PDA

View Full Version : OZmates - heard of Jamie Bulger?


frostbite
22nd Apr 2009, 21:47
This is a section of an email I've just received. There's a campaign petition going to try and stop this happening. Some chance.

"Do you remember February 1993 in England , when a
young boy of 3 was taken from a Liverpool shopping
centre by two 10-year-old boys?
Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only
a second, Jon Venables took his hand and led him out
of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson. They took
Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the
way stopping every now and again to
torture the poor little boy who was crying
constantly for his mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they
brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint
in his eyes, pushed batteries up his anus and cut his
fingers off with scissors. Other mutilations were
inflicted but not reported in the press.

N.B. :- Remember, a 3 year old cannot possibly
defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of 2 them.

What these two boys did was so horrendous that
Jamie's mother was forbidden to identify his body..
They then left his beaten small body on railway
tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess
they had created. These two boys, even being boys,
understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to
make it look like an accident.

This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has awarded
the two boys ( now men ), anonymity for the rest of
their lives when they leave custody with new
identities. They will also leave custody early only
serving just over half of their sentence.
They are being relocated to Australia to live out
the rest of their lives. They disgustingly and
violently took Jamie's life away and in return they
each get a new life!"

tony draper
22nd Apr 2009, 21:54
Yup, the cousins have a witness protection program,on similar lines we have a criminal protection program.
:suspect:

goatface
22nd Apr 2009, 22:11
To quote a certain Irishman:

We only have to be lucky once, they have to be lucky all of the time.

Oz is a big country with a small population, Venables & Thompson are not clever people and their day will come.
When it does, I wish them everything they deserve.

Sprogget
22nd Apr 2009, 22:32
snopes.com: Murder of Jamie Bulger (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/bulger.asp)

True, but eight years out of date.

notmyC150v2
22nd Apr 2009, 22:39
I don't think that they actually came out here. There was such a public outcry that the government had to step in and say publicly that they would not permit them to relocate here.

Although if the UK govt gave them new identities and passports I guess our Govt would never know :(:(

If the UK wants to start sending its crims over here again they should do it the old fashioned way. In a three part rotted hulk with bread and water on the menu with a cat-o-nine tails for desert.

Capt Claret
22nd Apr 2009, 23:13
Being the father of two sons, who at one point in their passage through life were both 10, I find it very difficult to believe that the two boys had true, adult understanding of what they were doing, heinous as it was.

If adults are given a chance of redemption and to move into mainstream life, why not these two (now) young men.

And if we, as supposedly civilised society aren't going to give them such a chance, perhaps we need to invite Bin-Laden, the Taliban, and Sharia law into our society...

BlueDiamond
22nd Apr 2009, 23:21
Very old email thingie there, Frosty ... many years old and has done the rounds several times.

BOFH
22nd Apr 2009, 23:43
Anyone seen Maxine Carr around?

As Captain Claret says, at that age you don't know what you are doing. We used to get up to all sorts of mischief - sound beatings ensued!

It might just be me, but I think that I'd have fallen a bit short of abducting, torturing and killing a child, though. I guess I was pretty lame.

BOFH

Flying Farmer
23rd Apr 2009, 00:46
No excuse for what those 2 scum of the earth did, age is no excuse!!

I hope they are found and someone is waiting for them when they eventually get out the clink.

Will they meet their maker in peace, I don't think so !!

Fuggin huggy fluffs on this board I despair.

Roger Sofarover
23rd Apr 2009, 02:43
Capt Caret
Being the father of two sons, who at one point in their passage through life were both 10, I find it very difficult to believe that the two boys had true, adult understanding of what they were doing, heinous as it was.

If adults are given a chance of redemption and to move into mainstream life, why not these two (now) young men.

At one time in their passage in life they were also 3. If at that age they had been taken by a ten year old and beaten and had their fingers cut off and other parts of their anatomy that the press as a whole decided not to mention (but is well documented in the court notes), and were then murdered, I wonder if you would take such a forgiving approach and wish them well, whilst they set up in their new apartment on Golden Beach.

And if we, as supposedly civilised society aren't going to give them such a chance, perhaps we need to invite Bin-Laden, the Taliban, and Sharia law into our society... You have got to be kidding me right. These two do not belong in a civilised society, infact giving them their new life in a cave along with Bin Laden and co would have suited them better. I cannot comprehend how, knowing the details of the crime anybody could adopt a stance such as yours Claret. Your surname didn't used to be Venebles or Thompson did it? Best you check clarets IP address Mods. I wonder how long it will be before venebles or Thompson start capturing and torturing to death young austrailian kids? It will happen for sure, and what better place than the outback, they'll never get caught.

RJM
23rd Apr 2009, 04:05
It can be a mad, bad world. All we can really do is not make it worse.

Capt Claret
23rd Apr 2009, 04:53
Roger,

As you say, I don't know what my reaction would have been had my 3 year old been murdered in such a way. I may well have wished the perpetrators executed. Perhaps this is why juries don't comprise persons with a connection to the crime.

