Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Unsurprising Daily Mail article is unsurprising
"if it ever gets out who he really is in prison,he'll be dead within months. It's sad for all involved..but you have to give it to those soppy liberal bleeding heart elites (human rights lawyers,judges etc)who have never as much as had a hair touched on the body of any of their children.. if there's to be mob vengeance it should be directed at the soppy mugs who let these boys out. Grab your pitchforks and storm the bastions of elitism !!!(Human rights lobby,the BBC and other parts of the left wing chaterati)
- daniel okoro, london,uk, 04/3/2010 04:21"
Yeah it's not in the public interest. I like their 'sources'.
Are you claiming to have independently come up with the concept of parole? Did you get a prize?
I almost pooed myself from smiling
The article made little to no sense. Although one of the texts on the letters page made me chortle. Can't remember what it said now.
'HaNG the BArstuDS'
In other news: some pictures of an unknown woman wearing a dress that a semi-well-known woman wore, a racist ex-girlfriend of an ex-footballer said something on twitter about being pregnant, and Kylie wore some boots in public.
are moderate points made by folk from abroad.
"Commenting over here, not frothing at the mouth about our criminals..."
Sources Say World Still Turning.
according to the mail
Clearly, none of them have ever heard of the concept of recidivism and how it is directly linked to length of time spent inside.
bastard redundant apostrophe
''...and now he deserves for those same human rights to be revoked'' - Mr Bulger
Pretty thorough opinion bearing in mind no-one knows what he did to get sent back to jail in the first place.
While we're at it though, New Law: Grieving parents who speak to the press concerning recondite legal issues they would normally have no business talking about, should be immediately put to death. Save a lot of effort.
"...and he threw it back in society's face..."
Venables has been out for some time now and so gfar as we nknow, this is the first hint of trouble. Also, what did he do? Snort a bit of coke and get into a fight? Hardly the crime of the century. Also, we don't know what the circumstances were surrounding that fight- it may not even have been his fault.
As for your 2 options- the second- nice trolling, I approve.
As for jail- see my pint on recidivism.
It sounds to me like he isn't getting enough psychological/ anger management-type support. For rehabilitation to work it has to be properly managed, and we just don't know what's happened in this case, so it seems very stupid indeed to speculate (although rather fun, of course).
but I'll address your point as quickly as I can, before I run off to my meeting.
(C) douchebag 2010
Keith Chegwin could host
who, in differnet circumstances, could have made something good of himself. Everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation where there's evidence that they are capable of being successfully rehabilitated. For example, Robert Thomson is making my wedding dress.
just check you've used the correct words at least before you call me ignorant.
Yeah, the thing is though - he was ten. And the thing about ten year olds is that their minds are malleable like plasticine. He probably knows it's wrong to abduct and kill toddlers now. Probably why he hasn't done it again since.
But maybe HE'S JUST WAITING FOR HIS CHANCE DUN DUN DUUUUN.
Now... why don't you stop whinging on about things you don't have the philosophical nous to even consider talking about in any logical manner and go back to Sex and the City or some shit? More on your level...
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article42689.ece#ixzz0hDVAhCre
still broken :(
a barrister who represented you like...20 years ago or however long ago it was, probably won't be defending you again.
- They've attempted rehabilitation ONCE.
- The fact that he has breached the order will be taken into account in future.
- The other guy hasn't breached his terms, so should he just go back anyway as well? Why is all this specific to the one who, according to the prosecution, police detectives etc. was LESS influencial in the planning of the attack?
when no-one here knows for sure what the details of his return to prison are, isn't it?
To be honest, your question's absolutely impossible to answer without resorting to trial and error, so I hope it's intended as rhetorical.
Clearly the relatively low re-offending rates suggest that the justice system is getting a lot right in terms of releasing those with mandatory sentences, but at the same time I'm sure we could do better. Fuck knows whether it's more stick or carrot that's needed.
(Let them know it's Christmas time)
He's only part troll, part cunt, and i suspect part funny decent guy. I'm intrigued by him, i'm afraid to say.
Thanks for that earwig, which is now TOTALLY stuck in my head.
(In good news, it has replaced 'my old man said follow the van', which can only be a joyous thing).
A BIT RUDE!
which are worth reading.
from a criminal psychologist/ rehabilitation / punishment perspective. it's just such an extreme crime, and yet the ages of the perpetrators makes it so complex at the same time
In many countries, he wouldn't even have been held criminally responsible for what he did.
The very fact that he was so young is reason in itself to rehabilitate him and reason in itself for his early release. I don't want to live in a society that wants to abandon all hope in children and persecute them in perpetuity for their wrongdoings, however grave.
