This is my own personal problem with Jon Venables as things currently stand with him. His rehabilitation has obviously not worked out too well at all and I am very concerned at what it will take for the authorities to admit something has gone wrong along the way and that their attempt to get him back into society has failed.
I worry about what Venables might do before someone, somewhere, takes responsibility for any failures going on.
The pitchfork mob are ridiculous though, and seem to possess no rational thought process at all.
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.
Some emotionally starved, abused and damaged children still might 'know' it's wrong to kill, but it may not mean much to them.
Because of their damage, neglect, abuse, and the serious emotional immaturity this brings about.
We are not all the same, some are 'survivor' children, some just manage.
Only a very, very few go as far as Tand V did.
But most of them, even can recover enough at least.
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.
your last surprises me. Why would you deny Brady the chance of redemption? Are there any others you would include in this category?
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 noticed your posts softening from definitive to questioning, but actually thought you were laying the groundwork for a comeback. Whatever the subject youre defending your opinions on, let alone such an emotive one, takes a thinking mind to accept such a different view to the one you started with.
This is my own personal problem with Jon Venables as things currently stand with him. His rehabilitation has obviously not worked out too well at all and I am very concerned at what it will take for the authorities to admit something has gone wrong along the way and that their attempt to get him back into society has failed.
I worry about what Venables might do before someone, somewhere, takes responsibility for any failures going on.
The pitchfork mob are ridiculous though, and seem to possess no rational thought process at all.
Especially, if he's a paedophile, because I don't believe that can ever be cured. You would have thought they'd have spotted that trait before releasing him.
Also, I believe the detective in charge of the case was always adamant that they set out to kill a child that day. I think I've also read somewhere that Venables' background wasn't really as bad as what's been reported, either.
I noticed your posts softening from definitive to questioning, but actually thought you were laying the groundwork for a comeback. Whatever the subject youre defending your opinions on, let alone such an emotive one, takes a thinking mind to accept such a different view to the one you started with.
I've been trapped before. But I don't care. I think Ada meant it.
And I'm always damned pleased just when anyone sees that things aren't so simple.
And emotion isn't 'wrong', it's just not all the story.
Especially, if he's a paedophile, because I don't believe that can ever be cured. You would have thought they'd have spotted that trait before releasing him.
Also, I believe the detective in charge of the case was always adamant that they set out to kill a child that day. I think I've also read somewhere that Venables' background wasn't really as bad as what's been reported, either.
I have read a bit around the case and his parents were constantly splitting up and getting back together. his elder brother and younger sister had some quite obvious learning disabilities, and he often copied their stimming movements. He was really scared of his mum and also felt like all her attention went to his siblings. Before he met RT he had been kept down a year in class (as had RT).
I dont think his home life was as bad as RTs, but really not ideal or something that would give him security
I noticed your posts softening from definitive to questioning, but actually thought you were laying the groundwork for a comeback. Whatever the subject youre defending your opinions on, let alone such an emotive one, takes a thinking mind to accept such a different view to the one you started with.
I'm pleased you noticed that NatoPMT, you were right, I was coming round to a different understanding.
Its actually quite good to let bad feelings go that you've been holding onto for so long.
Thank you very much for acknowledging the effort it took for me,
second bold, I don't think emotion is wrong either, but when a subject is emotive, it's harder to question your emotion than your opinion.
Yes.
I think it's hard to understand your emotion can COLOUR your rational response.
To be able to see things in a rational, but still human, way, is a good thing, I think.
Our emotions are unruly, for all of us.
And this can be understood, but we can't be RULED by that.
Because fairness matters, because our empathy and understanding, matters, because we are better than 'reactive', and because we are civilised and thoughtful and considered and HUMANE.
And it has taken CENTURIES to get us there.
I'm so glad the systems we have at least TRY to uphold this massive wealth of history and experience.
And I think that that that is something we should be proud of.
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 pleased you noticed that NatoPMT, you were right, I was coming round to a different understanding.
Its actually quite good to let bad feelings go that you've been holding onto for so long.
