Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What else do you expect?
Do you really mean that? Really, really?
I don't really think that would be the case
or whatever the term might be, at the time they did it? Any sexual stuff would have just been an extension of the general attempts at cruelty/humiliation.
I just suspect they're two unrelated matters. But really, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to speculate about something like this so I might just run far far away from this thread
Edlington - not being a pedant, Im Doncaster born and bred <--- im not necessarily proud of that either. You are right about the story though, it was huge news here.
heavily linked to childhood experiences? i dont see how you couldnt see a connection.
as has been discussed ad nauseum, dragging him over the coals isn't in anybody's best interest, especially the general public.
of this offense, if he has been charged, he is innocent until he is proven guilty.
his whole life has been one massive fuck up, if this is true, it still doesn't make him an inherently evil person. there are possibly sound psychological reasons for what he's done or whatever. we don't know yet.
i hope for our collective sanity there isn't lynch mobs, and that we reform the way we deal with children who have committed serious crimes as soon as possible.
discussing this at any length satisfies nothing but our own voyeurism for people we think are evil - and given the circumstances of everything that has happened, that itself is morally troubling.
That assumes we all actually do think he is evil. I'm sure many posters in here would argue against that.
And anyway, I'd suggest that discussing this at length (not necessarily on this forum, mind you)is absolutely necessary in order for us, as a society, to review how we deal with child offenders
everything since he's been given a new identity isn't. it's about the only useful and morally sound thing the judiciary did during the whole case.
you can't discuss all of those things without looking at the (potential) reprecussions of giving a (potentially) dangerous person a new identity and second chance. While you are giving them a second chance to not make the same mistakes, one could argue that you are also giving them a second chance reoffend against some poor unsuspecting person
someone who committed a fucking terrible crime as a youth seems to have committed further horrible crimes following his release and 'second chance'... a discussion prompted by these facts does not necessarily have to focus on the voyeuristic, but, for example, could focus on system that allows this to happen. no?
the terms of his licence allowed him to have a normal life unless he did something wrong.
they can't stop him doing something wrong before he does it. i would hate to contemplatic Ludovico Technique territory.
The system needs changing at the point they entered the criminal justice system. Not here, now.
All I'm saying is that a criminal justice system should prevent further crime from happening. The current one obviously doesn't.
I'm not sure that sounds right.
What's the proportion of re-offending?
but I'm sure there's been more than one.
You'll never get a 100% rehabilitation percentage, it's just not feasible.
It can't have a 100% success rate, can it? Should a person who gets a buzz from stealing penny sweets from the corner shop be imprisoned for life, given that we can never be certain they won't commit another offence? Or perhaps we should chop off his hands? That'll learn 'im.
It's as close to perfection as we'll ever get?
we can limit the amount of re-offenders.
It's all very easy to say what should happen, less so to actually make it so.
'something needs to change, but fucked if I know what that is'
"yeah, well I'd like to see you do better..."
Perhaps the system should be changed. But if so, it should be to one that doesn't imprison children, not one (as your posts infer) that keeps people locked up because there is always a slight chance they'll offend.
All I've said is that maybe more could be done to prevent people reoffending. Do you really thing that the only way that could happen is by locking people up?
And example of your posts inferring that very thing:
"someone who committed a fucking terrible crime as a youth seems to have committed further horrible crimes following his release and 'second chance'... a discussion prompted by these facts ... could focus on system that allows this to happen. no?"
The 'second chance' in inverted commas followed by a criticism of the system infers, to me, a suggestion that the system was wrong for granting that second chance
you jumped to imprisoning for life and chopping off hands.
then gave it up again...then took it back...then oh...no...gave it up again...then took it back.
he said wavered when he meant waived
I don't care if he's an evil child murderer or not, he's still a massive cock.
we have the right to know the crimes other adults commit, why not him?
he may ever have had of receiving a fair trial
BBC say the jurors won't know who he is should he plead not guilty, but I'm sure they'd be able to figure it out.
have their names released?
you wade into loads of threads about subjects you don't know about and express your old lady worldview.
He must be a fan of Heinz
is he downloaded some dodgy torrents expecting, say, Childs Play 3 or something, and the file was mislabelled kiddy scuff (which is apparently not that unusual - pirates beware.) Given who he is, I imagine his internetz get watched v closely, so he if this was the case he was done for, despite not actually being a nonce.
without going into it overly, C4 (I think it was) said last night that there was some uploading involved, iirc.
The "throw enough mud and some will stick" factor that is part of the speculation and reporting surrounding high-profile charges/arrests like this always feels a bit wrong when it's ahead of any actual conviction.
Not gonna get dragged into it any further, so ahm oot.
Is that deliberate? You must have a good memory.
like Maxine Carr's Daffy Duck jumper
something like these files had the potential to be downloaded from Venables, but they don't think anyone actually did download them. Sounds like some kind of standard file sharing really (so either Torrents or something like Limewire).
I don't fuck about with Limewire/torrents. But basically, it sounds like he coulda had some 'stuff' on his PC AND had liwewire/torrent software that could have made that 'stuff' available automatically by default. So whilst that's technically akin to 'distribution', it's kinda not really, and not as if he was lurking around in the nether regions of the net and pushing 'stuff'/passing it on. Does that sound something like what's been alleged?
he downloaded some stuff that he shouldn't have, and it sat in a folder that was 'shared' on limewire or whatever so it was possible that people could have downloaded it from there by searching on limewire.
cos like there is not going to be the money to keep him, the money needed to do this will be greater than the money that will be lost to the nhs that will be needed to keep many more than 1 person alive, therefore it makes pragmatic sense.
The whole of society is going to have to become a lot more ruthless and many liberal niceties nd wants are going to have o be abandoned....
Dont get me wrong I am totally against the state death penalty, but we cant afford keep him in the future
On the telly? Or maybe a Thunderdome?