And we don't the facts of the new offence. So judgement really should be deferred for now.
Fuck it. To kill a defenceless little kid, not just kill them, but to torture and physically destroy them, they quite simply should not be allowed to have a life. I don't care how young they were, I don't care how repentant they are, they don't deserve to live with the rest of us normal, non-murderer folk. I bet the memory of what they did is still clear in their minds. No one with that memory should be a part of society.
Black monk-like robe? Check.
Style somewhere between sinister and camp? Check.
More seductive? Erm...okay, check.
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.
Look at the Jedi Council. Barrel of laughs they were. Dithered all day long only to be wiped out by someone who demanded sexy results.
under his robes
yours is just attention-seeking, while CG's is more than JUST being attention-seeking
It's the return of the logic vaccuum.
*frets over where to start*.......
Actually, sorry, can't be arsed this time mate :)
That post reads like a stream of consciousness and it's also just full of stuff that doesn't even relate to this.
- "well he served his term that's it justice done" except he's on parole so that's not the case.
- "you have to wonder why you should take the LAW as your moral compass" What in blue fuck are you talking about? No one takes the LAW as their moral compass, it reinforces your moral compass. No one normal has ever wondered this because no one even considers it because it's a fragmentary piece of pseudo-intellectualism that falls to pieces as soon as you bother to consider it.
- "Also just because you have paid for your crime enough to go free into the wider world does not mean you ever lose the responsibility and shame of what you have done, nor should you ever be free of that." Well you're mixing up what we'd like to think (that they never lose their feeling of responsibility for their crimes) with something we can't have any control over (any feelings of shame for it) and then combine that with a wistful consideration that this should go on for their lifetimes. Again, what are you trying to say by pointing out the bleeding obvious?
Like so many of your posts in these sorts of threads you've written something that isn't profound or thought-provoking but because of its context (in such a thread) it simply becomes a troll-like provocation, trying the patience of those of us who'd actually like to either:
- discuss the issue
- make some good jokes/puns to lighten the mood.
Hope the Squeezebox worked.
there was a small story about some fella who stole some cheese narrowly avoided life imprisonment under the three-strikes-and-you're-out rule.
This guy apparently had a bit of a ruckus. That's a far cry (and possibly totally divorced?) from what he did previously.
You sometimes make some good points, B, but you often come across as overtly contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
And if the points in your head aren't coming across well in writing, then you might do well to take a moment to give those written down thoughts a second drafting.
I wouldn't be so sure. (I shoulda said this was a Californian 3 strikes rule). He escaped on a technicality.
But I totally agree that "I don't think you can make the same judgement on everyone, it's down to the merits of the case and the person's history."
I can't believe John Major said that society should 'condemn a little more and understand a little less'
If it means he's hauled out into Trafalgar square to have his balls cut off for talking all that back-to-basics shit while he was laying pipe in Edwina Currie's burger - I'm all for it.
I'll even provide the nail scissors.
In more recent times he's learned a bit. I remember him on Radio 4 five or six years ago basically admitting that if people have no hope because they live on terrible estates and have no prospect of a job then it's hardly surprising they turn to crime and so you need to deal with the economic causes before you can expect your criminal justice changes to really effect a change.
He was 47 when he became PM so he wasn't exactly a callow youth was he?
Psychopathy and personality disorders in response to CG's post about 'drawing a line;' from what i remember, the point at which the line is drawn is one of psychological functioning. I'll have to be corrected on this, but if a prisoner/felon/whatever is shown to experience few emotional responses to what they've done (and that's in a clinical sense; not just fronting up for the courts or cameras or whatever) then they're placed in a category quite different to that of a normal prisoner, possibly with greatly reduced human rights (for example, I think that they can be confined to institutions for life without having to undergo normal review processes; far more scary to be classed as a patient than a prisoner in some cases). Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.
Processes surrounding these two boys were so secretive, and I think the easiest thing for all involved would have been to have them incarcerated for the rest of their lives as true psychopaths. I suspect that all their lives people have been keen to mark them this way, but that they didn't turn out like that.
The easiest thing to do would be to label them as blips; as unknowable monsters. Of course, though, worse things are done to little children by grown-ups the world over on a daily basis. Although 'evil' isn't really a very useful term here, is the same act more evil if carried out by a child compared to an adult? Why? Because we think children, as blank slates, are more innocent?
I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I think the wrong response is just to see it as worse because it is two children killing another child. For better or worse, murder of children is judged partially based on context, like all crimes. Two men with the mental age of children would be judged less harshly than two normally functioning men.
