Jon Venables

[Dave]

Um, why does that make it right? It's disgusting that you can murder and rape someone and be allowed back into society.

Couldn't agree more but this is the way it is. Criminals are criminals and always have a sense of criminality, no matter how old they get or what they do in their lives. That being said, to keep them in prison for their whole lives or to even kill them is not acceptable. People have reasons as to why they have carried out a crime and not all of them are worthy of being imprisoned for life. I think that rehabilitation is probably more than imprisonment and there simply isn't enough cells to keep everyone in. That doesn't make it right by any manner of means but, again, that is the way it is.

We should be tougher on crime and imprison people for a lot more time, depending on the severity of the crime of course. However, as with everything, we are playing second fiddle to the governments cost procedure. It costs a lot of money to have people in jail and it is a drain on the economy. Most of it is a fucking joke but we cannot do anything about it other than accept it.

 

[Tastycles]

Do you always have to prove me wrong Tasty?

Yes. I see we're back off full name basis, Uncle.

 

[klunderbunker]

It never ceases to amaze me what a technicality will do for you. An attorney said the wrong word and it forgives a violent crime apparently.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Couldn't agree more but this is the way it is. Criminals are criminals and always have a sense of criminality, no matter how old they get or what they do in their lives. That being said, to keep them in prison for their whole lives or to even kill them is not acceptable.

I see no problem with keeping people in prison their whole life for murder and rape.

People have reasons as to why they have carried out a crime and not all of them are worthy of being imprisoned for life.

I can understand this on murder, to an extent. But I can't think of one good reason for rape that would fall under this.

Most of it is a fucking joke but we cannot do anything about it other than accept it.

I'm not one to accept we can't change something like this. Women used to accept they shouldn't work and couldn't vote, but look at it now.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Yes. I see we're back off full name basis, Uncle.

If I could remember your name, I'd call you by it... Dwight?

 

[Tastycles]

To be fair, it was a pretty big mistake to try 10 year olds as adults in front of the press. Then they couldn't try them again because everyone already knows about the crime so there couldn't be a fair trial. I can't think of a solution to that.

 

[Tastycles]

If I could remember your name, I'd call you by it... Dwight?

You wound me. My surname rhymes with Dwight.

 

[Барбоса]

You wound me. My surname rhymes with Dwight.

I remember it but I will refrain from divulging such sensitive information

 

[Uncle Sam]

To be fair, it was a pretty big mistake to try 10 year olds as adults in front of the press. Then they couldn't try them again because everyone already knows about the crime so there couldn't be a fair trial. I can't think of a solution to that.

My solution would be to send all judges and lawyers to a special school for a few years before they could take up their profession. Some sort, I dunno, law school where they can learn the basics of the justice system.

You wound me. My surname rhymes with Dwight.

Dwayne White? I'm thinking of The Rock and The Big Show.

 

[Dave]

I'm not one to accept we can't change something like this. Women used to accept they shouldn't work and couldn't vote, but look at it now.

See, that is a different story. The Suffrage movement was incredible. Woman should clearly be allowed to vote and work and that was all part of the country becoming more equal to everyone. It was a natural part of the countries growth and people accepted that as something that was always likely to happen by 1910. However, at that time, the population of Britain was becoming more and more liberal. Labour had just popped up and people were all about being equal etc.

Now though, people are not screaming out for the reincarnation of the death penalty. That is not progressive and it is quite barbaric, to say the least. I expect that people are just as unhappy with the justice system as I am but that is no reason to hate it. It is in place to try and rehabilitate people and I think that it has a good success rate. It's always the horror stories you hear and never how the imprisonment of a number of people have helped them realise their mistakes. I would be quite happy to see the justice system be tougher on criminals but unless there is some massive overhaul of the system in place, I just don't see it happening.

 

[klunderbunker]

I'd be fine with life in prison. But when I say life, I mean LIFE. Not getting out 30 years later or something. When it says life, it means LIFE.

 

[Remix]

Third, if this is true, he should NEVER be let out. We should bring back the death penalty and torture him slowly.