I'm fairly sure, that if it was my 10 year old who committed such a heinous act, I'd still love them as my son, and hope that in time they could be integrated into the general community.

If it was your 10 year old who committed the act, would you want to see them executed?

Gordon17
23rd Apr 2009, 07:00
The biggest issue I have with this case, and others including Maxine Carr, is that the perpetrators of the crimes have actually been rewarded.

Venables and Thompson, having served a few years in detention, will now have a far better quality of life than if they had not been convicted. And I just can't get my head round that.

Davaar
23rd Apr 2009, 07:30
If it was your 10 year old who committed the act, would you want to see them executed?

He was always a good boy to his Mum, m'lud.

Roger Sofarover
23rd Apr 2009, 07:35
claret

If it was your 10 year old who committed the act, would you want to see them executed? Now that wasn't the question. However since you ask, I did not mention execution, just life in prison. If it were my offspring that did it I am afraid I would want them to serve life in prison, regardless of my love for them, which incidently would be quickly masked by my horror and disgust.

However in this case as a member of society I would never want the two individuals concerned to be allowed back in that society. They will strike again mark my word, even now they will think about what they did everyday, It is just a matter of time before their next victim suffers because society has failed them by not locking these two up for good. Myra Hindley has done a life term for similar crimes. To do this at 10 years old, it is now within the very core of their nature and can only be masked from now on, but for how long is the question.

Rainboe
23rd Apr 2009, 09:30
If it were my offspring that did it I am afraid I would want them to serve life in prison, regardless of my love for them, which incidently would be quickly masked by my horror and disgust.
Exactly. These two have been told so often 'you were young, you didn't know what you were doing!', 'it wasn't your fault, it was society', 'you are not to blame' by all involved in their treatment, I believe you will find they now don't believe they have any culpability whatsoever, that society has been dreadfully unfair to them for incarcerating them and 'spoiling their teen years', and the least the taxpayer can now do is to start them up with a lot of money and a lovely new life somewhere. They should be in prison for at least 15 years, then monitored closely. They have planned to set loose 2 wolves into a sheep farm. It's been shown children who torture animals make up a very large proportion of people who go on to murder in adulthood. What are we to make of these two? I think we will be hearing of them again.

If we are told they are moving to a new life in Australia, it will mean they are not going to Australia!

Rollingthunder
23rd Apr 2009, 09:35
Does the word sociopaths mean anything to you.

Agree, not going to OZ, but somewhere.

http://teentalkkerry.com/WolfinSheep.jpg

JennyB
23rd Apr 2009, 09:42
Nobody can deny that what they did was dreadful, and if one of Jamie Bulgers parents would find it impossible to forgive them.

The fact is though, they were only 10 years old, and some of the hysteria around the case at the time, with mobs of people virtually waving pitchforks and flaming torches around as they tried to get them was nothing short of disgraceful.

The fact that they were tried as adults was also a little disturbing, don't think that there is another civilised country in the world that would try such young children in an adult court, but willing to be corrected.

Before I get flamed with " They knew what they were doing, pure evil, even at 10 they were fully aware of their actions" type comments.

If 10 years olds are able to fully understand the law and consequences of their actions, and have a fully developed moral compass, then why were they not tried in front of a jury of their peers? Instead of adults, surely the jury should have been comprised of 12 10 year olds, or would you not expect 10 year olds to be able to understand?

Rollingthunder
23rd Apr 2009, 09:51
I would expect a jury of 10 year olds to collapse in a quivering, crying heap at the first mention of cutting off fingers, or the rest.

If ever two people should be removed from the gene pool, these are the candidates.

Roger Sofarover
23rd Apr 2009, 10:04
JennyB

f 10 years olds are able to fully understand the law and consequences of their actions, and have a fully developed moral compass, then why were they not tried in front of a jury of their peers? Instead of adults, surely the jury should have been comprised of 12 10 year olds, or would you not expect 10 year olds to be able to understand?

I saw Rolling Thunders post just as I was typing. He has it in one. These 'children' played a very adult game. The question of parenting comes in to it, but to expose a group of normal 10-12 year olds to the horrors of what these two did would be too much. Chopping off fingers was not the whole story, even adults and policemen were physically wrecked by the testimonies. As to your post, I am not sure most adults are able to fully understand the law. In terms of the consequences of their actions, a 10 year old is fully capable of understanding. Another thing that a 10 year old is very capable of understanding is right and wrong. As somebody put earlier in this thread, they have been rewarded. They are being given a huge chance to start a new life, no doubt complete with fake academic qualifications and money in the bank, and a house each I will bet. What chance has the family of Jamie Bulger been given to start a new life? Typical of the UK, reward the criminal and persecute further the victims.

passy777
23rd Apr 2009, 10:11
The fact that they were tried as adults was also a little disturbing, don't think that there is another civilised country in the world that would try such young children in an adult court, but willing to be corrected.



