Jon Venables

[HBK-aholic]

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.

What about the family of the little boy he killed? Oh sorry, I forgot, the justice system doesn't care about victims.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

What about the family of the little boy he killed? Oh sorry, I forgot, the justice system doesn't care about victims.

Which crime are we punishing him for, exactly?

The crime in which you defended a 10 yr old (Jess) killing a 2 yr old - because there couldn't possibly be a motive.

Or the crime of being a pervert who likes watching child porn.

While the murder of any living person or thing (aka abortion ) should be considered wrong. You MUST take into account what happened, why it happened, and look through the entire situation. Instant death is not the answer. Life in prison, for a 10 yr old - will only make him WANT to kill even more. But what else could there be? Juvi until 18? Then you'll be setting loose a guy who's grown up around bad children for 8 years. He'll be even worse off.

So, Becca, you tell me what punishment you see fit in him receiving.

 

[HBK-aholic]

*Abortion isn't wrong*

He should be put in prison now and never released, if these reports are accurate. He was released because he was supposedly rehabilitated enough to be a law abiding citizen in society; hes proven that wrong, and should therefore be put back in prison.

 

[FromTheSouth]

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.

The argument that the death penalty is more expensive is based only on the appeals process. They say it costs millions to appeal his cases, but only $30,00 a year to keep him locked up. The math sounds good, but that argument is pure bullshit propaganda, because anyone locked up for life is entitled to the same appeals, which cost the same. It's not like the chemicals for a lethal injection cost two million dollars. That argument is pure bullshit.

 

[FromTheSouth]

What about the family of the little boy he killed? Oh sorry, I forgot, the justice system doesn't care about victims.

Exactly. And, the justice system should give fuck all about victims. The justice system doesn't exist to help victims, it exists to maintain order in society. There is no other reason. There is an entire civil court system to compensate victims.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'm not talking compensation, when your childs been killed wanting compensation seems such a tiny, pointless thing.

And I agree to an extent, my comments were in reference to Will asking about the killers family; the family of the victim should be considered more than the killer.

 

[Tastycles]

The argument that the death penalty is more expensive is based only on the appeals process. They say it costs millions to appeal his cases, but only $30,00 a year to keep him locked up. The math sounds good, but that argument is pure bullshit propaganda, because anyone locked up for life is entitled to the same appeals, which cost the same. It's not like the chemicals for a lethal injection cost two million dollars. That argument is pure bullshit.

No it isn't, the appeals process for life imprisonment is for either letting people out or keeping them in, there are few cases where the sole aim of an appeal is to reduce the sentence. On Death Row cases, they pretty much all go to appeal because reducing the sentence is a legitimate aim. A much higher percentage of death row cases go to multiple appeals precisely for this reason, which is why it is a legitimate argument. The figures are grossly exaggerated by a lot of vested interest parties, granted, but all of the respectable studies put the cost of death row being much higher.

Back to the matter at hand, the reason he's in gaol isn't for child porn offences per se, but for breaking the conditions of his parole, which is a far more serious offence.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'm not talking compensation, when your childs been killed wanting compensation seems such a tiny, pointless thing.

And I agree to an extent, my comments were in reference to Will asking about the killers family; the family of the victim should be considered more than the killer.

The family of the victim should not be considered at all. Not in the very least. The justice system is to protect the order in society, not to make sure the victim's family is happy. Making sure the criminal gets a fair trial should be considered. So, in this case, the criminal should be considered quite a bit more by the courts than the victim's family.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The family of the victim should not be considered at all. Not in the very least. The justice system is to protect the order in society, not to make sure the victim's family is happy. Making sure the criminal gets a fair trial should be considered. So, in this case, the criminal should be considered quite a bit more by the courts than the victim's family.

Victims family > Killers family. Not even sure how it's debatable.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

A killer's family can suffer just as much as the victim's family.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Unless their son was murdered, I doubt it.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

So you think parents wouldn't be sad that their own child could be accused of something like that?

 

[HBK-aholic]

Sad? Sure. As absolutely devastated as your 2 year old boy being tortured then killed because you turned your back for 2 seconds? Not a chance.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Victims family > Killers family. Not even sure how it's debatable.

Because that's not the purpose of the justice system. If it were, the justice system would be all about revenge, and that is not beneficial to anyone except the victim's family and we do not make laws based on their benefit to one single person.

I don't see how that is debatable.