And from there, it depends again on where you draw the line. If you think that the nature of the crime overrides all context on the part of the criminal then we'd have agree to disagree (and this would change the operation of your ideal justice system, I guess).
that was meant to be short. hmph.
if it weren't so tragic.
So the guy committed a terrible crime when he was 10. He was only barely old enough to be criminally responsible, and wouldn't have been treated as such in most European jurisdictions. Do 10 year olds generally have the capacities necessary to distinguish between right and wrong and to control themselves in light of that? Yes, of course they do. Given his young age, however, is it likely that other people should shoulder some responsibility for what he did? And should we refrain from punishing him as we would a fully responsible adult? Again, surely yes.
So he gets punished. How much should he have been punished? I suspect that anyone who claims to have a definitive answer to this question either has a deeper understanding of the moral, political and social concerns involved here than anyone else who's ever thought about these things, or is bullshitting. As ever, I wait on anyone in this thread to provide a clear, coherent and non-question-begging explanation of what makes (a specific level of) punishment inherently "deserved".
If the rumours are to be believed, he was recalled for assaulting a workmate. Wouldn't be the first angry guy to do so, but maybe that means he's still dangerous. Fine, so recall him. But don't tell me "he should never have been let out" without some way of backing up this claim.
Also, I find it amusing how keen people are to generalise from this case that rehabilitative strategies don't work. And act as if those who favour such strategies necessarily do so because they believe that criminals should be treated with compassion, care or love (!). Doubtless there is an element of compassion involved, but I'd have thought the main goal is to cut crime and / or the costs of offender management. Given that these are goals that can be shared by pretty much anyone, it's odd people are so keen to dismiss them. The elephant in the room, of course, is the suspicion that we don't want these strategies to work, because we'd rather inflict pain on criminals, for its own sake. And yet no-one seems to want to talk in these terms.
Should he be given another new identity? Difficult to say for sure without knowing the relevant costs or how much of a threat he poses / has posed. Although I take it that the need to avoid inciting mob justice (even inadvertently) can legitimately go in the balance.
"The Bulger case is already estimated to have cost the taxpayer £5.5million. Here is the breakdown:
Police investigation: £500,000
Murder trial (prosecution and defence costs): £1million
Time killers spent in custody in secure units: £2.5million
Setting up and maintaining new identities for Venables, Thompson and families: £1.5million"
As if the court case was a waste of money and we should have just burnt them immeidately or something. As if we as a society are wasting money hiding their identities.
Fucking morons. Makes me want to storm into the Mail office and get medieval on their collective arses.
than 9 years on monitored release. And we wasted money by releasing them? I don't really understand what they're getting at.
Come on DiS. Sort it out.
Someone needs to up their game on the trolling front if this thread is gonna re-ignite.
especially on the point of 'deserved.' Who gets to define deserved? Is it the majority? The victims, or those close to them? The voices that shout the loudest?
That's their job.
Everyone else has a right to be heard, but very few are qualified for making the final call.
And those who shout loudest are probably more likely to be farthest from the optimal solution.
but it's not, it's genuine "am I right in thinking...." styley
within very detailed sentencing guidelines that I would think the majority of the general public are not up to speed with.
I mean more from a 'public outcry' perspective. I think there's a widely perceived discrepancy between the application of law (which a judge should be the executor of) and this notion of 'getting what is coming to them' that you often see in anecdotal responses (and, increasingly, the media).
And while the application of law is often quite a dry, clear-cut process, I think people want more to see that emotion has figured into it, if that makes sense.
can properly GTFO with their desire for mediaeval witch-hunts.
I was just wondering how 'the public' would react if one of them cried while being interviewed by Piers Morgan.
The principle of leading with the heart rather than the head seems to pervade lots of nonsensical thinking, now i consider it.
aside from the obvious brutality of what they did, is that the reason this was such big news was because the murderers were kids. Whether or not this means they should have been subjected to the same penalty as an adult aside - there are adults who've murdered kids and never achieved the same infamy.
