The crucifixion murder is a pretty close comparable. A nine and ten year old abducted a two year old from a public place (taking him away from his mother); walked him for ages; were encountered by many adults who did nothing; took him to a secluded place where they proceeded to strip him naked, brutally assault him and batter him to death.
They were never even charged.
Oh, I see. Two wrongs do make a right.
Well, that's that cleared up, we can all go home now.
Well, that's that cleared up, we can all go home now.
We're discussing whether or not the sentence given to T and V was proportionate by comparing it to similar cases. How did you manage to twist that into "two wrongs make a right." :rolleyes:
We're discussing whether or not the sentence given to T and V was proportionate by comparing it to similar cases. How did you manage to twist that into "two wrongs make a right." :rolleyes:
I think to compare to other cases we have to firstly have comparable crimes, ie. ones that have a kidnap of a person, torture and murder. The only one that has similarities that has been mentioned doesn't look like a premeditated kidnap, and one of the murderers was only 7, below the age of criminal responsibility in the UK.
I think to compare to other cases we have to firstly have comparable crimes, ie. ones that have a kidnap of a person, torture and murder. The only one that has similarities that has been mentioned doesn't look like a premeditated kidnap, and one of the murderers was only 7, below the age of criminal responsibility in the UK.
No, there was the case in the 1800s and also Mary Bell's crimes. The two boys back in the 19th century were sent to a reform school for 5 years, (looks like Britain's gone backwards between the 19th century and the 20th), and Mary Bell served 12 years for killing two children.
And making children PAY, for the rest of their lives even after they leave prison (although for many that should be never) is a right?
If it's the only way to ensure the safety of the public, yes.
It was my understanding that the judiciary are supposed to serve the public.
The reality of it seems to be, the judiciary do what they like, regardless of how effective or ineffective it is, and we lump it. If we have an opinion on that, we're shouted down, insulted and told our opinions don't count.
It's like complaining about a bus being late, only to be told by the director of buses that it was supposed to be late because it's better when buses are late.
From a cursory view, those kids, one of whom was 7, seemed to find a kid wandering round. They didn't set out to kidnap anyone like Venables & Thompson did. Seemed to be less premediation
If it's the only way to ensure the safety of the public, yes.
It was my understanding that the judiciary are supposed to serve the public.
The reality of it seems to be, the judiciary do what they like, regardless of how effective or ineffective it is, and we lump it. If we have an opinion on that, we're shouted down, insulted and told our opinions don't count.
It's like complaining about a bus being late, only to be told by the director of buses that it was supposed to be late because it's better when buses are late.
Then no murderers, whatever the circumstances of the crime, however old, young, compromised they were should ever be freed?
And damaged children who are immature, not cogniscent, not formed properly yet, should be given no chance, no time to change, no time to grow up?
There was a case in the nineteenth century where this attitude WASN'T proposed. The children did their time in a reform school and never reoffended.
Mary Bell's crime was not the same as Venables & Thompson
The notion that we should look at how other children in other countries have been sentenced, on the basis of their age and not on their crimes doesn't make much sense to me.
It's like trying to compare adult crimes on the basis that they are adults
You could have 10 children dead. The first defendant could be a serial kidnapper, paedophile & murderer who killed 5 children. Would likely end up behind bars for the rest of his life.
The second defendant could have been coming home from work, lost control of his car, went into a bus stop killing 5 children, would likely only get a relatively short sentence.
Mary Bell's crime was not the same as Venables & Thompson
The notion that we should look at how other children in other countries have been sentenced, on the basis of their age and not on their crimes doesn't make much sense to me.
It's like trying to compare adult crimes on the basis that they are adults
You could have 10 children dead. The first defendant could be a serial kidnapper, paedophile & murderer who killed 5 children. Would likely end up behind bars for the rest of his life.
The second defendant could have been coming home from work, lost control of his car, went into a bus stop killing 5 children, would likely only get a relatively short sentence.
So do you think then, that T and V as damaged, immature ten year olds should receive a lesser sentence than hardened killers?
Speaking of people who are out of their depth here.
All you've managed to add to the debate is an insult.
My mistake......two insults. Well done you.
Why single me out? Plenty of other posters are having good old digs personally and otherwise. What's your beef with me? And how do you work out that I'm out of my depth exactly?
I find it curious that Bramble Ramble and Penny Crayon, on two entirely seperate occasions have discussed together about two different sets of posters being the same person.
Only to each other.
Isn't that interesting?
Watch it Ada...you're breaching the T&Cs yourself there... You've had the same post removed twice, 3 strikes and you might be out.
So do you think then, that T and V as damaged, immature ten year olds should receive a lesser sentence than hardened killers?
Well, lots of ten year olds are immature, and come from damaged backgrounds, but they don't go on to commit crimes, let alone crimes of this magnitude. Their background was no different from many other children in this country and I think that it's wrong to say their background or age somehow explains or mitigates against the crimes they committed.
We have discussed a number of cases which involved similar depravity of crimes, kidnap, torture and murder, where defendants who were juveniles at the time have been in prison, and I mean proper adult prison, for 20 years and longer.
The debate is at the moment about proportional sentencing. No, I don't think the sentence they received was proportional to their crimes.
Well, lots of ten year olds are immature, and come from damaged backgrounds, but they don't go on to commit crimes, let alone crimes of this magnitude. Their background was no different from many other children in this country and I think that it's wrong to say their background or age somehow explains or mitigates against the crimes they committed.
We have discussed a number of cases which involved similar depravity of crimes, kidnap, torture and murder, where defendants who were juveniles at the time have been in prison, and I mean proper adult prison, for 20 years and longer.
