My reason is has he been living near us potentially able to harm any of my family. Not really confusing. Read my post, the bit about him being a danger to those around him.
You could easily be living in the same street or round the corner from a murderer who had served their sentence and been released on licence and you'd never even know it.
Not all cases are as high-profile as Thomson and Venables but it doesn't mean that there aren't probably a good number of people walking around, getting on with their lives who have previously done time for murder.
So now you can eye everyone with suspicion - the guy in the petrol station, the bloke who's stacking the crisps in ASDA, the woman sitting on the park bench.
They could all be murderers and no-body thought to tell you!!!!
There is no proof that he is a danger to anyone. These are allegations that may or may not have any basis in reality.
I don't get the arrogance of it all, to be honest. Yes, I used the word arrogance. Your alleged "right to know" does not trump the justice system. I hope I never have to go to court as the accused or the victim of a crime. If I am put in that awful position, I want to know that the trial will be fair. Since I have no clue who he is or where he lives, he could've lived near me, and I don't care.
The advent of 24 hour news makes people think they must know everything.
We don't know he's not either. If we knew the reasons, and they were a trivial break of the terms of his release then their would be no need for media hysteria, or people speculating on what he had done.
A lot of the kids in your area were beaten up in their own homes by their own siblings? Their mothers had drug and alcohol problems? There was a great deal about their backgrounds which made them high risk to become offenders - and nothing was done to protect them from the harm that was being done to them by older children and adults.
Can you not see the irony?
In answer to your questions - YES. MOST kids in that area came from exactly the same kind of homes with the same kinds of problems! And how many of them acted out in that way?
Circumstances alone do not make people capable of the level of insanity displayed at 10 years old by those two. I dont know if you've looked into exactly what they did, but it was a FAR cry from any other crime commited by a 10 year old, including the Mary Bell case
In answer to your questions - YES. MOST kids in that area came from exactly the same kind of homes with the same kinds of problems! And how many of them acted out in that way? Circumstances alone do not make people capable of the level of insanity displayed at 10 years old by those two. I dont know if you've looked into exactly what they did, but it was a FAR cry from any other crime commited by a 10 year old, including the Mary Bell case
Didn't they try and blame video nasties at the time too, such as the Childs Play films.
We don't know he's not either. If we knew the reasons, and they were a trivial break of the terms of his release then their would be no need for media hysteria, or people speculating on what he had done.
Well there is no need anyway since he is back in prison and is no longer living near to you and your family. So you are no longer in "danger" from him. You can go back to leaving your doors unlocked and your children sleeping in a hammock in the front garden. Because I presume him being around was the only thing stopping you from feeling safe at all times.
Because they were ten years old and not capable of full cognitive thought. Not capable of understanding the consequences of what they were doing or of the pain it would cause the family.
That's also the reason they were given lenient sentences in a 'cushy' prison. It wasn't meant as a punishment, it was meant as rehabilitation.
Unless of course you want children to have the vote, be able to work and pay taxes, take out loans and buy houses now, as well as be treated in the same way as an adult would in a murder case such as this?
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.
In answer to your questions - YES. MOST kids in that area came from exactly the same kind of homes with the same kinds of problems! And how many of them acted out in that way?
Circumstances alone do not make people capable of the level of insanity displayed at 10 years old by those two. I dont know if you've looked into exactly what they did, but it was a FAR cry from any other crime commited by a 10 year old, including the Mary Bell case
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.
In answer to your questions - YES. MOST kids in that area came from exactly the same kind of homes with the same kinds of problems! And how many of them acted out in that way?
Circumstances alone do not make people capable of the level of insanity displayed at 10 years old by those two. I dont know if you've looked into exactly what they did, but it was a FAR cry from any other crime commited by a 10 year old, including the Mary Bell case
It's also not unknown for people of similar backgrounds to be more empathic towards others and to not want other kids to suffer similar fates.
The only reason they have new identities is because of what they did, that surely is the definition of living with it. They have constantly to be watching what they say, be mindful of where they go, etc. It may not be as hard as some things, but i certainly don't think it classifies as easy.
You don't know how often they think of what they did, what remorse they feel, or anything else about their minds. As for 'moving on' - that's not the same thing as forgetting, how could they forget? And what are they supposed to do if not 'move on' with their lives? Stay trapped in time in that moment forever?
No - PAY FOR IT forever. Spend time in an ACTUAL prison. Be forced to live with people KNOWING who they are. The "strain" of living a lie is NOT a punishment in this case, its an easy out
No - PAY FOR IT forever. Spend time in an ACTUAL prison. Be forced to live with people KNOWING who they are. The "strain" of living a lie is NOT a punishment in this case, its an easy out
So what do you want to happen to Venables and people convicted of similar crimes?
Should they forfeit all rights to protection from harm provided by society because of their crime?
Please help us out here
Yes, they should. If you murder someone in cold blood, you should forfeit any right to protection. You should have to live with your crime - and part of that is any risk that comes with it.
I see no reason to protect murderers. I feel no pity toward them, after all - their victims were certainly not protected.