He doesn't deserve to breathe the same air we do.

Meh. I'm not FOR it, but the justice system does nothing else. He should never have been let out, there's no need for his death. But we let killers out like it's nothing, so whatever.

Meh, nothing less than he deserves. Honestly, I don't think we should torture people. I just wouldn't complain if it happened. An eye for an eye and all that.

I wouldn't agree with the death penalty if we didn't allow convicted killers and sex offenders back on the streets

Um, why does that make it right? It's disgusting that you can murder and rape someone and be allowed back into society.

Um, wow Becca. I disagree with the death penalty for a few reasons (it doesnt work (on any level), it's more expensive, its a demographic motivated punishment are amongst the most obvious), and regardless of what Venables did killing him would accomplish absolutely nothing. Yeah, he wouldn't have abused someone again, but executing everybody who abuses children is an insane proposition.

The problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone ends up blind.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

If Jess murdered a two year-old, you wouldn't be in favor of slow torture, death, or life in prison. Just sayin'.

 

[X]

You don't send a fucking 10 year old to LIFE in prison. That's beyond ******ed.

 

[Lee]

You don't send a fucking 10 year old to LIFE in prison. That's beyond ******ed.

FACT

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Where would you rather put him? Psyche wards? Juvi? He wouldn't last 10 minutes in Juvi. and the Psyche wards? please they haven't worked before and I doubt they'll ever completely "work.

 

[Lee]

You do realise they didn't send a 10 year old to adult prison.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

You do realise they didn't send a 10 year old to adult prison.

 

[Lee]

So he obviously went to Juvi, and lasted more than 10 minutes.

 

[klunderbunker]

When I say life I mean now, not when he was ten of course.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Um, wow Becca. I disagree with the death penalty for a few reasons (it doesnt work (on any level), it's more expensive, its a demographic motivated punishment are amongst the most obvious), and regardless of what Venables did killing him would accomplish absolutely nothing. Yeah, he wouldn't have abused someone again, but executing everybody who abuses children is an insane proposition.

The problem with an eye for an eye is that everyone ends up blind.

Abusing children is disgusting, and you should be given life for it. As I've said, if we didn't allow murderers back into society, there'd be no need for the death penalty. It's not that I specifically agree with it, it's just something needs to change. I'd rather giving people a life sentence automatically for murder and rape, and that life sentence meaning they die in prison.

If Jess murdered a two year-old, you wouldn't be in favor of slow torture, death, or life in prison. Just sayin'.

I can look at it the other way also, if someone of any age murdered Jess when she was 2, I'd want them locked up forever, or dead. You can't look at the legal system with emotion like that though.

You don't send a fucking 10 year old to LIFE in prison. That's beyond ******ed.

No, it's ******ed to let convicted killers back into society. At 10 you can be held legally responsible for your crimes, meaning you know right from wrong. Killing someone is wrong, especially a defenceless 2 year old boy.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I can look at it the other way also, if someone of any age murdered Jess when she was 2, I'd want them locked up forever, or dead. You can't look at the legal system with emotion like that though.

Becca, he didn't say if someone murdered Jess.

He said.. IF JESS murdered someone.

Would you look at it the same. (ie. Life in Prison, or slow torture and death)

The answer is clearly. No. You wouldn't. Because then it'd involve someone you love, and even if she did it in cold blood - you'd still deny it and try to find a way to prove she had reason. When in the end, with exception of self-defense, there is no sure-fire reason to murder someone.

The same thing goes for my own Family. If someone murdered them - I'd want them dead. Not life in prison. DEAD. Why? Not because killing them will bring my Family back, not even because it'll be justifiable. Simply because I'd want the gratification of knowing they died, too.

However, if my Family murdered someone else, I'd find a way to defend them.

EDIT: If someone killed my Family, may God help/save them. Because I would go Law Abiding Citizen on their ass.

