "civilised country". Now you seek to move the frame of reference once again. That is fine, I have explained why you won't get the immediate response you seek.
Are you perhaps getting a little bit pernickety over definitions etc. AGAIN? I think the point being made is that it would be hard to find a case anywhere where children this age have been tried and convicted more harshly.
It doesn't matter one iota what anais defines as a 'civilised' country or who's signed up to what. You are trying to make yourself look clever by picking up arguments on semantics and definitions. It does nothing to enhance the debate and move it forward IMO - if it's possible to move forward. I think we're all firmly entrenched on our own views and I don't see any amount of debating changing that. I do see someone trying to be 'clever' and attempting to trip people up on their own words and it's boring IMO.
Soupbowl, whoever he is, isn't interested in debate, reasoned or otherwise. He just wants to troll. He's out of his depth here and has resorted to pedantic nitpicking to score points off far more superior intellects than his. At least Spacecube seems to have taken my earlier advice and given up for his own self respect. I doubt Soupbowl has any.
I suppose, what I would like to know is, what incident can be pointed to by those who think there was no justice in this case; where their version of 'justice' has been played out?
What would have been 'justice'? Because a life sentence with a 15 year minimum term (which was Howard's wish) or natural life (which was Denise Fergus's - then Bulger - initial wish in her petition to Downing Street along with The Sun coupon campaign) would have placed this country alongside Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan in how harshly it treats children who commit serious crimes.
They may think that is perfectly acceptable company to be in. I do not.
After what happened yesterday I hesitate to bring this up again but this point hasn't yet been made.
There was a claim from anais that the sentencing of the defendants showed that V& T sentence was justified and lenient. However this was from a false premise. When the actual details of the sentence were revealed anais continued to argue that sentence passed in the Capper case showed that the V & T sentence was justified and lenient.
This is, I think disingenuous and lacks a bit of credibility. Either one or the other can be used to justify the alleged leniency of the V & T sentence, but not both.
After what happened yesterday I hesitate to bring this up again but this point hasn't yet been made.
There was a claim from anais that the sentencing of the defendants showed that V& T sentence was justified and lenient. However this was from a false premise. When the actual details of the sentence were revealed anais continued to argue that sentence passed in the Capper case showed that the V & T sentence was justified and lenient.
This is, I think disingenuous and lacks a bit of credibility. Either one or the other can be used to justify the alleged leniency of the V & T sentence, but not both.
Anais clearly said that the age of criminal responsibility for girls is a good few years lower than for boys, so examples where girls of 9 and 10 had been treated as adults were irrelevant. It's how the boys were/would be treated and their age of criminal responsibility that was the question.
Or is it me that has that muddled?
My summary of that argument; anais cited Iran as a country where t&v would not have faced any criminal proceedings, as the MACR for boys is 15.
I countered that Iran is signatory to UNCTRC with express limitation that it does not prejudice it's right to hold proceedings according to Islamic/sharia law, it does execute minors, the youngest girl executed by Iran was 9. It's own definition of adult for criminal proceedings is 18 or end of puberty which ever is first.
No one knows (outside of Iran) how many minors have been executed by the state in the last ten years. It therefore stands to reason the ages of those executed are unknown.
Iran executes in cases of murder and/ or sexual offences.
Girls who are executed are often raped before execution to prevent ascent to heaven as a virgin.
So I argued that I don't share anais confidence that when Iran signs such treaties it conforms to them, thus not sure it is a sound argument.
After what happened yesterday I hesitate to bring this up again but this point hasn't yet been made.
There was a claim from anais that the sentencing of the defendants showed that V& T sentence was justified and lenient. However this was from a false premise. When the actual details of the sentence were revealed anais continued to argue that sentence passed in the Capper case showed that the V & T sentence was justified and lenient.
This is, I think disingenuous and lacks a bit of credibility. Either one or the other can be used to justify the alleged leniency of the V & T sentence, but not both.
The only juvenile in that case was sentenced to a 16 year minimum term (reduced from the original 18). Given the nature of the case (involving days of torture, false imprisonment and the nature of the death - arson which itself even without death carries a maximum life term), I still maintain that the age of the defendants means the sentence for Thompson and Venables was proportionate. The juvenile in that case was 16 years old. Only two years off being fully accountable as an adult.
Thompson and Venables were merely six months over the age at which they could have been charged at all.
I'm still waiting for a similar case involving ten year olds.