Thank you very much for acknowledging the effort it took for me,
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.
anais
sorry, but I have to say that this just cannot be right, and merely reflects certain prejudices you have, (I don't mean you are prejudiced) - that being brought up in the West, and given a Western education, working in a Western system, makes it very difficult to have a truly open mind to other possibilities
You are merely assuming this view to be correct, having been repeatedly told this to be correct. How can other peoples' opinions make it so? That's all we have. The views of philosophers down the ages. Asking for people to say this is not the best, is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. And going against the established vested interests in any field is a mighty task.
would you take exactly the same view if you were, say, commenting within a different legal system. I expect not. Would you have made the same comments if you were commenting on the legal system 500 years ago. I am sure not.
How can it possibly be eternally correct to say that "the will of the people" must be subjugated to the thoughts of the judiciary.
What if the judiciary are institutionally corrupt, or carry an institutional politcial bias? What if judges take bribes to bring certain results? What if judges refuse to permit evidence that ought to be allowed? What if judges then conceal this? What if judges are just stupid? What if judges become incompetent as they age? What if judges fall asleep during cases? What if they just get it wrong? What if corrupt men can bribe their way to appointment as judges.? What if judges get blackmailed?
How can we defer all our justice to a small cabal of "supreme Court" judges, when they do not even agree unanimously on "correct" decisions.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
eg - Contrast our system, with that of a feudal monarch, with citizens having the right to petitioning the monarch for justice(not that I am at all familiar - just that it represents a different approach to jurisprudence)
The judiciary is set up according to laws. Laws are man made.
laws can be changed.
sorry, but I have to say that this just cannot be right, and merely reflects certain prejudices you have, (I don't mean you are prejudiced) - that being brought up in the West, and given a Western education, working in a Western system, makes it very difficult to have a truly open mind to other possibilities
You are merely assuming this view to be correct, having been repeatedly told this to be correct. How can other peoples' opinions make it so? That's all we have. The views of philosophers down the ages. Asking for people to say this is not the best, is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. And going against the established vested interests in any field is a mighty task.
would you take exactly the same view if you were, say, commenting within a different legal system. I expect not. Would you have made the same comments if you were commenting on the legal system 500 years ago. I am sure not.
How can it possibly be eternally correct to say that "the will of the people" must be subjugated to the thoughts of the judiciary.
What if the judiciary are institutionally corrupt, or carry an institutional politcial bias? What if judges take bribes to bring certain results? What if judges refuse to permit evidence that ought to be allowed? What if judges then conceal this? What if judges are just stupid? What if judges become incompetent as they age? What if judges fall asleep during cases? What if they just get it wrong? What if corrupt men can bribe their way to appointment as judges.? What if judges get blackmailed?
How can we defer all our justice to a small cabal of "supreme Court" judges, when they do not even agree unanimously on "correct" decisions.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
eg - Contrast our system, with that of a feudal monarch, with citizens having the right to petitioning the monarch for justice(not that I am at all familiar - just that it represents a different approach to jurisprudence)
The judiciary is set up according to laws. Laws are man made.
laws can be changed.
Britain is subject to it's influences and philosophies.
Which are broadly classically Greek, Roman, European and Christian.
That which we have, is something we have grown with the influences upon us.
I think they are FINE, FINE, AND FINE.
An understanding of the body politic, of stoicism and the good of the many. Of bravery and defence.
Our cultural prejudices for order, and for KINDNESS and for help for the afflicted and to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Love thy neighbour as thyself.
He is without sin cast the first stone.
etc.
Which - even if you don't believe in any sort of God are the the social and cultural bedrock of Western Society, are still
our culture and background.
Britain is subject to it's influences and philosophies.
Which are broadly classically Greek, Roman, European and Christian.
That which we have, is something we have grown with the influences upon us.
I think they are FINE, FINE, AND FINE.
An understanding of the body politic, of stoicism and the good of the many. Of bravery and defence.