So if you boil it down, the one and only reason you could possibly grasp at to apply leniency to Venables and Thomson is the exact reason everybody still remembers them. So I'd say it was money well spent to give them new identities, because if they'd been released without new identities, there would have been a lot more money spent prosecuting the long list of people who took it upon themselves to dish out some street justice.
there are people in this country that have done terrible things since that you would assume are just as deserving of these levels of idiotic invective...it was just a perfect storm of a crime....not only was a child killed, but the killers were also children. you couldn't script a situation to better provoke the fear of daily mail readers.
obviously the level of outrage just represents the fear that parents have of something similar happening to their kid....same with madeline m. ....
i think it's interesting as well how the people that get so outraged at this, are the first to complain if extreme measures were taken to ensure it never happens again.
for example, if a child with their younger sibling were detained by security or police in a room because they couldn't be sure that they were related and it looked like one was bullying the other.....the mum would bowl in and and start going on about 'BLOODY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD...BROTHERS CAN'T EVEN GO DOWN THE STREET AND MUCK ABOUT ANYMORE WITHOUT GETTING QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE...KIDS CAN'T BE KIDS..'etc etc.
when obviously, those actions would've saved james bulger.
they can't see the irony...their outrage is the cause for any exteme measures, and they're always the first to contest them.
Working 'in the field' (Insert 'What, as a scarecrow?' type jokes here:.....................)
Neither of them actually went to prison at all. They were in separate Secured Children's Units.
Much of the controversy surrounding their case is due to the fact that they never spent so much as a day in prison for the original offence.
Venables must have done something pretty major to get recalled though, especially with the multi-million pound investment that there has been in him.
The internet is abuzz with rumours about what he may have done, some suggest that he attacked a colleague. Breach of Licence covers a multitude of sins, but they wouldn't have gone to this amount of trouble for anything trivial.
He's fucked though. There can't be more than a few hundred prisoners recalled each week, any 27 year old guy who has been recalled over the past few weeks is going to be in for a lot of questions.
You're never alone in prison, there'll always be someone who knows you, comes from the same area as you and/or knows people that you know. That backstory will crumble and he'll be found out, he'll most likely end up on the SO wing.
so the whole 'should their identities be protected' gets mixed in with 'should they have been released when they were'.
People who rant in tabloids etc have to realise one thing anyway (well Ok they won't but still) - capital punishment isn't coming back (and if you don't like that, tough shit), so frame an argument outside of that.
quite unlike them to be fascistic, one sided bullshit peddlers
you ever see that movie? Excellent stuff
need to see it again.
i dont have any sympathy for the cunt.
Stranger that it seems to have gone from him getting into a bit of a fight, being seriously violent, and now being a full on paedophile. It seems to me that, quite rightly, the tabloid press aren't getting a story out of this, and so they're making one up to fulfill the expectations of their readers, who aren't able to cope with the idea that whatever Venables has done might be mildly innocuous.
Yesterday the Guardian reported that the reason he has been recalled is because he is having trouble managing to maintain his false identity, which ANYONE would, let alone someone with that sort of burden on their head. Obviously nobody knows what's going on and it's really not in the public's interest - although we're obviously going to discuss this ad infinitum and it is incredible fascinating.
So, with all this rampant speculation I think it's better to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and it should be borne in mind that for this new crime (IF ONE HAS EVEN BEEN COMMITTED) he should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The idea that he is a raging child molester seems far more likely to be what the Daily Mail WANT him to be rather than what he actually is.
And with this in mind, the only things which are fucked up are the Daily Mail's shit-stirring and the Guardian's decision to reprint it in (what is for a broadsheet) an overly sensationalist way. It would be far more in the public interest for the papers to be quiet and let the judiciary get on with this, and I'm so so glad at least the politicians have had the sense to see this.
Ultimately it fucks up all of our (i.e. the people who think they should have been released) arguments if he's actually done something really terrible so it's a damn sight easier for us to assume the Mirror's got it wrong.
The fact is we don't know what he's done and it's equally likely that he's been jailed for child porn than that it's due to struggling to maintain his false identity. In fact the one thing we do know from Jack Straw is that he's been accused of a serious offence. Last time I checked struggling to maintain your false identity wasn't one of those.
As you say we don't know why he's in there and it would be better if it were left to the judicial process to deal with it. But your assumption the child pornography story is untrue is every bit as much jumping to a conclusion based on what you want the truth to be as it is for someone who still wants them imprisoned to believe he is a paedophile.
finding out that he's a massive peed would mess up some of the arguments in here.
Indeed, going on the given evidence so far (of which there isn't much) I think it's highly likely that the charges cited by the Mirror are true. This dude was part of a series of a massively fucked up series of events at a very young age. Even if something had happened at the end of the trial proceedings that had entirely cleared him of responsibility for Bulger's death, I would still have thought that he had a higher-than-usual risk of doing something untoward in later life. With that said, he wasn't cleared, and has spent many years in institutions and the knowledge that he is universally hated.
And certainly whether or not he's done this doesn't actually change my view. But I still think rocknrollmassacre's desire to declare Venables innocent of this charge has got more to do with the effect it would have on the convincingness of arguments for giving offenders a second chance rather than any factual basis.
