Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

James Bulger: An alternative view


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-02-2013, 10:13
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
I don't hate them but I do have concern that they are out in our society.

What they did to Jamie was THE worst case I personally have ever heard, I study criminology.

The anger in the Bulger case is because what was done to that child was horrendous, vile and evil and the sentence did not fit the crime.

They tortured the little boy and his body was found in pieces.

Myra Hindly (dead now) Ian Brady killed 5 children and will never be let out.

Rose West and Fred West (dead) they killed 11-13 people and was first sentenced to 25 years but then that was changed to a life tarrif, she will never be released.

The Bulger killers sentence should have more sever and that is where the anger comes from.
I'm sorry - I can't believe you've studied criminology if you can posit the Bulger killing as the worst case ever. You're clearly talking out of your backside. Worse than Dahmer? Worse than Brady and Hindley (who taped their victims)? Worse than Richard Ramirez?

And if you study criminology, you'd understand more about the juvenile brain and self control/empathy.

So I don't believe you. I'm saying you DON'T study criminology at all. (I'm a criminologist).
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-02-2013, 10:25
DianaFire
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,202
It it takes a village to raise a child, it must take a village to muck one up.

To me, the mark of a society is not how it treats the affected members of it, but how it looks after the disaffected.

While putting a couple of 10 year old boys in prison for ever and throwing away the key, might be appealing on the 'don't have to deal with it' front, surely the best thing would be to do the utmost to rehabilitate them into productive members of society - while running a parallel strand so that the victims of the crime do not feel shortchanged and can deal with the events without being completely defined by them.
One of the best posts I've read on this subject. Thanks.
DianaFire is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:26
gemma-the-husky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 12,548
I'm sorry - I can't believe you've studied criminology if you can posit the Bulger killing as the worst case ever. You're clearly talking out of your backside. Worse than Dahmer? Worse than Brady and Hindley (who taped their victims)? Worse than Richard Ramirez?

And if you study criminology, you'd understand more about the juvenile brain and self control/empathy.

So I don't believe you. I'm saying you DON'T study criminology at all. (I'm a criminologist).
anais

serious question then

on threads like this, do you think your training and preconceptions (such as maybe feelings about the innate goodness of man and desire for rehabilitation) colours your view?

I say this, as you do come across as somewhat liberal - which you may explain as professionally neutrality.

But what is neutral? we are all products of our upbringing. Things we regard as normal for our society, are different in other societies, and were different for us in other times.

for example - I am sure sentences for all the crimes we are discussing would be far higher in the US than in the UK.
gemma-the-husky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:27
MCC243
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 257
I'm sorry - I can't believe you've studied criminology if you can posit the Bulger killing as the worst case ever. You're clearly talking out of your backside. Worse than Dahmer? Worse than Brady and Hindley (who taped their victims)? Worse than Richard Ramirez?

And if you study criminology, you'd understand more about the juvenile brain and self control/empathy.

So I don't believe you. I'm saying you DON'T study criminology at all. (I'm a criminologist).
People can have different opinions to yours. I'm pretty certain it's allowed. (I'm not a criminologist).
MCC243 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:29
SpamJavelin
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,027
People can have different opinions to yours. I'm pretty certain it's allowed.
Everybody's allowed their own opinions; nobody's allowed their own facts. I'm afraid that there's something about this case which in some people just leads them to disconnecting the rational discussion circuits of their brain and go into full-on swivel-eye mode. While that may be understandable, it behoves people not to give in to that. Numerous posters here, while no less outraged and disgusted by the case,* manage to discuss it calmly and as dispassionately as they can.

* Although of course for some, anything less than calling for the public hanging, drawing and quartering of T & V and its live streaming online amounts to sympathising with child murderers.
SpamJavelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:31
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
anais

serious question then

on threads like this, do you think your training and preconceptions (such as maybe feelings about the innate goodness of man and desire for rehabilitation) colours your view?

I say this, as you do come across as somewhat liberal - which you may explain as professionally neutrality.

But what is neutral? we are all products of our upbringing. Things we regard as normal for our society, are different in other societies, and were different for us in other times.

for example - I am sure sentences for all the crimes we are discussing would be far higher in the US than in the UK.
No - sentences would not necessarily be higher in the US. I have already pointed to several cases where sentences were more leniant. Moreover, sentences are not what they seem in the US (a 50 year sentence, for example, can end up being just 20 years). Also, there is a huge programme of prison reform in the US at the moment with many states (particularly believe it or not the right wing ones) admitting that prison has been counterproductive and expensive in too many cases.