Our cultural prejudices for order, and for KINDNESS and for help for the afflicted and to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Love thy neighbour as thyself.
He is without sin cast the first stone.
etc.
Which - even if you don't believe in any sort of God are the the social and cultural bedrock of Western Society, are still
our culture and background.
And we DO speak from that.
And that is as VALID as anyone else's culture.
I was merely commenting on Anais strange (to me) acceptance that it was right for politicans not to be able to take the decisions of the judiciary to task.
I don't see that our laws being based substantially on Christian thought are that germane.
The point of the judiciary being separate from the executive (or legislature) is that one keeps a check on the other. Liberty demands that they are often at odds with eachother - a healthy distrust.
This is enshrined in English Common Law. And it is good - indeed, so good it has been copied (and is at the heart of the US constitution).
As for being western-centric, you know what? Perhaps I am. I think we have a damned good legal system which protects the individual from the overarching power of the state. We have principals to be proud of. If it wasn't so good, it wouldn't have been so widely copied - would it?
I was merely commenting on Anais strange (to me) acceptance that it was right for politicans not to be able to take the decisions of the judiciary to task.
I don't see that our laws being based substantially on Christian thought are that germane.
Really.
I think the primacy of religious thought for hundreds of years has some bearing, myself.
As well as the more distanced and rational GraecoRoman tradition.
It's part of our CULTURE, and one I'm rather proud of.
Because I think it's reasonable, seriously thoughtful, and humane.
And the product of centuries of feeling, thought and experience.
Some emotionally starved, abused and damaged children still might 'know' it's wrong to kill, but it may not mean much to them.
Because of their damage, neglect, abuse, and the serious emotional immaturity this brings about.
We are not all the same, some are 'survivor' children, some just manage.
Only a very, very few go as far as Tand V did.
But most of them, even can recover enough at least.
I do not wish to discuss all the details but my upbringing involved abusive alcoholics, absent parents, social workers, racist bullying, being abused and ignored out of spite despite my achievements scholastically to gain affection and recognition for my efforts, as well as other unpleasant issues. So a broken home or abusive childhood is not really an excuse in my mind as I have grown into a fairly prudent, responsible person who contributes in a meaningful way that helps and benefits others. I do not try and blame my upbringing or lack thereof for any lack of sanity, morality or civil duty. Now, I am not stating any of this to receive any pity but I am trying to speak on my personal viewpoint based on my own personal experiences. I realise we are all different and react differently to different situations but I don't think anyone by the age of 10, unless they are suffering severe learning impediments or disabilities, lacks the ability to tell the difference between good or bad or life and death. Being abused as a youth is not an excuse to kill a child or I'd have a body count myself.
I think the primacy of religious thought for hundreds of years has some bearing, myself.
As well as the more distanced and rational GraecoRoman tradition.
It's part of our CULTURE, and one I'm rather proud of.
Because I think it's reasonable, seriously thoughtful, and humane.
And the product of centuries of feeling, thought and experience.
no, no. I am more than happy with our Christian based system.
the point at issue was Anais saying it was clearly wrong for the Home Secretary to say that T&V should server longer sentences than those given by the courts. I don't think it was necessarily wrong, and definitely not clearly wrong, and I was trying to illustrate that complete deferment to lawyers carries its own problems That's all.
eg - last week, the courts deciding that the governments workfare scheme requiring the lady to work in poundland was flawed. Is the decision of the courts right? Could it have been a political decision by the judge? Why should judges decide to disregard the wishes of parliament? This is nothing to do with the religious thinikng that has underpinned our society in general.
I do not wish to discuss all the details but my upbringing involved abusive alcoholics, absent parents, social workers, racist bullying, being abused and ignored out of spite despite my achievements scholastically to gain affection and recognition for my efforts, as well as other unpleasant issues. So a broken home or abusive childhood is not really an excuse in my mind as I have grown into a fairly prudent, responsible person who contributes in a meaningful way that helps and benefits others. I do not try and blame my upbringing or lack thereof for any lack of sanity, morality or civil duty. Now, I am not stating any of this to receive any pity but I am trying to speak on my personal viewpoint based on my own personal experiences. I realise we are all different and react differently to different situations but I don't think anyone by the age of 10, unless they are suffering severe learning impediments or disabilities, lacks the ability to tell the difference between good or bad or life and death. Being abused as a youth is not an excuse to kill a child or I'd have a body count myself.