Rubbish - let me tell you what was disturbing - How two streetwise so called human beings could do what they did to a defenceless toddler is disturbing. Despite being ten year olds, these scum were well aware of what they were doing.

As for any other 'civilised' country trying such young children in an adult court, the word 'civilised' should be irrelevant in the context of this crime.

Someone someday will 'out' these two low lifes wherever they are. I believe they should rot in jail but I would imagine that they will undoubtedly be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives - wherever they are - with valid justification I believe.

There are really too many so called 'do-gooders' nowadays who always seem to sympathise with the perpetrators of crimes and seek justification blaming society, upbringing, legal systems etc. What about the victims and their families?

I know many people who I grew up with from less fortunate backgrounds and upbringing and they have turned to be fine people despite their obvious disadvantages in childhood. I do not condone vigilanteism, but in this case, I don't think I would shed many tears if these two pieces of s**t were found in pieces on a railway track.

al446
23rd Apr 2009, 10:16
It is so nice to see such a balanced, well thought out, non-extremist selection of posts here, it gladdens me that JB is no longer dominated by those who shoot from the hip, but caring, thoughtful individuals.

Me? I'm off out to whip up a mob for a witch burning later.

Rollingthunder
23rd Apr 2009, 10:20
Hey, Manchester, my home town.

Seriously, If I get end stage cancer.......I would go hunting these two.

Capt Kremin
23rd Apr 2009, 10:48
They were 10 years old. Probably with emotional ages far less than that. Thats not excusing them, nor will it bring Jamie Bulger back or bring peace to their families, but any attempt to bring retrospective adult accountability to these two is downright silly.

10 year olds should be given a second chance. No matter what.

JennyB
23rd Apr 2009, 10:53
The problem is we are expecting adult, rational responses from those unable to provide them.

But enough about the majority of contributors to this thread.

I remember reading As If by Blake Morrison about the Bulger case not long after it was all over and gave a more in-depth appraisal and analysis of the whole case than any would have found in the newspapers and media either of the time or now.

An interesting article by him here:

Blake Morrison on the James Bulger murder | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime)

Rollingthunder
23rd Apr 2009, 10:57
Profile of the Sociopath

Glibness and Superficial Charm


Manipulative and Cunning

They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.


Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.


Incapacity for Love


Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.


Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.


Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.


Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.


Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.


Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.


Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.


Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Related Qualities:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt

Roger Sofarover
23rd Apr 2009, 10:59
The problem is we are expecting adult, rational responses from those unable to provide them.

But enough about the majority of contributors to this thread.


For somebody who didn't want to get flamed, I would say that is a very immature response Jenny!:=

tony draper
23rd Apr 2009, 11:08
Couple of hundred years ago the age of criminal responsibility in this country was taken to be seven years, the youngest person ever hanged was eight years old,well seven and a half.
Well he was a arsonist.

The SSK
23rd Apr 2009, 11:14
Is it not the case that many adult serial killers had a history, as children, of torturing and killing animals? I hope these two are being closely monitored, wherever they are.

Cheerio
23rd Apr 2009, 11:35
I wonder if they lie awake at night, full of remorse for what they did? I wonder if one of them will ever be found hanging from a branch with a letter of contrition? Or do they put their disgusting inhumanity to a part of their minds that is 'in the past'? They were, and are, disgusting, premeditated, inhumane scum. Society doesn't need them or owe them. They ought to have been banged up for life with hard labour, and be glad they got away with their necks intact.

http://safeliving.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bulger-cctv.jpg

I'm no bleeding heart, but that remains one of the most repulsive images I have ever had the misfortune to see.

Sprogget
23rd Apr 2009, 11:51
This was a murder that convulsed the nation, no doubt. I think it's fair to say the establishment struggled to find an appropriate punishment that was in proportion to the crime & by common consent, it failed .

My daughter is two and a half & her innocence touches me in particular when I see how she goes where whoever happens to be holding her hand at the time takes her. I think about that a lot when I see the image above.

Where we succeed as a race is how we don't mete out the same punishment to those two boys as they gave to Jamie Bulger. This is what allows us to sit in judgement over them, raises us above. The baying mob depresses me as much as the original crime. To that end, I find this:

Seriously, If I get end stage cancer.......I would go hunting these two.a remarkable statement. RT, I read & respect a lot of what you say here, but that statement on the one had puts you in the mob & on the other draws you back out of it save for circumstances wherein you perceive you would have nothing to lose. It's an incredible mix of hedged bets & pure revenge.

There is no enlightenment down that path. None at all. Those boys imho beat the system for sure & off the most hideous of crimes, the lesson is not revenge, it's change the system.

Here endeth the unpopular message.

Worrals in the wilds
23rd Apr 2009, 12:09
The never ending question of good and evil and what to do about it.