As for my upbringing - I would classify it as pretty standard middle class. I AM liberal but that is more down to the nature of my study and my work.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:33
gemma-the-husky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 12,548
It it takes a village to raise a child, it must take a village to muck one up.

To me, the mark of a society is not how it treats the affected members of it, but how it looks after the disaffected.

While putting a couple of 10 year old boys in prison for ever and throwing away the key, might be appealing on the 'don't have to deal with it' front, surely the best thing would be to do the utmost to rehabilitate them into productive members of society - while running a parallel strand so that the victims of the crime do not feel shortchanged and can deal with the events without being completely defined by them.


why?

why on earth is this "the best thing"?

why is it important to re-integrate people at all?

why couldn't this be a temporary 20th century aberration that we might reflect on as bizarre in centuries to come?

history will tell us the answer.
gemma-the-husky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:35
CherryRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: #WalfordWillChangeForever
Posts: 8,337
Why did he and his team deny causing the death then. Why not spare his partner the court case? Has he admitted it now?
I wouldn't be suprised if the case goes to appeal, his partner of then must have thought he hadnt done it at first as they went on to have another child after, this case has taken nearly two years to take to court.

The only person that will know 100% of what happened is him.

He as far as I know the press cliams he still says he did not shake his son, reading the evidence available there were three people that had the baby on the day of his death but he was the only person that they suspected, he has no other previous crimes and the mother testified that he was a good loving partner and father.

His conviction in my beliefs is that the child had two bruises on his knees and they cant account how they got there.

My point throughout this thread is he was found guilty of manslaughter and that the crown do not believe he meant to kill or hurt his son and that 9 years is a sufficient sentence for that crime, imo.
CherryRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:36
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
"why couldn't this be a temporary 20th century aberration that we might reflect on as bizarre in centuries to come?"
Because it has happened before.

Barrett and Bradley - 1861
San Francisco crucifixon murder - 1971
Mary Bell - 1968
Lionel Tate - 1999

The murder of James Bulger was highly unusual. But it was not unique.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:41
aggs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,616
why?

why on earth is this "the best thing"?

why is it important to re-integrate people at all?

why couldn't this be a temporary 20th century aberration that we might reflect on as bizarre in centuries to come?

history will tell us the answer.
I said 'to me'

I, personally, would rather be part of a society that does the utmost to rehabilitate. Others may disagree and are perfectly at liberty to do so
aggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:42
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 16,525
why?

why on earth is this "the best thing"?

why is it important to re-integrate people at all?
why couldn't this be a temporary 20th century aberration that we might reflect on as bizarre in centuries to come?

history will tell us the answer.


To try and prevent the endless cycle of crime and violence repeating itself. What is the alternative? To kill those whom we vilify for killing? To leave them to rot at untold expense?
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:42
Cally's mum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rainbow Valley
Posts: 3,058
I don't hate them but I do have concern that they are out in our society.

What they did to Jamie was THE worst case I personally have ever heard, I study criminology.

The anger in the Bulger case is because what was done to that child was horrendous, vile and evil and the sentence did not fit the crime.

They tortured the little boy and his body was found in pieces.

Myra Hindly (dead now) Ian Brady killed 5 children and will never be let out.

Rose West and Fred West (dead) they killed 11-13 people and was first sentenced to 25 years but then that was changed to a life tarrif, she will never be released.

The Bulger killers sentence should have more sever and that is where the anger comes from.
I rather suspect that that is your own emotions colouring your judgement. What they did WAS horrendous. it was vile and heinous. It was NOT, however more so than many crimes since (or even before).

I stand by my view that society simply can't deal with the fact that two children committed this crime. Children who, although they knew right from wrong, were of the age where they simply did not, could not understand the implications of that. It takes maturity to start to comprehend the results of what we have done.

Also, as I am sure will be pointed out (and you should know if you study criminology - do you mean you study it or are interested in it as a layperson?), The sentences were restricted by what was applicable in the LAW. Regardless of what the public would like, all sentences are dealt with that way. We have the Law for a purpose. Otherwise, we would be a vigilante society - and that way lies madness (and murder of innocent people simply because they are mistaken for someone else).
Cally's mum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:42
reglip
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,465
I think it does depend on the circumstance (and their own development; empathy is something that develops as a child develops and they all do so at different rates). And whilst children are understandably upset when parents/pets die (as we all are. i just lost a beloved pet and I'm still devastated); their concept can differ from someone more mature.