 

[klunderbunker]

Again, don't kill him, but lock him up for life. And I mean life. Death penalty is something I go back and forth on, but not life in prison. That's an easy one.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

Sad? Sure. As absolutely devastated as your 2 year old boy being tortured then killed because you turned your back for 2 seconds? Not a chance.

I feel terrible for the mother and as FTS said, the justice system is not all about appeasing the victim's family.

You wonder why we don't hear a whole lot of cases of vigilante justice.

 

[Coco]

Sad? Sure. As absolutely devastated as your 2 year old boy being tortured then killed because you turned your back for 2 seconds? Not a chance.

No sale.

Victim's family, despite the pain they're in and the guilt they may feel about not protecting their own enough, don't have the image of their (son/daughter/father/mother) tranished. The killer's family has to confront the fact that they either brought something into the world that committed such great atrocity or deal with the fact that their nurturing may have played a part in who this person was and what they did.

You're being truly ignorant if you can't put yourself in the place of the killer's family and see how hard it must be.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Because that's not the purpose of the justice system. If it were, the justice system would be all about revenge, and that is not beneficial to anyone except the victim's family and we do not make laws based on their benefit to one single person.

I don't see how that is debatable.

I think things have veered out of context.

Will said we should think about the killers family, I said what about the victims family? That's basically it. I'm not saying the victims family should decide what happens, simply that, if any family should be considered, it shouldn't be the killers.

 

[HBK-aholic]

No sale.

Victim's family, despite the pain they're in and the guilt they may feel about not protecting their own enough, don't have the image of their (son/daughter/father/mother) tranished. The killer's family has to confront the fact that they either brought something into the world that committed such great atrocity or deal with the fact that their nurturing may have played a part in who this person was and what they did.

You're being truly ignorant if you can't put yourself in the place of the killer's family and see how hard it must be.

I'm not saying it'd be easy at all. But as hard as your child dying in those circumstances? NOTHING could be more painful.

 

[X]

You people are fucking ridiculous. Yeah, let's sentence a fucking TEN YEAR OLD to the death penalty. Are you people serious right now with this shit? HE WAS FUCKING TEN YEARS OLD, and you want to put the kid and his ten year old mind on trial as an adult and give them a sentence most adults don't even get? Are you kidding me right now? Nobody is saying he didn't do something wrong or he shouldn't pay for his crime, but you don't sentence a fucking CHILD to death or life in prison.

And I seriously fail to see how this sick fucked up kid looking at porn now means he should go back in for life. Did you not already know the kid was sick in the head? Is this surprising?

You know for a bunch of people who claim to be all about justice and appeasing those poor victim's families, you're all just as blood thirsty as this kid was.

 

[klunderbunker]

Death penalty for a ten year old, no.

Long time in jail? Yes.

 

[HBK-aholic]

You people are fucking ridiculous. Yeah, let's sentence a fucking TEN YEAR OLD to the death penalty. Are you people serious right now with this shit? HE WAS FUCKING TEN YEARS OLD, and you want to put the kid and his ten year old mind on trial as an adult and give them a sentence most adults don't even get? Are you kidding me right now? Nobody is saying he didn't do something wrong or he shouldn't pay for his crime, but you don't sentence a fucking CHILD to death or life in prison.

And I seriously fail to see how this sick fucked up kid looking at porn now means he should go back in for life. Did you not already know the kid was sick in the head? Is this surprising?

You know for a bunch of people who claim to be all about justice and appeasing those poor victim's families, you're all just as blood thirsty as this kid was.

We let him out after 8 years (All the boys life was worth, apparently) because he was 'rehabilitated' enough to be a 'law abiding citizen'. If the reports are true, then he obviously ISN'T rehabilitated to be back in society and should be in prison, or a secure mental institute if he's mentally ill.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I think things have veered out of context.

Will said we should think about the killers family, I said what about the victims family? That's basically it. I'm not saying the victims family should decide what happens, simply that, if any family should be considered, it shouldn't be the killers.

But you said the victims family deserves more respect in the court system than the killer's family, and I said you're wrong, and you are. They deserve the same consideration as everyone else in the country. Your argument is based on revenge, and that isn't right.

 

[HBK-aholic]

But you said the victims family deserves more respect in the court system than the killer's family, and I said you're wrong, and you are. They deserve the same consideration as everyone else in the country. Your argument is based on revenge, and that isn't right.

Neither of them should be involved in the court proceedings. I was simply arguing Will's point about consideration for the killers family.

 

[X]

Death penalty for a ten year old, no.

Long time in jail? Yes.

Yes. Not LIFE though. There's a reason they don't try children as adults.