Evil: 1. Morally depraved 2. Doing or tending to do harm. 4. Causing discomfort, pain or trouble (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

Is a ten year old capable of evil? By the definition this was an evil act. Are they capable of rehabilitation? Who knows? No one really knows what another individual is capable of. Psychiatrists can predict, we can all guess, but no one actually knows. We all have a hunch (and mine is not a positive one) but they served their sentence as imposed by a court of the land and were paroled by a board of the land. This is the Law.

If committed by two adults, the crime was particularly heinous and premeditated and we would have no discussion about what to do with them, except whether to kill them or jail them for life. What complicates this case is that they were minors, and since the Victorian Age we have liked to believe that minors are incapable of such brutality. Unfortunately, this incident has proved us wrong. Obviously, a mercifully small percentage of minors are capable of this type of action, as are a small percentage of adults.

The justice system serves three purposes, revenge for the victim (or their family), punishment and rehabilitation. The question is whether the first two have been satisfied, and whether the third is possible. The first two are probably only attained by executing the two boys, but would any of you really have been comfortable with that? The State killing two ten year olds for their actions? Iím not sure of the answer myself, so Iíd be interested in your responses. As for the third, itís always a chance, maybe they are sorry for their actions, maybe they arenít. None of us know, the most learned psychiatrists in the world donít know, as they have been released only time will tell.

Personally I donít believe in the death penalty for minors, but I think letting them out of custody is an unacceptable risk. Their actions placed them out of the parameters of a decent society and therefore they should not expect a place in one.

Roger Sofarover
23rd Apr 2009, 13:14
Worrals

I don't think any of the baying mob are screaming for execution, they are calling for a punishment to fit the crime, namely the most we have, life in prison. For a minor, to be detained at her Majesty's pleasure could be the same couldn't it? (Flying Lawyer where are you?) They could have been detained until 18 and then given Life. The other objection is that they are given a new chance, a new identity, their records wiped clean (I bet if they go to the states to disneyland they don't have to declare they have been inside for murder when they fill in their paperwork at customs), how many people in the UK would just jump at the chance of a new start with a clean slate, I feel the queue would be quite long. The Bulger family have never been offered relocation and a clean start. I find it impossible to imagine how the mother and father have coped, I am positive I could not, unless my coping mechanism was one fuelled by the desire for revenge.
Your statement
Personally I donít believe in the death penalty for minors, but I think letting them out of custody is an unacceptable risk. Their actions placed them out of the parameters of a decent society and therefore they should not expect a place in one.

pretty much says how the majority of people both on this forum and elsewhere feel.

Rollingthunder
23rd Apr 2009, 13:31
Sorry Sprogette

It is one topic I feel that strongly about.

There are some other folks on the end stage list.

OFSO
23rd Apr 2009, 14:08
frostbite: Thank you for reminding me of this case. As time passes one tends to forget these horrors, and what happened to that poor little chap, and the names of his evil torturers and murders, should be with us for ever: WE SHOULD AND MUST NOT FORGET JAMES BULGER.

Binoculars
23rd Apr 2009, 14:28
The problem is we are expecting adult, rational responses from those unable to provide them.

But enough about the majority of contributors to this thread.

I have to say I am ambivalent about this case, because if ever there were a situation which demanded clearly thought out responses from both sides this is it, but that is one of the best lines I've heard on this forum. Well done, Jenny.

Robin Pilot
23rd Apr 2009, 23:32
That old chain mail about Bulger sickens me. Someone, somewhere has gone to a disgraceful extreme in an attempt to get their chain mail further around the world. They're not doing it for the good of the public or because they care. Whilst the bulk of what is stated on that email is true, it is filled with disgusting lies like "batteries up the anus" which only serves to p!$$ on the memory of young James. Problem is, the people who receive and pass on the emails are doing so with a good heart, unfortunately though they've been duped into helping spread the outrageous lies and fulfil the agenda of the author.

Please people - when you receive things like this - just google the thing. Explanations are never far away if you look for them. Let's not drag this poor child's memory through the mud like this. And besides, if you really do care about something like has been suggested on the chain mail - do something about it. Write a letter to your MP. Contribute to a related charity/campaign. Forwarding the email does bugger all. It's no better than those attempts that state Bill Gates will give 1c for every email passed on to help some poor kid in Africa. No he won't. Come on people, you're more intelligent than that.

Donating to Red Balloon (http://redballoonlearner.co.uk/) would be a better step in this example.

Worrals in the wilds
24th Apr 2009, 00:34
Roger, I don't disagree with you. I was uncomfortable hearing about their release.

unless my coping mechanism was one fuelled by the desire for revenge.

Funnily enough, when you see murder victims' families interviewed they very rarely seem to be vengeful. I think I would be filled with revenge, but most people in that horrible situation seem to become very philosophical about it. A friend of mine (a cop) was heavily involved with the local Victims of Crime group and noticed that most people took the 'well it won't bring him back' approach.