I'm not a psychologist and I don't begin to pretend I understand these things on any intellectual level, but I am deeply interested in the psyche and thus have read about it a lot. Plus, i know a bit about developmental assessments and the various spectrums out there.
I stumbled across a youtube video that might interest you the other day. A word of warning though it is disturbing viewing. 30 minutes long

Child of Rage is a CBS Television movie made in 1992 starring Ashley Peldon and Mel Harris. The film is based on the true story by Beth Thomas, who suffered from reactive attachment disorder as a result of being sexually abused as a child.

Documentary

Prior to the film's release, a 1990 documentary entitled Child of Rage: A Story of Abuse was produced by Gaby Monet based on interviews conducted with the film's real-life inspiration, Beth Thomas. It aired on HBO as part of their America Undercover series. The film consists of interviews with Beth, followed by footage of her treatment and partial recovery at a treatment center for children. Beth is currently doing well, and works as a pediatric nurse.
Just search youtube for 'child of rage'
reglip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:44
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
For those who think the US is more severe. Check this out.

A 14 year old killed his father, his stepmother and his stepsister.

http://antonia-monacelli.hubpages.co...ren-Cody-Posey

Sentence? 7 years. He was sentenced as a juvenile which in most states in the US means he MUST be released at 21.

People who think Thompson and Venables would have been treated more harsly in the US are clueless and ignorant. There is a very good chance they may not have been charged at all but given detention in a treatment centre.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:44
MCC243
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 257
Everybody's allowed their own opinions; nobody's allowed their own facts. I'm afraid that there's something about this case which in some people just leads them to disconnecting the rational discussion circuits of their brain and go into full-on swivel-eye mode. While that may be understandable, it behoves people not to give in to that. Numerous posters here, while no less outraged and disgusted by the case,* manage to discuss it calmly and as dispassionately as they can.

* Although of course for some, anything less than calling for the public hanging, drawing and quartering of T & V and its live streaming online amounts to sympathising with child murderers.


Just as well I don't think like that then isn't it?
MCC243 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:50
ch958
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 131
Read "As If" by Blake Morrison if you want to understand this whole business
ch958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:52
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
To be honest, I found 'As If' to be self indulgent and full of assumptions about the case.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:56
gemma-the-husky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 12,548
Because it has happened before.

Barrett and Bradley - 1861
San Francisco crucifixon murder - 1971
Mary Bell - 1968
Lionel Tate - 1999

The murder of James Bulger was highly unusual. But it was not unique.
I wasn't referring to that.

What I meant was that over the centuries our justice "system" has changed from being violent and brutal to being considered and more lenient - seemingly on a one-way progression.

However there is no guarantee that this will remain so in the future.

In centuries to come we may look back on our current liberal approach as wrong, That's what I meant.
gemma-the-husky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 10:58
MrsOrin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,642
I am sure the OP would still share this view if it was their child taken and killed in such a way.

Always easier to express forgiveness and such when you haven't experienced something quite a sick happen to you or a loved one.

I think the reason many can't forgive is not just that they killed that little boy, it was HOW they did it.
MrsOrin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 11:03
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
I wasn't referring to that.

What I meant was that over the centuries our justice "system" has changed from being violent and brutal to being considered and more lenient - seemingly on a one-way progression.

However there is no guarantee that this will remain so in the future.

In centuries to come we may look back on our current liberal approach as wrong, That's what I meant.
This is also wrong. Sentencing is harsher now than it ever was. 30 years ago, a 'life sentence' would normally mean an average of 10 years in prison. These days it is 15 at least. More whole life sentences are being handed out than ever before. If what you mean is the lack of a death penalty, then your definition of what constitutes 'penal' is very shallow.

Prison sentences have INCREASED, not decreased over the past 30 years. The myth that we have become softer is just that - a pure myth.

And the Barrett and Bradley case in the nineteenth century has already been brought up. A virtual identical killing to the James Bulger one - sentence - five years in a reformatory where they weren't even held securely. Basically a children's home.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 11:18
CherryRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: #WalfordWillChangeForever
Posts: 8,337
I'm sorry - I can't believe you've studied criminology if you can posit the Bulger killing as the worst case ever. You're clearly talking out of your backside. Worse than Dahmer? Worse than Brady and Hindley (who taped their victims)? Worse than Richard Ramirez?