The only juvenile in that case was sentenced to a 16 year minimum term (reduced from the original 18). Given the nature of the case (involving days of torture, false imprisonment and the nature of the death - arson which itself even without death carries a maximum life term), I still maintain that the age of the defendants means the sentence for Thompson and Venables was proportionate. The juvenile in that case was 16 years old. Only two years off being fully accountable as an adult.
Thompson and Venables were merely six months over the age at which they could have been charged at all.
I'm still waiting for a similar case involving ten year olds.
That doesn't really explain how both the false premise of the sentencing in the Capper trial, and the actual reality of the sentencing that was passed, can both be just, and can both be used to explain how the sentencing in the V & T was lenient.
I suppose, what I would like to know is, what incident can be pointed to by those who think there was no justice in this case; where their version of 'justice' has been played out?
What would have been 'justice'? Because a life sentence with a 15 year minimum term (which was Howard's wish) or natural life (which was Denise Fergus's - then Bulger - initial wish in her petition to Downing Street along with The Sun coupon campaign) would have placed this country alongside Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan in how harshly it treats children who commit serious crimes.
They may think that is perfectly acceptable company to be in. I do not.
You do have a predilection for continually shifting your frame of reference. You wish to control the narrative in this thread, thus your arguments must be entirely credible. It has been shown a few times that us uneducated plebs have left your arguments wanting. Thus it is absolutely right that your claims are scrutinised, no matter how much that may upset your hangers on.
As for the hangers on, as usual they have been the first to post unpleasant comments today.
That doesn't really explain how both the false premise of the sentencing in the Capper trial, and the actual reality of the sentencing that was passed, can both be just, and can both be used to explain how the sentencing in the V & T was lenient.
You can say one or the other, but not both
?!?!
The sentencing of Thompson and Venables was NOT leniant. It was proportionate. Age is considered in the sentencing and a ten year old would have ALWAYS found themselves with a lower minimum term than a 16 year old.
You are clutching a straws and attempting (badly) to form those straws into a man.
(And do I need to tell you that Dudson, Thompson and Venables were all given the same sentence? The juvenile equivalent of a life sentence - the only sentence available for the crime in question? It was only the minimum term that was different and that is decided by a judge according to aggravating/mitigating circumstances. The overwhelming mitigating factor in the case of T&V was their age).
You do have a predilection for continually shifting your frame of reference. You wish to control the narrative in this thread, thus your arguments must be entirely credible. It has been shown a few times that us uneducated plebs have left your arguments wanting. Thus it is absolutely right that your claims are scrutinised, no matter how much that may upset your hangers on.
As for the hangers on, as usual they have been the first to post unpleasant comments today.
This is again, disingeuous.
The frame of reference remains the same.
Find a case where a ten year old has been sentenced as harshly as Thompson and Venables in a homicide in any civil or common law jurisdiction where the judiciary is independent. Go ahead. Find one.
That is, put through full adult criminal proceedings, convicted of murder and given a life sentence whereby on release, they are under probation supervision for life.
The sentencing of Thompson and Venables was NOT leniant. It was proportionate. Age is considered in the sentencing and a ten year old would have ALWAYS found themselves with a lower minimum term than a 16 year old.
You are clutching a straws and attempting (badly) to form those straws into a man.
(And do I need to tell you that Dudson, Thompson and Venables were all given the same sentence? The juvenile equivalent of a life sentence - the only sentence available for the crime in question? It was only the minimum term that was different and that is decided by a judge according to aggravating/mitigating circumstances. The overwhelming mitigating factor in the case of T&V was their age).
The sentence was proportionate.
Not at all
You said that in the Capper case, all of those tried were adults and some of them had been released, and said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
You were then corrected, none of the murderers have been released after 20 years and and one was actually a juvenile. Again,you then said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
If are going to use other cases to demonstrate how V & T have been treated proportionally, you cannot credibly claim that the same outcome is proportional when you have two entirely different starting points for the reference, in the exact same case. That is disingenuous.
You said that in the Capper case, all of those tried were adults and some of them had been released, and said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
You were then corrected, none of the murderers have been released after 20 years and and one was actually a juvenile. Again,you then said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
If are going to use other cases to demonstrate how V & T have been treated proportionally, you cannot credibly claim that the same outcome is proportional when you have two entirely different starting points for the reference, in the exact same case. That is disingenuous.
When a lifer is released is not only dependent upon the minimum term. The minimum term is the 'punishment' amount of the life sentence only.
The juvenile in the Capper case - 16 years.
Thompson and Venables - 8 years.
This is PROPORTIONATE.
I can't see your issue here.
But in any case, it is YOU who is now changing the 'frame of reference'. I am still waiting for a case where a ten year old killer has been treated as harshly as Thompson and Venables.