Well there is no need anyway since he is back in prison and is no longer living near to you and your family. So you are no longer in "danger" from him. You can go back to leaving your doors unlocked and your children sleeping in a hammock in the front garden. Because I presume him being around was the only thing stopping you from feeling safe at all times.
I'm not arguing against you here just furthering your point, but if you wouldn't pull the trigger yourself, then you don't have the strength of your convictions and don't truely believe what you're saying.
Not at all. I'm not a violent person, so I would not ever want blood on my hands.
But I think that people should have to live with all consequences of their crimes - and that includes to possibility that people may be out to harm them
We don't know he's not either. If we knew the reasons, and they were a trivial break of the terms of his release then their would be no need for media hysteria, or people speculating on what he had done.
That makes no sense. Seriously, are you an advocate of having everyone's details around so you can check on them. There would be media hysteria no matter what he did, even if it were for not picking up after his dog.
If he had done nothing, there would be media hysteria each time a child killed another or seriously harmed another. The media pimps James Bulger around when they need to whip idiots into a frenzy.
V&T served their time. Now whether you think it was too short is another issue that needs to be taken up by the CPS.
There is no proof that he is a danger to anyone. These are allegations that may or may not have any basis in reality.
I don't get the arrogance of it all, to be honest. Yes, I used the word arrogance. Your alleged "right to know" does not trump the justice system. I hope I never have to go to court as the accused or the victim of a crime. If I am put in that awful position, I want to know that the trial will be fair. Since I have no clue who he is or where he lives, he could've lived near me, and I don't care.
The advent of 24 hour news makes people think they must know everything.
I specifically hope that I never have to go to court as the accused with some of the judgemental people on this thread as jury members.
I believe we all have a right to know now of his true identity, the nature of the offence for which he has been returned to jail, and where he was living.
If you are given a new identity to get on with a new, straight and narrow life then fair enough, but if you break those terms and are a danger to those around you, then I think everyone has a very valid reason for wanting to know the details.
You are of course wrong. No one has the "right" to know the details you want to know. There can be no benifit to anybody in divulging these details to the public. The only thing it could possibly do is harm any case the prosecution may have. Then how would you feel if a case against him were to be thrown out of court? Imagine if details of his identity and legal status were made known to satisfy peoples morbid curiosity and as a result it was decided that he could not recieve a fair trial. Would you still stand by your assertion that you had a right to know? Really how would you feel if it transpired thus?
Yes, they should. If you murder someone in cold blood, you should forfeit any right to protection. You should have to live with your crime - and part of that is any risk that comes with it.
I see no reason to protect murderers. I feel no pity toward them, after all - their victims were certainly not protected.
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 within their own homes or environments? They weren't being protected - maybe if they had been, James Bulger would still be alive.
We don't know he's not either. If we knew the reasons, and they were a trivial break of the terms of his release then their would be no need for media hysteria, or people speculating on what he had done.
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.
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.
It wouldn't if the porn is true, granted, but I think it would if the alleged offence isn't as bad as what some people are making out. Drug offences, for example. The pressure would ease off Venables too.
Why do you think that she didn't have Thompson strung up at the time she found out where he was? Denise wants justice for James, and that involves them being in custody. So stop trying to twist everything because you don't like her.
Also, there's never been any mention of Denise shoplifting at the time of the crime. That gem is just malicious gossip that seems to have appeared over the net recently and it's a mystery why anyone would believe that without any proof.
She's already tracked Thompson down - had that been the other way around, he'd have been thrown in Walton Prison instantly. To be honest, if I was Thompson, I'd consider exploring getting an injunction out against Fergus, as she seems hellbent in "outing" him (in more ways than one)
That's all we keep hearing - but her idea of justice differs from mine. She feels JV and RT's sentences weren't long enough. From all accounts, Denise wants justice meted out by broken bricks and a lynch mob.
I'm sorry, but what Denise wants, doesn't mean she has to get.
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.
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.
She's already tracked Thompson down - had that been the other way around, he'd have been thrown in Walton Prison instantly. To be honest, if I was Thompson, I'd consider exploring getting an injunction out against Fergus, as she seems hellbent in "outing" him (in more ways than one)
That's all we keep hearing - but her idea of justice differs from mine. She feels JV and RT's sentences weren't long enough. From all accounts, Denise wants justice meted out by broken bricks and a lynch mob.
I'm sorry, but what Denise wants, doesn't mean she has to get.
When she tracked him down she could have done all sorts of damage to him - she didn`t even approach him ...
Some of you people need to take a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror and hopefully be ashamed of what you see. If it were up to people like you, we'd be stoning people to death in the street or cutting off kids hands because they stole a loaf.
They were ten year old CHILDREN themselves. Not mature enough or capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions.
Maybe your 5 year old daughter does fully understand what death is. I doubt at 5, she truely understands though. You've obviously been a good parent if she does.
[B]Nobody is defending these two. What we are doing is looking at the situation objectively, and coming to an understanding that these two CHILDREN who murdered another weren't EVIL. They were severely mentally unbalanced because of their upbringing and they needed HELP not vilification for the rest of their lives[/B].