 

[Nitafrong]

The age of criminal responsibility is a bit of a complicated issue- other countries have higher and lower limits than the UK and Ireland. I was watching one of those politics discussion programms on the BBC and Will Self mentioned that he had read the transcripts of the trial and that he felt they clearly showed that the boys had no idea what they were doing. It seems hard to accord this with the details of the case that came out though. Guess I suppose I would have to read the transcripts myself.

At the moment though they are both under a life license which means that they are liable to be returned to prison for any minor offence that they commit. I would agree with this more than sentencing them to life immediatly from the age of 10.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Becca, he didn't say if someone murdered Jess.

He said.. IF JESS murdered someone.

Would you look at it the same. (ie. Life in Prison, or slow torture and death)

The answer is clearly. No. You wouldn't. Because then it'd involve someone you love, and even if she did it in cold blood - you'd still deny it and try to find a way to prove she had reason. When in the end, with exception of self-defense, there is no sure-fire reason to murder someone.

The same thing goes for my own Family. If someone murdered them - I'd want them dead. Not life in prison. DEAD. Why? Not because killing them will bring my Family back, not even because it'll be justifiable. Simply because I'd want the gratification of knowing they died, too.

However, if my Family murdered someone else, I'd find a way to defend them.

EDIT: If someone killed my Family, may God help/save them. Because I would go Law Abiding Citizen on their ass.

I understood his question, I just spun it around. Because there's a problem with putting that much emotion into the legal system. If at 10, she was accused of killing a 2 year old, I wouldn't look for a motive (What motive can there be for the death of a 2 year old?) I'd do everything possible to prove she didn't do it, because I know she wouldn't.

But yeah, he asked if I'd feel the same if Jess was in the position of killer, I spun it around to her being the victim, and you look at how opinions change automatically. That's why we can't be that biased and emotional when looking at sentencing for something like this. I mean, I'd never wnt her in prison regardless of what she did, but I know prison is necessary for crime, so emotion doesn't add up to practicality.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I understood his question, I just spun it around. Because there's a problem with putting that much emotion into the legal system. If at 10, she was accused of killing a 2 year old, I wouldn't look for a motive (What motive can there be for the death of a 2 year old?) I'd do everything possible to prove she didn't do it, because I know she wouldn't.

But yeah, he asked if I'd feel the same if Jess was in the position of killer, I spun it around to her being the victim, and you look at how opinions change automatically. That's why we can't be that biased and emotional when looking at sentencing for something like this. I mean, I'd never wnt her in prison regardless of what she did, but I know prison is necessary for crime, so emotion doesn't add up to practicality.

Yet the point I'm making, the point you're proving (whether you're agreeing or otherwise) is that you can not factor in emotions when determining the punishment of a crime. Especially one such as murder.

However, the view point I'm asking you to look at is this..

Someone, somewhere in this world - this guy being accused has a Family who is standing beside/behind him and fighting for his rights. Whatever they may be. At age 10, from what I understand - he killed a 2 yr old. (I don't know the story - just what I read in the opening statement and the last page) You said yourself, there seemingly couldn't be a motive.. so why'd he kill a 2 yr old? Just to see what it would be like? Or if he even could? Isn't that in itself, a motive?

Anyways, the point is.. YOU are wanting this kid to face the deepest, darkest punishment possible. Be it instant death, life in prison, or torture by way of being tied up and forced to watch every single episode of High School Musical.

You can sit there and demand that, because you have no ties to him. But put yourself in the position to have emotional value to the person being charged with this crime. (ie. Jess) You suddenly wouldn't be demanding a swift punishment as quickly.

Crimes need to be dealt with by justice. And every Country's Justice system sucks. But overall, its easy to pass judgment on someone, whom you don't know, whom you don't care of what will happen as the outcome decided. In essense - YOU, are no worse off from a murderer themselves.

You're making a life altering decision/demanding one happen, without the thought of what would happen to the Family of the individual you're passing judgment on.

EDIT: I just read something that said this second offense was him being arrested or caught watching child porn? Thats it? Look - its sick, its twisted, its likely on sale on ebay somewhere.. but its not a crime punishable by death. Now I truly do question you being no better than any common murderer.