Thanks for the link, Robin. Good points.

Roger Sofarover
24th Apr 2009, 09:13
Robin
I agree that their are some discrepancies in the email, so here are the facts as given at trial.


Edit

Infact I have decided to remove the quote. I have just read the facts of the abduction and the murder as given in police evidence and trial and I feel, sick, disturbed, depressed and tearful. I am not including the link, google if you wish but that will be your choice for each of you. I have no wish to be responsible for making others feel how I do right now. I don't even feel anger at the moment just unbelievable sadness.

Further to set the record straight. After these two murderers have been given completely new lives, the mother of James, who's entire family was ripped apart by the overwhelming stress of this was given £7 500 in compensation. I am off for a cry I think and to give my 2 year old daughter an afternoon of hugs. I am out of this thread.

"The violent child is the most potent image of violated innocence that we have. If humankind is capable of this, then perhaps we are beyond redemption." ó Ian McEwan

Captain Stable
24th Apr 2009, 09:50
Rhyspiper, you need to re-read what Worrals wrote.

Why are you more vengeful than James Bulger's parents? Don't they have any rights? What interest do you have that they don't?

Please don't repeat the lies of the chain mail. Bulger was not raped as you state.

Nobody here has any idea what Venables and Thompson are feeling now. Those in contact with them - police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists etc. do. We have to trust trained professionals. Otherwise, in criminal cases we are straight back to lynch mobs and "hang 'em from the nearest tree". And what hope for justice for any of us then?

OFSO
24th Apr 2009, 10:04
Captain Stable wrote: Otherwise, in criminal cases we are straight back to lynch mobs and "hang 'em from the nearest tree". And what hope for justice for any of us then?

I'm not trying to stir things up (for once) but I wonder: does anyone have any statistics - if it's even possible to prove ?! - what "crime" rates were when we did have lynch parties and did string 'em up from the nearest tree ? My gut feeling is that this WOULD have provided a powerful deterrent, but a 'gut feeling' is just that and not proof.

A story from where I live. A few years ago a young gypsy girl (probably Andalucian) was raped. A few days later every member of another gypsy family living nearby were found murdered, and the raped girl's family - with her - had gone. I don't recall much being done to trace them as it was considered justice had been done.

The same with paedeophiles here up-country; not much need to have the police deal with 'em.

Harsh, yes, but it's society protecting its own instead of keeping its own hands clean by farming it out to an independent body such as the justice system and all that entails.

Captain Stable
24th Apr 2009, 10:10
So do you approve of the murder of an entire family innocent of the crime of just one of their members? You think perhaps that the (rather dubious) deterrent effect is enough to justify execution by the mob without trial? Do you assume that the gypsy family found murdered were guilty of the original rape? Did they have any chance to protest their innocence?

Harsh?

Harsh is not the word. God protect you if someone to whom you happen to be related offends anyone. Sorry, but that attitude stinks. I note that you don't actually come out, nail your colours to the mast and unequivocally advocate it, so I give you a chance to repudiate any such rule of the mob, anarchy and vigilantism before I say your attitude stinks.

:yuk:

BlueDiamond
24th Apr 2009, 10:23
... every member of another gypsy family living nearby were found murdered ... it was considered justice had been done.That's not justice, it's revenge. And killing innocent people is referred to as murder, not "justice", in civilised societies.

OFSO
24th Apr 2009, 10:48
Captain Stable, Blue Diamond, points noted.

I was merely reporting.

However: I think a lot of modern problems in society do come about because we are all too willing to entrust solutions to a distant body of "experts", rather than face up to them ourselves. I hear so often "ifs" and "buts" and "on the other hands" in cases where it really isn't grey, it's black-and-white.

We (in the UK) have become far too ready to appease and accept compromises and now we are suffering the consequences.

Captain Stable
24th Apr 2009, 10:58
we are all too willing to entrust solutions to a distant body of "experts"Like juries?

Capt Claret
24th Apr 2009, 11:38
Rhyspiper

Is your argument (position on the subject) so devoid of substance that you need to resort to insults?

I'm not trying to wind any one up.

I don't hold with capital punishment, they have it in the US for example, look at the murder rate there.

I find it difficult to believe that 10 year old children have the cognitive ability to understand the gravity of their actions. They might know it's wrong but that's different to understanding all of the ramifications of their action.

For example, when I was a child, every time I stole money from my mum's purse, I knew it was wrong but didn't have any understanding of how being short of cash she thought she had, might have affected her.

I don't ever want to be in the Bulger parents position. I hope that if I am, my principals won't waiver under the pressure. Like most folk, I won't KNOW until I'm put to the test.

kiwi chick
24th Apr 2009, 11:58
Wow, this is a pretty emotional thread.

I have to agree with Sofa:

If it were my offspring that did it I am afraid I would want them to serve life in prison, regardless of my love for them, which incidently would be quickly masked by my horror and disgust.