A 16 year old is NOT the same as a 10 year old and would NEVER be sentenced in the same way.
You said that in the Capper case, all of those tried were adults and some of them had been released, and said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
You were then corrected, none of the murderers have been released after 20 years and and one was actually a juvenile. Again,you then said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
If are going to use other cases to demonstrate how V & T have been treated proportionally, you cannot credibly claim that the same outcome is proportional when you have two entirely different starting points for the reference, in the exact same case. That is disingenuous.
I think Anais also said that there would appear to be other factors as to why the youngest was still in prison as the actual sentence set had been served?
Parole isn't only contingent upon the minimum term being served. Behaviour in prison, completion of required courses, an analysis of risk of harm to others; will all be looked at.
Sometimes this can be unfair (people sometimes are stuck in prisons which don't actually do the courses they are required to complete for parole). Sometimes it is the prisoner's own fault.
When a lifer is released is not only dependent upon the minimum term. The minimum term is the 'punishment' amount of the life sentence only.
The juvenile in the Capper case - 16 years.
Thompson and Venables - 8 years.
This is PROPORTIONATE.
I can't see your issue here.
But in any case, it is YOU who is now changing the 'frame of reference'. I am still waiting for a case where a ten year old killer has been treated as harshly as Thompson and Venables.
A 16 year old is NOT the same as a 10 year old and would NEVER be sentenced in the same way.
There are plenty of countries to choose from.
The point is pretty simple. You are talking of other cases that have happened, and using the sentencing in those cases to justify that the sentence given to T&V is proportionate.
You cannot make the claim that two entirely different sets of circumstances and different sentences in the same murder case can both be used to justify that the sentence for T&V is proportionate.
Your response is arguing that Dodson's sentence, who is still incarcerated, is proportionate to Venables & Thompson's. However, your original argument before you were corrected was that the murderers had been released, and this was also proportionate to Venables & Thompson's.
One or the other, or neither, but not both, can be used to show V&T sentence was proportional.
In the last 10 years, there's been two convicted murderers living on my street and currently a potential pedophile and they're just the cases I'm aware of!
Comments
Nope, seems pretty straightforward to me.
I thought it was clear. My point was how children are treated by the criminal justice system in other countries (I specificially asked about 'civilised' countries - I used Iran as an afterthought when looking at the MACR). So to suggest I somehow used it as an example of progression is utterly false.
Good luck with that.
Remember, you have to show that a ten year old child (ten - not twelve), was put through an adult criminal justice process (not a juvenile one), convicted of murder (not manslaughter or a lesser offence), given a life sentence (not a determinate one) and after release put on a life licence.
I see from one of soupbowl's posts and it is more than obvious from your own that you have studied this area extensively. If you don't mind me asking, what exactly did you study / is your profession?
You have accused her of cherrypicking. You of course could only know this if you know of other cases that she is deliberately omitting. If your knowledge really is minimal - then it was an ignorant claim. If not, please provide examples.
Are you perhaps getting a little bit pernickety over definitions etc. AGAIN? I think the point being made is that it would be hard to find a case anywhere where children this age have been tried and convicted more harshly.
It doesn't matter one iota what anais defines as a 'civilised' country or who's signed up to what. You are trying to make yourself look clever by picking up arguments on semantics and definitions. It does nothing to enhance the debate and move it forward IMO - if it's possible to move forward. I think we're all firmly entrenched on our own views and I don't see any amount of debating changing that. I do see someone trying to be 'clever' and attempting to trip people up on their own words and it's boring IMO.
What would have been 'justice'? Because a life sentence with a 15 year minimum term (which was Howard's wish) or natural life (which was Denise Fergus's - then Bulger - initial wish in her petition to Downing Street along with The Sun coupon campaign) would have placed this country alongside Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan in how harshly it treats children who commit serious crimes.
They may think that is perfectly acceptable company to be in. I do not.
After what happened yesterday I hesitate to bring this up again but this point hasn't yet been made.
There was a claim from anais that the sentencing of the defendants showed that V& T sentence was justified and lenient. However this was from a false premise. When the actual details of the sentence were revealed anais continued to argue that sentence passed in the Capper case showed that the V & T sentence was justified and lenient.
This is, I think disingenuous and lacks a bit of credibility. Either one or the other can be used to justify the alleged leniency of the V & T sentence, but not both.
Aw, and you were doing so well too....shame....
My summary of that argument; anais cited Iran as a country where t&v would not have faced any criminal proceedings, as the MACR for boys is 15.