The debate is at the moment about proportional sentencing. No, I don't think the sentence they received was proportional to their crimes.
I doubt many people would say their background or age mitigates their actions, however, it does offer a degree of explanation.
I doubt many people would say their background or age mitigates their actions, however, it does offer a degree of explanation.
I'd agree, if it were the case that this was something that 10 year-olds did on a regular basis. But as has been shown, it hardly ever happens and this makes it all the more inexplicable
Other people are offering something to the debate, all you did was insult people.
Because you offer nothing but insults.
I see it as stating the obvious, your menu may vary. And when the standard of debate you're offering is at the level of "two wrongs don't make a right" I think a reality check is required from time to time..
Then no murderers, whatever the circumstances of the crime, however old, young, compromised they were should ever be freed?
People who still present a danger to the public, ie. John Venables should not be released until they are no longer a danger to the public.......and that's disregarding an actual punishment.
That is not what happened. He was released anyway. He broke the terms of his release many times and committed at least one crime against children and we're still hearing that it was right for him to be released, despite the fact that the rehabilitation didn't work and the probation was ineffective.
Comments
Oh, I see. Two wrongs do make a right.
Well, that's that cleared up, we can all go home now.
We're discussing whether or not the sentence given to T and V was proportionate by comparing it to similar cases. How did you manage to twist that into "two wrongs make a right." :rolleyes:
I seem to remember their original plan was to push a toddler under a bus.
Yes, alot of people seem to remember that. There was never any evidence for it, but it seems to have gone down in many people's minds as a fact.
Well, it's obvious that whatever 'plans' they were supposed to have had, it was all a bit horribly hap hazard.
Not some meticulous serial killer stuff then.
And making children PAY, for the rest of their lives even after they leave prison (although for many that should be never) is a right?
I think to compare to other cases we have to firstly have comparable crimes, ie. ones that have a kidnap of a person, torture and murder. The only one that has similarities that has been mentioned doesn't look like a premeditated kidnap, and one of the murderers was only 7, below the age of criminal responsibility in the UK.
No, there was the case in the 1800s and also Mary Bell's crimes. The two boys back in the 19th century were sent to a reform school for 5 years, (looks like Britain's gone backwards between the 19th century and the 20th), and Mary Bell served 12 years for killing two children.
If it's the only way to ensure the safety of the public, yes.
It was my understanding that the judiciary are supposed to serve the public.
The reality of it seems to be, the judiciary do what they like, regardless of how effective or ineffective it is, and we lump it. If we have an opinion on that, we're shouted down, insulted and told our opinions don't count.
It's like complaining about a bus being late, only to be told by the director of buses that it was supposed to be late because it's better when buses are late.
Oh, it's fine then. Hardly a crime at all.
Now who's moving the goalposts?.
Then no murderers, whatever the circumstances of the crime, however old, young, compromised they were should ever be freed?
And damaged children who are immature, not cogniscent, not formed properly yet, should be given no chance, no time to change, no time to grow up?
There was a case in the nineteenth century where this attitude WASN'T proposed. The children did their time in a reform school and never reoffended.
Still yours is at least a consistent viewpoint.
The notion that we should look at how other children in other countries have been sentenced, on the basis of their age and not on their crimes doesn't make much sense to me.
It's like trying to compare adult crimes on the basis that they are adults
You could have 10 children dead. The first defendant could be a serial kidnapper, paedophile & murderer who killed 5 children. Would likely end up behind bars for the rest of his life.
The second defendant could have been coming home from work, lost control of his car, went into a bus stop killing 5 children, would likely only get a relatively short sentence.
So do you think then, that T and V as damaged, immature ten year olds should receive a lesser sentence than hardened killers?
I thought it was horrendous.
But just not the same as some premeditated adult serial killer sort of crime.
Do you think it was the same? Or somehow worse? Or what?
Why single me out? Plenty of other posters are having good old digs personally and otherwise. What's your beef with me? And how do you work out that I'm out of my depth exactly?
Watch it Ada...you're breaching the T&Cs yourself there... You've had the same post removed twice, 3 strikes and you might be out.
Well, lots of ten year olds are immature, and come from damaged backgrounds, but they don't go on to commit crimes, let alone crimes of this magnitude. Their background was no different from many other children in this country and I think that it's wrong to say their background or age somehow explains or mitigates against the crimes they committed.
We have discussed a number of cases which involved similar depravity of crimes, kidnap, torture and murder, where defendants who were juveniles at the time have been in prison, and I mean proper adult prison, for 20 years and longer.
The debate is at the moment about proportional sentencing. No, I don't think the sentence they received was proportional to their crimes.
I doubt many people would say their background or age mitigates their actions, however, it does offer a degree of explanation.
Other people are offering something to the debate, all you did was insult people.
Because you offer nothing but insults.
I'd agree, if it were the case that this was something that 10 year-olds did on a regular basis. But as has been shown, it hardly ever happens and this makes it all the more inexplicable
Exactly.
Spacecube, do you not think that there is any 'mitigation' in the fact that Tand V were so young, and also damaged children?
Should such children be treated exactly the same, or worse than adults who commit similar crimes?
I see it as stating the obvious, your menu may vary. And when the standard of debate you're offering is at the level of "two wrongs don't make a right" I think a reality check is required from time to time..
People who still present a danger to the public, ie. John Venables should not be released until they are no longer a danger to the public.......and that's disregarding an actual punishment.
That is not what happened. He was released anyway. He broke the terms of his release many times and committed at least one crime against children and we're still hearing that it was right for him to be released, despite the fact that the rehabilitation didn't work and the probation was ineffective.