I have a ten year old. She knows exactly what she is doing, just like I believe these boys did.

They deserve to rot in hell and die a painful death.

(And I don't necessarily mean by the hands of others, before I get lynched)

Captain Stable
24th Apr 2009, 12:04
Ah there you are, kiwi chick.

Rotting in hell is something we don't have any power over. Furthermore, many people who don't deserve to end up dying a painful death - like cancer patients, dor example.

And also, if we all got what we deserved, there wouldn't be many left.

WS MoV IV i 184

OFSO
24th Apr 2009, 12:35
And also, if we all got what we deserved, there wouldn't be many left.

True, Captain Stable, but the quality of the survivors would be immeasurably better !

Yours - only to happy to get what I deserve, if not just yet - OFSO

Captain Stable
24th Apr 2009, 12:45
Polonius:- My Lord, I will use them according to their desert.
Hamlet:- God's bodkin, man, much better: use every man after his desert, and who shall scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity - the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.

Hamlet, Act IIWise chappie, that Will Shakespeare.

Romeo Oscar Golf
24th Apr 2009, 13:10
Quote:
we are all too willing to entrust solutions to a distant body of "experts"
Like juries?


No. Juries do not provide solutions. Having given their (guilty) verdict it is up to society through the Judges to provide a "solution" and to to make the sentence appropriate to the crime. I, and it would seem many others, do not think their sentence was appropriate, and that perceived injustice is what makes otherwise kind, gentle and polite folk talk and possibly act out of character.
I for one wouldn't p*ss on these two despicable apologies for human beings if they were on fire, but I'm a quiet nice bloke as a rule.
Maybe Capt Stable, you should try to understand people and stop being their moral judge. In most cases we would not stoop so low as to follow the "eye for an eye" course of action but in this case where passions are so exposed, who could say? And yes, it may be wrong legally, but morally I'm not so sure .

What Limits
24th Apr 2009, 14:48
Don't forget that your personality is set for life at the age of 7.

Chimbu chuckles
24th Apr 2009, 15:34
Just what was so hard about leaving these two sociopaths in prison until they died of old age?

And the morons that run our societies wonder why we hold them in such contempt.:ugh:

Lon More
24th Apr 2009, 15:36
IIRC the victim's family broke up as a result of the strain.

If, and a very big if, these two are allowed back into the community, they should first be castrated and also made to wear electronic tags for the rest of their lives.

flash8
24th Apr 2009, 17:46
Lets be real here. I was told once (I was at Uni of Liverpool at the time of the murder) that if they were ever in Liverpool, they'd never make it out alive. I'm inclined to agree with that. Probably the whole UK in fact.

They will however always need to watch their backs wherever they go. And I for one hope they slip up. Because one mistake for these scum means game over.

I'm sorry Maxine Carr mentioned earlier is not anywhere near the same category:

"The court accepted that Carr had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence and so found her not guilty of assisting an offender.".

Basically she was a gullible individual blinded by love who got in over her head. She in my opinion deserves a second chance - Maxine Carr could have been many women in other circumstances. She probably wouldn't harm a fly.

Binoculars
25th Apr 2009, 01:59
Don't forget that your personality is set for life at the age of 7.

From which scholarly scientific organisation did this opinion originate? Or is it just your translation of the Jesuit aphorism quoted here as fact to try to stop the debate dead in its tracks?

Roger Sofarover
25th Apr 2009, 04:27
Bino's
I think What Limits is quoting an idea from this.

Personality : The relatively enduring characteristics of the individual which are essentially fixed by the age of 7 years

I think that's pretty close to the definition, I have done it from memory. It is Jungian theory and based on work by Myers and Briggs. The basic idea was that there are core characteristics embedded within the individual at an early age from their interaction with parents, siblings, family, school, media etc that will form a blue print for the rest of your life. As you then develop into older age it tends to be behaviour that you outwardly display, which can of course be changed to suit any environment, but your core aspects of personality will always stay the same. If any of those core characteristics are adverse or bad, then you can mask them with behaviour, but they will generally re-emerge particularly when under stress. It is one of the main theories behind those psychologists that push the idea that rehabilitation does not work, something which after years of study in the area I tend to subscribe to.

Binoculars
25th Apr 2009, 07:57
I have no problem with almost all of what you wrote, Roger. But the quote you posted was a far cry from the extrapolation What Limits made to suit his argument, and indeed by stating it as fact attempted to shut down the whole argument.

Despite my rejection of Catholicism I have always had a sneaking regard for Jesuit thinkers, and the aphorism I referred to is, I think, fairly sound in a majority of cases based on my own experience. But I've also been guilty in the past of taking the easy option of writing people off as hopeless; it's a very comfortable position, especially when reinforced by a majority on whatever forum you choose .

I'm sure that given your extensive study in the field, you would be able to quote many examples of glaring exceptions involving people whose lives for whatever reason are turned around and who become a force for good in society precisely because of their horrific backgrounds.