For what it's worth I agree completely with your second paragraph and very nearly put something similar in my post.
I was saying that people, we, should be very pragmatic about what is and isn't true about this case because there is good reason to think the tabloids might be constructing the narrative they WANT because there's no information to say otherwise.
As for what he's done, in the words of the Guardian: "Straw has said only that Venables was recalled to prison due to "extremely serious allegations", refusing to give further details." There has been no mention of a new criminal offence, just allegations that he has done something serious which has broken the conditions of his licence - and not maintaining his identity which has been constructed at great expense would fall under that.
The point is that there has been so little information that we don't really know anything, but as far as the motivations of the papers go, we have to be very pragmatic about assuming anything and the tabloid's bile towards Venables weighs very heavy against their reliability.
i also think this pragmatism is a much more useful, more sensible way of viewing things than playing amateur child psychologist and presuming that all fucked up children get off on child porn as adults, which is what you were hunting at at the end of your first post.
Unless you've got a magic monitor that inserts extra sentences into posts of people you disagree with I have literally no idea where you're coming from on that one. There's absolutely nothing in the last past paragraph of my post that backs up your assertion.
The only thing that paragraph said was that you are every bit as guilty as the tabloids in making assumptions that support your existing biases despite the lack of information. Which you are.
Yes, you're saying (quite correctly) there's no information and we don't know anything. But you're still making groundless assumptions all the same.
fucking rabble rabble
hey how come you havent told bamnan to kill himself yet?
John Major -"Prime Minister John Major said that "society needs to condemn a little more, and understand a little less".
behaved far worse than Major during this whole fiasco. Whereas Major said some stupid soundbites to try and appease the views of Tory voters who were seeing him as a weak try-hard post-Thatcher, Michael Howard was busy ILLEGALLY interfering with the judicial system in response to pressure from the red-tops.
Thank God Labour would never cynically interfere with the justice system for the sake of cheap rabble rousing populism.
i'm just saying that in this particular case, Michael Howard has far more on him than John Major does.
Howard was the biggest shape-shifting and devious prick that the Tories put in office for many a year. An abhorrent individual.
Major's comments are actually fairly understandable given that we are so far from the incident now to forget what utter, utter moral outrage it caused. This single incident at the time completely tore up the moral majority's idea of what could happen within a civilised society. For many people it was the most unthinkable thing that had ever happened - and many of THEM had lived through the Holocaust for fuck's sake! The idea of children killing children shifted a lot of perceptions toward a bleak outlook towards a 'Broken Britain' and a 'complete breakdown in law and order'.
As a result, whilst I heavily disagree with it and think that a Prime Minister should be less gung ho with his or her rhetoric, Major's comment seems a mere Conservative reflection on what many people were thinking. It's the old Conservative adage, isn't it? When you can't understand something, then you must banish it...
There's a good possibility that his identity could leak out via forums/twitter/facebook - surely someone he knows (work colleague, friend of a friend, whatever) will be sussing it out right now because of the huge amount of coverage this has got and with the picture of him as a kid being splashed over every front page.
And even if he DOES get given a new identity again, there's also a possibility that pictures of what he looks like now will spring up. It's sort of terrifying and fascinating all at the same time.
I mean anyone who works or socialises or lives with a 27 year old from the Liverpool area who's gone back to prison/generally disappeared in the last week is going to arose suspicion. I've no idea how many people that'll be - I'm guessing more than one. I wonder if at least one of the newspaper stories in the past week (the fight with the work colleague one for example) has been a complete case of mistaken identity.
There could easily be one or two people wrongly-identified as Jon Venables this week.
Or wrong indentifications within folk in town centres?
The media are very often careless, but they certainly ain't about libel. Someone getting wrongly identified as Jon Venables will successfully sue any paper that names him, for an amount which will almost be of newspaper company bankrupting proportions. The tabloids may not tread carefully around the accusation slinging but when it comes to being libelled then they will be very, very fucking careful. (Unless there is a legal loophole for this kind of thing, which I am hitherto unaware of).
Either way, there's going to be a lot of laywers working for tabloids who are going to be very busy this week...
and start telling everyone else that's definitely Jon Venables...
I suspect by now the tabloids probably know exactly where and who Jon Venables is - they just can't reveal it.
I went to school with a Robert Thompson incidentally. He didn't do it.
...but instead of two merciless 10 year olds bringing about the inhumane destruction of an innocent minor....
,...I'm going to shoot 14 hours of me fighting a petal.
Jack Straw would have to say "extremely serious allegations" for most offences, whether he's been caught with child porn or bopped some oik on the nose.