I countered that Iran is signatory to UNCTRC with express limitation that it does not prejudice it's right to hold proceedings according to Islamic/sharia law, it does execute minors, the youngest girl executed by Iran was 9. It's own definition of adult for criminal proceedings is 18 or end of puberty which ever is first.
No one knows (outside of Iran) how many minors have been executed by the state in the last ten years. It therefore stands to reason the ages of those executed are unknown.
Iran executes in cases of murder and/ or sexual offences.
Girls who are executed are often raped before execution to prevent ascent to heaven as a virgin.
So I argued that I don't share anais confidence that when Iran signs such treaties it conforms to them, thus not sure it is a sound argument.
We did resolve this somewhat at the time.
Go to go now. Il pop back in later.
The only juvenile in that case was sentenced to a 16 year minimum term (reduced from the original 18). Given the nature of the case (involving days of torture, false imprisonment and the nature of the death - arson which itself even without death carries a maximum life term), I still maintain that the age of the defendants means the sentence for Thompson and Venables was proportionate. The juvenile in that case was 16 years old. Only two years off being fully accountable as an adult.
Thompson and Venables were merely six months over the age at which they could have been charged at all.
I'm still waiting for a similar case involving ten year olds.
That doesn't really explain how both the false premise of the sentencing in the Capper trial, and the actual reality of the sentencing that was passed, can both be just, and can both be used to explain how the sentencing in the V & T was lenient.
You can say one or the other, but not both
You do have a predilection for continually shifting your frame of reference. You wish to control the narrative in this thread, thus your arguments must be entirely credible. It has been shown a few times that us uneducated plebs have left your arguments wanting. Thus it is absolutely right that your claims are scrutinised, no matter how much that may upset your hangers on.
As for the hangers on, as usual they have been the first to post unpleasant comments today.
?!?!
The sentencing of Thompson and Venables was NOT leniant. It was proportionate. Age is considered in the sentencing and a ten year old would have ALWAYS found themselves with a lower minimum term than a 16 year old.
You are clutching a straws and attempting (badly) to form those straws into a man.
(And do I need to tell you that Dudson, Thompson and Venables were all given the same sentence? The juvenile equivalent of a life sentence - the only sentence available for the crime in question? It was only the minimum term that was different and that is decided by a judge according to aggravating/mitigating circumstances. The overwhelming mitigating factor in the case of T&V was their age).
The sentence was proportionate.
This is again, disingeuous.
The frame of reference remains the same.
Find a case where a ten year old has been sentenced as harshly as Thompson and Venables in a homicide in any civil or common law jurisdiction where the judiciary is independent. Go ahead. Find one.
That is, put through full adult criminal proceedings, convicted of murder and given a life sentence whereby on release, they are under probation supervision for life.
Not at all
You said that in the Capper case, all of those tried were adults and some of them had been released, and said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
You were then corrected, none of the murderers have been released after 20 years and and one was actually a juvenile. Again,you then said that this justified that the sentencing passed to V & T was not lenient.
If are going to use other cases to demonstrate how V & T have been treated proportionally, you cannot credibly claim that the same outcome is proportional when you have two entirely different starting points for the reference, in the exact same case. That is disingenuous.
When a lifer is released is not only dependent upon the minimum term. The minimum term is the 'punishment' amount of the life sentence only.
The juvenile in the Capper case - 16 years.
Thompson and Venables - 8 years.
This is PROPORTIONATE.
I can't see your issue here.
But in any case, it is YOU who is now changing the 'frame of reference'. I am still waiting for a case where a ten year old killer has been treated as harshly as Thompson and Venables.
A 16 year old is NOT the same as a 10 year old and would NEVER be sentenced in the same way.
There are plenty of countries to choose from.
I think Anais also said that there would appear to be other factors as to why the youngest was still in prison as the actual sentence set had been served?
Sometimes this can be unfair (people sometimes are stuck in prisons which don't actually do the courses they are required to complete for parole). Sometimes it is the prisoner's own fault.
Can you give us any examples of this happening?
The point is pretty simple. You are talking of other cases that have happened, and using the sentencing in those cases to justify that the sentence given to T&V is proportionate.
You cannot make the claim that two entirely different sets of circumstances and different sentences in the same murder case can both be used to justify that the sentence for T&V is proportionate.
Your response is arguing that Dodson's sentence, who is still incarcerated, is proportionate to Venables & Thompson's. However, your original argument before you were corrected was that the murderers had been released, and this was also proportionate to Venables & Thompson's.
One or the other, or neither, but not both, can be used to show V&T sentence was proportional.
On the flip side, have there been any of the vigilante attacks that anais & co seem to be so worried about?