And how exactly do you know any of this? Because you've read it somewhere.
If we were going to allow every child that is a product of a broken home to go around doing this, we'd run out of 2 year olds pretty damn fast!!
A 10 year old child knows that if they beat a toddler repeatedly with a massive iron bar, cut off their genetalia, and leave them on a railway line (In a specific position to ensure his body was cut in the way they wanted) - that child is going to DIE a very painful death. And at 10 years old, you know what murder is and what death is.
If they were so innocent minded - why did they hide for 2 weeks from the manhunt and manage to lie so well?
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.
Comments
You could easily be living in the same street or round the corner from a murderer who had served their sentence and been released on licence and you'd never even know it.
Not all cases are as high-profile as Thomson and Venables but it doesn't mean that there aren't probably a good number of people walking around, getting on with their lives who have previously done time for murder.
So now you can eye everyone with suspicion - the guy in the petrol station, the bloke who's stacking the crisps in ASDA, the woman sitting on the park bench.
They could all be murderers and no-body thought to tell you!!!!
We don't know he's not either. If we knew the reasons, and they were a trivial break of the terms of his release then their would be no need for media hysteria, or people speculating on what he had done.
In answer to your questions - YES. MOST kids in that area came from exactly the same kind of homes with the same kinds of problems! And how many of them acted out in that way?
Circumstances alone do not make people capable of the level of insanity displayed at 10 years old by those two. I dont know if you've looked into exactly what they did, but it was a FAR cry from any other crime commited by a 10 year old, including the Mary Bell case
Who can really blame her for feeling that way
Didn't they try and blame video nasties at the time too, such as the Childs Play films.
Well there is no need anyway since he is back in prison and is no longer living near to you and your family. So you are no longer in "danger" from him. You can go back to leaving your doors unlocked and your children sleeping in a hammock in the front garden. Because I presume him being around was the only thing stopping you from feeling safe at all times.
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.
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.
It's also not unknown for people of similar backgrounds to be more empathic towards others and to not want other kids to suffer similar fates.
No - PAY FOR IT forever. Spend time in an ACTUAL prison. Be forced to live with people KNOWING who they are. The "strain" of living a lie is NOT a punishment in this case, its an easy out
Yes, they should. If you murder someone in cold blood, you should forfeit any right to protection. You should have to live with your crime - and part of that is any risk that comes with it.
I see no reason to protect murderers. I feel no pity toward them, after all - their victims were certainly not protected.
I'll wait til the weather is warmer for that.
Not at all. I'm not a violent person, so I would not ever want blood on my hands.
But I think that people should have to live with all consequences of their crimes - and that includes to possibility that people may be out to harm them
That makes no sense. Seriously, are you an advocate of having everyone's details around so you can check on them. There would be media hysteria no matter what he did, even if it were for not picking up after his dog.
If he had done nothing, there would be media hysteria each time a child killed another or seriously harmed another. The media pimps James Bulger around when they need to whip idiots into a frenzy.
V&T served their time. Now whether you think it was too short is another issue that needs to be taken up by the CPS.
I specifically hope that I never have to go to court as the accused with some of the judgemental people on this thread as jury members.
You are of course wrong. No one has the "right" to know the details you want to know. There can be no benifit to anybody in divulging these details to the public. The only thing it could possibly do is harm any case the prosecution may have. Then how would you feel if a case against him were to be thrown out of court? Imagine if details of his identity and legal status were made known to satisfy peoples morbid curiosity and as a result it was decided that he could not recieve a fair trial. Would you still stand by your assertion that you had a right to know? Really how would you feel if it transpired thus?
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 within their own homes or environments? They weren't being protected - maybe if they had been, James Bulger would still be alive.
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.
It wouldn't if the porn is true, granted, but I think it would if the alleged offence isn't as bad as what some people are making out. Drug offences, for example. The pressure would ease off Venables too.
She's already tracked Thompson down - had that been the other way around, he'd have been thrown in Walton Prison instantly. To be honest, if I was Thompson, I'd consider exploring getting an injunction out against Fergus, as she seems hellbent in "outing" him (in more ways than one)
That's all we keep hearing - but her idea of justice differs from mine. She feels JV and RT's sentences weren't long enough. From all accounts, Denise wants justice meted out by broken bricks and a lynch mob.
I'm sorry, but what Denise wants, doesn't mean she has to get.
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.
When she tracked him down she could have done all sorts of damage to him - she didn`t even approach him ...
And how exactly do you know any of this? Because you've read it somewhere.
If we were going to allow every child that is a product of a broken home to go around doing this, we'd run out of 2 year olds pretty damn fast!!
A 10 year old child knows that if they beat a toddler repeatedly with a massive iron bar, cut off their genetalia, and leave them on a railway line (In a specific position to ensure his body was cut in the way they wanted) - that child is going to DIE a very painful death. And at 10 years old, you know what murder is and what death is.
If they were so innocent minded - why did they hide for 2 weeks from the manhunt and manage to lie so well?
Brilliant post.