All dogmatic thought which conveniently disposes of opposition viewpoints is comforting to those involved, and they seek out the support of like-minded individuals to reinforce their beliefs. Those variously described here as latte-sippers, pseudo-intellectuals, pinkos, off with the pixies, tree-huggers, dole bludgers, socialists, uber-liberals and so forth are thus assigned to the spitoon of views totally out of touch with reality.

Several on this thread from both sides of the debate have taken such an approach. I tend to ignore all of them and look for the middle ground, which I have found is where something resembling the truth, warts and all, is to be found.

Roger Sofarover
25th Apr 2009, 08:21
Binos

Agreed, What Limits quote was a bit 'limited'. There are many people as you rightly say that have turned their lives around.

The jesuits did have a similar philosophy, and wasn't it Robert Owen in the industrial revolution (sweeping out cobwebs now) that said 'Give me the boy and I will show you the man'

There was a study done in the UK about 8 years ago I think to determine an answer to the question, 'does rehabilitation work', after spending £72 Million on the study, the answer was no! I feel it was kept all hush hush because of the fear of public reaction towards what could be considered a great waste of money. I may have some info on the study somewhere, I will try and dig it out.

It seems the best contributors towards any form of rehabilitation are deterrent and guilt. Deterrent in that most ex cons who decide thieving etc is no longer for them and turn their life around do so not because of any drastic internal change to personality, but because they have no wish to spend any longer in a 10ft x 8ft cell. Likewise the old lags that go around schools lecturing kids on the need to stay out of trouble, don't do drugs etc, find they do it as a form of coping mechanism or self counselling. These things are themselves good in terms of giving something back to society and the criminal uses behavioural changes to mask natural tendencies, but some psychologists are of the strong opinion that the old adage stands, 'once a thief, always a thief'.

BOFH
25th Apr 2009, 08:34
Capt Claret

Just going slightly off-topic, but did you ever confess to your mother? I'm not the most honest person - I used to pinch a cigarette from my mother every morning before school. I'll be seeing her in a few months - best own up to it.

I'd have never gone to her purse, though. Even if the perpetrator could not be identified, all suspects would have the same punishment visited upon them by my father. This would entail a mock admonition carried out in private (but within earshot of the others), with his belt slapped across his own leg for added effect. With three siblings, this only ever happened three times.

flash8

I only threw Maxine Carr into the mix to demonstrate that it is, given enough money and protection, possible to disappear. I hope that I did not leave the impression that she was in any way implicated in what happened in Soham.

BOFH

Worrals in the wilds
25th Apr 2009, 08:44
Harsh, yes, but it's society protecting its own instead of keeping its own hands clean by farming it out to an independent body such as the justice system and all that entails.

The other problem with that approach is that you want to be darned sure you've got the right offender, because the appeals process is somewhat limited.

Even impartial courts (on all sides of the Channel, the Atlantic and the globe) have had more than a few wrong convictions, witnessed by the number of old verdicts recently overturned due to new DNA evidence. If a court full of experts cannot invariably reach the correct verdict, how can a group of biased, shocked, grieving relatives hope to do so? The court process is supposed to be distant and unemotional, so it can (hopefully) examine the evidence impartially. Even then, the recent emotive style of journalism regarding high profile cases is making it very difficult to find impartial juries.

I believe that the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of any civilised society. If that means we occasionally all have to grit our teeth, put down our pitchforks and wait for due process to take its course then I think it is a small price to pay. After all, the next innocent man the Mob accuses could be you.


...but some psychologists are of the strong opinion that the old adage stands, 'once a thief, always a thief'.


Could the same be said of the 'reformed' alcoholic who successfully abstains from the urge to drink for the rest of their life? Can violent/sexually devious urges be similarly suppressed, and if so, could rehabilitation be said to have occurred? I've not read much on the subject, so I'd be interested to know what the current ideas are...

Roger Sofarover
25th Apr 2009, 08:52
Worrals

Any alcoholic will tell you 'once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic'. One drink is too many, 1000 is not enough. As for being a sexual predator, it is in there, only behaviour masks it, but given the right trigger action (or set of them), the beast within will be unleashed.

Worrals in the wilds
25th Apr 2009, 08:55
Fair enough.
Something for the mental health profession to work on. I wonder if they'll ever be able to predict human behaviour well enough to prevent these offences? I guess if they could we'd all complain about our civil rights being infringed.

Capt Claret
25th Apr 2009, 09:27
BOFH,

I don't know if I ever fessed up. I had three siblings, and as the oldest and most prone to getting into trouble (usually deservedly), I have no recollection of any one being punished. Perhaps she never knew?

*********************************

Re redemption: as a secondary school student, I was an accomplished shop lifter. It gained me some cred with the kids at school. No admiration or friendship, just cred. When caught out, after a kid dobbed us in, my father gave me a talking to, made me estimate the value of all things nicked, the locations of same, then marched me into each store, where I had to own up apologise and make financial restitution.