I know you don't seek it - but you should take credit for how you have taken control of your life.
The thing is, everyone is different. Some - like yourself - use a hard start as a spur to leave that behind but others just accept their life will be a repeat of those around them.
I don't think anyone is saying a poor childhood is an excuse, but it can be a factor - and when 2 isolated, to all intents and purposes unloved, angry, confused young people come together sometimes the actions of the 2 parts are far in excess of them both individually.
I do not wish to discuss all the details but my upbringing involved abusive alcoholics, absent parents, social workers, racist bullying, being abused and ignored out of spite despite my achievements scholastically to gain affection and recognition for my efforts, as well as other unpleasant issues. So a broken home or abusive childhood is not really an excuse in my mind as I have grown into a fairly prudent, responsible person who contributes in a meaningful way that helps and benefits others. I do not try and blame my upbringing or lack thereof for any lack of sanity, morality or civil duty. Now, I am not stating any of this to receive any pity but I am trying to speak on my personal viewpoint based on my own personal experiences. I realise we are all different and react differently to different situations but I don't think anyone by the age of 10, unless they are suffering severe learning impediments or disabilities, lacks the ability to tell the difference between good or bad or life and death. Being abused as a youth is not an excuse to kill a child or I'd have a body count myself.
I won't pity, but I will admire you with all my heart.
Nothing excuses what TandV did.
But all children are NOT as aware, as decent, as strong, and as good as you.
It's not a question of 'excuse', it's about the understanding of the 'now', or 'then', and the idea that that TERRIBLE thing, can be seen from their terrible, damaged, stupid, childish, point of view - and that those children could be rescued.
You would NEVER do that. But weaker than you did. Stupid, ugly, heinous and wrong.
Weaker, more stupid, more compromised, without any self affirmation.
But then again, still damaged CHILDREN.
And Children should be nurtured and given some damned second chance, shoudn't they?
I know you don't seek it - but you should take credit for how you have taken control of your life.
The thing is, everyone is different. Some - like yourself - use a hard start as a spur to leave that behind but others just accept their life will be a repeat of those around them.
I don't think anyone is saying a poor childhood is an excuse, but it can be a factor - and when 2 isolated, to all intents and purposes unloved, angry, confused young people come together sometimes the actions of the 2 parts are far in excess of them both individually.
I'll agree if you are subjected to abuse to the point it becomes normal to you then you are less likely to develop a moral compass but that's what the law is for, a force to fear action or reprisal from. I will also agree that the abused will seek out people more willing to abuse them or others with their aid because to them it is a normal and viable option of release based on their experiences. See Rose and Fred West, Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole. So while I concede it has happened before and will likely happen again, just having a bad or abusive childhood to me is not sufficient defense for the murder of a child, particularly one that had done nothing to them in order to raise their ire first or warrant a revenge attack.
Comments
This is my own personal problem with Jon Venables as things currently stand with him. His rehabilitation has obviously not worked out too well at all and I am very concerned at what it will take for the authorities to admit something has gone wrong along the way and that their attempt to get him back into society has failed.
I worry about what Venables might do before someone, somewhere, takes responsibility for any failures going on.
The pitchfork mob are ridiculous though, and seem to possess no rational thought process at all.
Some emotionally starved, abused and damaged children still might 'know' it's wrong to kill, but it may not mean much to them.
Because of their damage, neglect, abuse, and the serious emotional immaturity this brings about.
We are not all the same, some are 'survivor' children, some just manage.
Only a very, very few go as far as Tand V did.
But most of them, even can recover enough at least.
Well thank you very much for that Rhumabatugger, I appreciate you saying that to me
your last surprises me. Why would you deny Brady the chance of redemption? Are there any others you would include in this category?