And if you study criminology, you'd understand more about the juvenile brain and self control/empathy.

So I don't believe you. I'm saying you DON'T study criminology at all. (I'm a criminologist).

"Studying" Criminology and Sociolgy I am currently reading up on youth cultures and transitions.

I believe the killing of Jamie Bulger is the worst singular crime that I personally have read up on not down to the torture and acts but more because of alleged innocents taking innocence It could be possibly because I am a mother.
One of those boys is more evil than Ian Bradey, evil from a child and the evil would have only gone on to grow even worse into adulthood if not subdued its only the fact he was caught and now monitored that he doesn't go on to commit more crimes. That evil is walking around in out society.

I personally find it harder to comprehend a child/young person sadistically killing than that of an adult, also James age I take into consideration.

Another case is Jesse Pomeroy and I just cant for the life comprehend a child bruitally killing a child and having little remorse.

Some believe some people were born evil and others nurtured into being evil.

I find the moors murders deaths as equally terrible but I have an understanding of why they happened, Ian was and is a psychopath, intelligent and evil. He thrived on what he did and needed memories to get off on. He enjoyed and still does enjoy the power of been able to toy with peoples emotions. He did not only thrive off the kill he thrives of the effects of the kill on others.

Again Dahmer an adult when he commited his crimes and although his numberous victims 18 I believe, were horrific for his cannibalism, rape and the fact he hacked his victims to pieces and yes to victims of young people/minors but I find his killings easier to read than that of the death of Jamie Bulger.

It could be possibly due to I remember the Bulger case very well and we are constantly reminded of the pain in a visual form via his family.

Dhamer/Brady/West/Hidley all had justice served, where imo the murderers of James Bulger did not.

We all have different opinions.

I believe at eight you should be classed at criminally responsible as long as their are no mental implications and a sentence should fit the crime regardless of age.

You can not rehabilitate EVIL.
CherryRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 11:29
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
Anyone who can talk about 'evil' has no business studying criminology.

It's total fantastical nonsense. I simply don't believe you. If you were studying youth developmental psychology, you would know full well that what you are saying is rot.

And you have absolutely no authority to make such pronouncements on Robert Thompson without being privy to any psychiatric reports. Again, the fact that you have done so makes me look upon your claims to study criminology with great scepticsm.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 11:33
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 16,525
"Studying" Criminology and Sociolgy I am currently reading up on youth cultures and transitions.

I believe the killing of Jamie Bulger is the worst singular crime that I personally have read up on not down to the torture and acts but more because of alleged innocents taking innocence It could be possibly because I am a mother.
One of those boys is more evil than Ian Bradey, evil from a child and the evil would have only gone on to grow even worse into adulthood if not subdued its only the fact he was caught and now monitored that he doesn't go on to commit more crimes. That evil is walking around in out society.

I personally find it harder to comprehend a child/young person sadistically killing than that of an adult, also James age I take into consideration.

Another case is Jesse Pomeroy and I just cant for the life comprehend a child bruitally killing a child and having little remorse.

Some believe some people were born evil and others nurtured into being evil.

I find the moors murders deaths as equally terrible but I have an understanding of why they happened, Ian was and is a psychopath, intelligent and evil. He thrived on what he did and needed memories to get off on. He enjoyed and still does enjoy the power of been able to toy with peoples emotions. He did not only thrive off the kill he thrives of the effects of the kill on others.

Again Dahmer an adult when he commited his crimes and although his numberous victims 18 I believe, were horrific for his cannibalism, rape and the fact he hacked his victims to pieces and yes to victims of young people/minors but I find his killings easier to read than that of the death of Jamie Bulger.

It could be possibly due to I remember the Bulger case very well and we are constantly reminded of the pain in a visual form via his family.

Dhamer/Brady/West/Hidley all had justice served, where imo the murderers of James Bulger did not.

We all have different opinions.

I believe at eight you should be classed at criminally responsible as long as their are no mental implications and a sentence should fit the crime regardless of age.

You can not rehabilitate EVIL.




One of the most nonsensical statements I have ever read on the internet, ever.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 11:34
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15,128
Its just so much easier to label a couple of kids, lock them up and then forget all about them.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-02-2013, 11:35
anais32
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,050
If she really was studying in any meaningful sense, her English would be better.
anais32 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54.