I didn't get a flogging, I didn't get shouted at. I was embarrassed at having to do it BUT, I haven't nicked anything for 37 years! I even return change when too much is tendered.

Whilst shoplifting (theft by another name) is a far cry from murder, the concept of sound treatment and one's ability to change their habits, may possibly carry over to young children.

G-ZUZZ
25th Apr 2009, 09:32
all suspects would have the same punishment visited upon them by my father. This would entail a mock admonition carried out in private (but within earshot of the others), with his belt slapped across his own leg for added effect. With three siblings, this only ever happened three times.

Spare the rod and spoil the child. Mock punishments are little help. No wonder it only ever happened three times, he'd be wasting his time once the kids all caught on. No fool, your average child.

They say children lose their innocence but many never really have it in the first place. Who hasn't seen their kid go up and poke a stick into the family dog's eye or pull its tail or hit it... when they think no one's watching. Frying ants with a magnifying glass. Poking firecrackers (or batteries??) up frogs' arses. Setting cats on fire. Stealing. Fighting. Lying. Children are just as capable of evil; it's just the scale which changes as they grow.

BOFH
25th Apr 2009, 11:20
G-ZUZZ

Spare the rod and spoil the child. Mock punishments are little help.

Oh, Heavens, it's not as though we weren't met with the belt (and rightly so) when we were culpable. It was only on the rare occasions when the culprit could not be identified. I can recall all of us confessing, at one point or another when one of our siblings was seemingly being punished for our crimes.

We did not discuss it amongst ourselves afterwards - Dad made it clear that I was getting off because he knew I wasn't guilty but the others would get it. I often owned up, copped the beating and the others got the mocks. Same with them.

Capt Claret
I was an accomplished shop lifter
I knew a few people who were into that. One was a ringleader and had a quite an organised system by the time he was eleven. He is now a lawyer :eek: .

That sort of activity never tempted me. I think it was because one of my school chums (and not a bad 'un) was caught and denounced that put the fear in me. As far as correcting change, working part time behind a till for almost ten years made me realise what a missing tenner would do to your night's earnings.

I haven't changed much since I was seven. Lazy, relatively (in)competent, and fixated on blondes.

BOFH

Roger Sofarover
25th Apr 2009, 11:36
I knew a few people who were into that (shoplifting). One was a ringleader and had a quite an organised system by the time he was eleven. He is now a lawyer

Like I said, Once a thief.....;)

Roger Sofarover
25th Apr 2009, 14:48
Gobonastick

I read the full police and trial notes on the web yesterday. You are correct, the email is a bit misleading. There were batteries involved, the police found them and it appears they were initially forced in to his mouth and then taken out, however there was some damage 'down below' and the police could not ascertain how. When quizzed about what they did with the batteries (a question put as simply as that), on every occasion one of the boys used to go into histerics saying 'it wasn't me'. It is likely James fingers came off at the same time his body was cut in two after the 10 year old 'little darlings' had laid Jamie across an active railway line and piled rocks on his head to prevent movement and then a train ran over him! Poor little sod. I accept that what you say is correct, 'be careful what you read', however I have read enough of the facts to know that these boys should never see outside a prison wall again.

For all those that consider that 10 year olds do not know the consequences of their actions, may I suggest that every ten year old understands fully what will happen if you lay an unconscious toddler accross a railway line and pin him down with rocks. It still makes me feel sick.

flash8
25th Apr 2009, 17:44
Children innately know a lot more than you might expect.

At six one of my earliest memories was stealing a watch from another child.

Now I knew it was wrong (and can even remember that now). However it all came apart when I showed the said watch to a teacher and asked the time (as I could not tell it then).

The point is I could tell right and wrong then, and this sense only developed over the years.

At Ten our senses of right and wrong and morality in general are pretty well what they will remain the rest of our lives.

Those boys knew exactly what they were doing. I don't need to hear any b***sh*t from lefty liberal sandal wearing guardian readers with arts degrees about deprived childhoods.

Sunray Minor
25th Apr 2009, 22:52
I'm guessing they probably new as much about what they were doing as any adult murder and torturer would, but through the eyes of 10 year old children. In the context of a no-doubt fvcked up childhood things weren't going to get any better for them, perhaps a blessing that they didn't get the chance to kill or maim more.

Two things really surprise me about the followup from this case. One, why they apparently were never diagnosed with some sort of mental condition to explain their actions. Two, why so many are will to judge the legal outcome when clearly, in the interests of confidentiality, none of us will know the full story behind the decisions which were taken.

As tragic as one child's life being taken is, I can think of plenty of adults who would come before James Bulgers killers on my head-on-the-block list.

kiwi chick
25th Apr 2009, 23:49
WTF???

Who hasn't seen their kid go up and poke a stick into the family dog's eye or pull its tail or hit it... when they think no one's watching.

Me.