I noticed your posts softening from definitive to questioning, but actually thought you were laying the groundwork for a comeback. Whatever the subject youre defending your opinions on, let alone such an emotive one, takes a thinking mind to accept such a different view to the one you started with.
As adult, considered, as well as brutal and calculated murderers, the likes of Brady, the Wests, Dhamer etc. are not in any way 'safe' to be let out.
Their redemption may be personal, however. And that could be considered a worthy thing to wish, behind bars.
And help towards that, a decent thing.
Especially, if he's a paedophile, because I don't believe that can ever be cured. You would have thought they'd have spotted that trait before releasing him.
Also, I believe the detective in charge of the case was always adamant that they set out to kill a child that day. I think I've also read somewhere that Venables' background wasn't really as bad as what's been reported, either.
I've been trapped before. But I don't care. I think Ada meant it.
And I'm always damned pleased just when anyone sees that things aren't so simple.
And emotion isn't 'wrong', it's just not all the story.
A thinking mind is a damned good thing.
first bold, i think it was meant too
second bold, I don't think emotion is wrong either, but when a subject is emotive, it's harder to question your emotion than your opinion.
I have read a bit around the case and his parents were constantly splitting up and getting back together. his elder brother and younger sister had some quite obvious learning disabilities, and he often copied their stimming movements. He was really scared of his mum and also felt like all her attention went to his siblings. Before he met RT he had been kept down a year in class (as had RT).
I dont think his home life was as bad as RTs, but really not ideal or something that would give him security
Its actually quite good to let bad feelings go that you've been holding onto for so long.
Thank you very much for acknowledging the effort it took for me,
Again, thanks.
Bless your heart.
Yes.
I think it's hard to understand your emotion can COLOUR your rational response.
To be able to see things in a rational, but still human, way, is a good thing, I think.
Our emotions are unruly, for all of us.
And this can be understood, but we can't be RULED by that.
Because fairness matters, because our empathy and understanding, matters, because we are better than 'reactive', and because we are civilised and thoughtful and considered and HUMANE.
And it has taken CENTURIES to get us there.
I'm so glad the systems we have at least TRY to uphold this massive wealth of history and experience.
And I think that that that is something we should be proud of.
*waves back*
Glad to hear you're still here
That is a big admission to make - kudos to you
anais
sorry, but I have to say that this just cannot be right, and merely reflects certain prejudices you have, (I don't mean you are prejudiced) - that being brought up in the West, and given a Western education, working in a Western system, makes it very difficult to have a truly open mind to other possibilities
You are merely assuming this view to be correct, having been repeatedly told this to be correct. How can other peoples' opinions make it so? That's all we have. The views of philosophers down the ages. Asking for people to say this is not the best, is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. And going against the established vested interests in any field is a mighty task.
would you take exactly the same view if you were, say, commenting within a different legal system. I expect not. Would you have made the same comments if you were commenting on the legal system 500 years ago. I am sure not.
How can it possibly be eternally correct to say that "the will of the people" must be subjugated to the thoughts of the judiciary.
What if the judiciary are institutionally corrupt, or carry an institutional politcial bias? What if judges take bribes to bring certain results? What if judges refuse to permit evidence that ought to be allowed? What if judges then conceal this? What if judges are just stupid? What if judges become incompetent as they age? What if judges fall asleep during cases? What if they just get it wrong? What if corrupt men can bribe their way to appointment as judges.? What if judges get blackmailed?
How can we defer all our justice to a small cabal of "supreme Court" judges, when they do not even agree unanimously on "correct" decisions.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
eg - Contrast our system, with that of a feudal monarch, with citizens having the right to petitioning the monarch for justice(not that I am at all familiar - just that it represents a different approach to jurisprudence)
The judiciary is set up according to laws. Laws are man made.
laws can be changed.
this is just splitting hairs
I don't care, personally, but you have to be consistent if you deny redemption to one killer, but allow it to others. It cannot just be an age thing.
If a killer truly repents, then by your terms why continue to punish and imprison. They ARE surely safe to be let out.
Britain is subject to it's influences and philosophies.
Which are broadly classically Greek, Roman, European and Christian.
That which we have, is something we have grown with the influences upon us.
I think they are FINE, FINE, AND FINE.
An understanding of the body politic, of stoicism and the good of the many. Of bravery and defence.
Our cultural prejudices for order, and for KINDNESS and for help for the afflicted and to 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Love thy neighbour as thyself.
He is without sin cast the first stone.
etc.
Which - even if you don't believe in any sort of God are the the social and cultural bedrock of Western Society, are still
our culture and background.
And we DO speak from that.
And that is as VALID as anyone else's culture.
I was merely commenting on Anais strange (to me) acceptance that it was right for politicans not to be able to take the decisions of the judiciary to task.
I don't see that our laws being based substantially on Christian thought are that germane.
This is enshrined in English Common Law. And it is good - indeed, so good it has been copied (and is at the heart of the US constitution).
As for being western-centric, you know what? Perhaps I am. I think we have a damned good legal system which protects the individual from the overarching power of the state. We have principals to be proud of. If it wasn't so good, it wouldn't have been so widely copied - would it?
Really.
I think the primacy of religious thought for hundreds of years has some bearing, myself.
As well as the more distanced and rational GraecoRoman tradition.
It's part of our CULTURE, and one I'm rather proud of.
Because I think it's reasonable, seriously thoughtful, and humane.
And the product of centuries of feeling, thought and experience.
I do not wish to discuss all the details but my upbringing involved abusive alcoholics, absent parents, social workers, racist bullying, being abused and ignored out of spite despite my achievements scholastically to gain affection and recognition for my efforts, as well as other unpleasant issues. So a broken home or abusive childhood is not really an excuse in my mind as I have grown into a fairly prudent, responsible person who contributes in a meaningful way that helps and benefits others. I do not try and blame my upbringing or lack thereof for any lack of sanity, morality or civil duty. Now, I am not stating any of this to receive any pity but I am trying to speak on my personal viewpoint based on my own personal experiences. I realise we are all different and react differently to different situations but I don't think anyone by the age of 10, unless they are suffering severe learning impediments or disabilities, lacks the ability to tell the difference between good or bad or life and death. Being abused as a youth is not an excuse to kill a child or I'd have a body count myself.
no, no. I am more than happy with our Christian based system.
the point at issue was Anais saying it was clearly wrong for the Home Secretary to say that T&V should server longer sentences than those given by the courts. I don't think it was necessarily wrong, and definitely not clearly wrong, and I was trying to illustrate that complete deferment to lawyers carries its own problems That's all.
eg - last week, the courts deciding that the governments workfare scheme requiring the lady to work in poundland was flawed. Is the decision of the courts right? Could it have been a political decision by the judge? Why should judges decide to disregard the wishes of parliament? This is nothing to do with the religious thinikng that has underpinned our society in general.
I know you don't seek it - but you should take credit for how you have taken control of your life.
The thing is, everyone is different. Some - like yourself - use a hard start as a spur to leave that behind but others just accept their life will be a repeat of those around them.
I don't think anyone is saying a poor childhood is an excuse, but it can be a factor - and when 2 isolated, to all intents and purposes unloved, angry, confused young people come together sometimes the actions of the 2 parts are far in excess of them both individually.
I won't pity, but I will admire you with all my heart.
Nothing excuses what TandV did.
But all children are NOT as aware, as decent, as strong, and as good as you.
It's not a question of 'excuse', it's about the understanding of the 'now', or 'then', and the idea that that TERRIBLE thing, can be seen from their terrible, damaged, stupid, childish, point of view - and that those children could be rescued.
You would NEVER do that. But weaker than you did. Stupid, ugly, heinous and wrong.
Weaker, more stupid, more compromised, without any self affirmation.
But then again, still damaged CHILDREN.
And Children should be nurtured and given some damned second chance, shoudn't they?