Jon Venables back in prison
Discussion
Red 4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I act for the Parole Board and the Home Office sometimes.
Thanks.But do you actually deal with criminals/ inmates face to face ?
I'm afraid I don't agree with the nurture vs. nature argument in some cases.
I've seen all kinds of things including 'crimes of passion" and I can understand why these type of offences happen. Sometimes, in certain circumstances, people just lose it.
But I've also dealt with some people who are just wrong - a hepatitis and HIV infected, drug addicted sex offender springs to mind.
Just think about the victims here for a second, one of whom was quite elderly.
This man simply did not/ does not care. He showed absolutely no remorse and, if you had dealt with him, you would understand that some people are not wired up correctly.
Due to the crime committed by Venables and Thompson I think they fall into this category.
I think that the research on nurture v nature suggests that no one is hard wired to be a crim, but there may be types of innate brain dysfunction that affect some.
* The things a boy gotta do to score primo Chang these days!
Breadvan72 said:
Red 4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I act for the Parole Board and the Home Office sometimes.
Thanks.But do you actually deal with criminals/ inmates face to face ?
I'm afraid I don't agree with the nurture vs. nature argument in some cases.
I've seen all kinds of things including 'crimes of passion" and I can understand why these type of offences happen. Sometimes, in certain circumstances, people just lose it.
But I've also dealt with some people who are just wrong - a hepatitis and HIV infected, drug addicted sex offender springs to mind.
Just think about the victims here for a second, one of whom was quite elderly.
This man simply did not/ does not care. He showed absolutely no remorse and, if you had dealt with him, you would understand that some people are not wired up correctly.
Due to the crime committed by Venables and Thompson I think they fall into this category.
I think that the research on nurture v nature suggests that no one is hard wired to be a crim, but there may be types of innate brain dysfunction that affect some.
* The things a boy gotta do to score primo Chang these days!
That has not stopped him re-offending and breaking the terms of his licence.
Do you see what I mean about not being wired up right ?
Breadvan72 said:
He appears to be a disturbed person, but that may stem from his early life, which is very influential.
Venables came from a broken home and his parents don't appear to be the best in the world but there are many, many families like this.The area he was brought up in is rough.
Nobody really knows what made Venables and Thompson do what they did but I don't think you can blame the parents for making him abduct, torture and murder a 2 year old.
Breadvan72 said:
You chose to tell me what I think. You were wrong about that, as your mind reading powers are defective. Now you are resorting to insults. Sad.
I chose to tell you I thought the notion that you would do nothing different if you knew that a convicted murderer was living next door was implausible. I then also chose to call you a chump after you implied that I would shoot the offending neighbour, which is something you chose to insult me with, because you can't help yourself, as have self-appointed yourself a position of moral an intellectual superiority over anyone who doesn't agree with you. 
BreadVan72 is a barrister but what qualifies him to believe that there aren't any criminals of any kind that aren't "hardwired"?
There is no such thing as a "reformed" paedophile.
Yes, there are some criminals that can be reformed...but there are many that had/have no hope in hell of being reformed. Just look at the prisoners in Broadmoor!
There is no such thing as a "reformed" paedophile.
Yes, there are some criminals that can be reformed...but there are many that had/have no hope in hell of being reformed. Just look at the prisoners in Broadmoor!
DurianIceCream said:
Breadvan72 said:
You chose to tell me what I think. You were wrong about that, as your mind reading powers are defective. Now you are resorting to insults. Sad.
I chose to tell you I thought the notion that you would do nothing different if you knew that a convicted murderer was living next door was implausible. I then also chose to call you a chump after you implied that I would shoot the offending neighbour, which is something you chose to insult me with, because you can't help yourself, as have self-appointed yourself a position of moral an intellectual superiority over anyone who doesn't agree with you. Breadvan72 said:
He appears to be a disturbed person, but that may stem from his early life, which is very influential.
I agree that a whole life term is inappropriate for 99% of 'criminals', that is people who transgress against the rules in force today. (subject to change tomorrow).I do however feel that there are 'rules' which are beynd the remit of lawmakers.
It disturbs me that two partially formed children performed an atrocity of this nature, many kids have had worse upbringings than this pair without acting this way.
This kind of negates the nurture argument, many deprived kids turn to drugs. Fair enough. Many deprived kids turn to theft. Fair enough.
I cannot think of many who, with premeditation, chose to abduct, beat and murder a helpless toddler.
Whilst I strongly believe in rehabilitation I really do not think this pair should have come under criminal justice, sectioned and only released at the behest of an accountable medical board would seem more suitable?
stitched said:
I agree that a whole life term is inappropriate for 99% of 'criminals', that is people who transgress against the rules in force today. (subject to change tomorrow).
I do however feel that there are 'rules' which are beynd the remit of lawmakers.
It disturbs me that two partially formed children performed an atrocity of this nature, many kids have had worse upbringings than this pair without acting this way.
This kind of negates the nurture argument, many deprived kids turn to drugs. Fair enough. Many deprived kids turn to theft. Fair enough.
I cannot think of many who, with premeditation, chose to abduct, beat and murder a helpless toddler.
Whilst I strongly believe in rehabilitation I really do not think this pair should have come under criminal justice, sectioned and only released at the behest of an accountable medical board would seem more suitable?
With all this talk of rehabilitation I think some people are forgetting the nature of the crime committed by Venables and Thompson.I do however feel that there are 'rules' which are beynd the remit of lawmakers.
It disturbs me that two partially formed children performed an atrocity of this nature, many kids have had worse upbringings than this pair without acting this way.
This kind of negates the nurture argument, many deprived kids turn to drugs. Fair enough. Many deprived kids turn to theft. Fair enough.
I cannot think of many who, with premeditation, chose to abduct, beat and murder a helpless toddler.
Whilst I strongly believe in rehabilitation I really do not think this pair should have come under criminal justice, sectioned and only released at the behest of an accountable medical board would seem more suitable?
Apart from the premeditation aspect, perhaps some people should remind (or eductate) themselves about the injuries inflicted on James Bulger.
Thompson probably has a better quality of life now compared to if he had not committed murder. The ultimate irony.
Venables has shown that he is unable to abide by the terms of his licence - twice. It's time to throw away the key imo.
Like I said - don't forget the nature of the original offence in all its detail.
Venables has shown that he is unable to abide by the terms of his licence - twice. It's time to throw away the key imo.
Like I said - don't forget the nature of the original offence in all its detail.
That suggests to me that you are looking to satisfy some urge for condign punishment based on the details of the offence, but is that a rational position?
If Thompson has a better life than he otherwise would have, is that not a good thing? If he had not been a child criminal he might have gone on to become an adult criminal, but he didn't.
If Thompson has a better life than he otherwise would have, is that not a good thing? If he had not been a child criminal he might have gone on to become an adult criminal, but he didn't.
Breadvan72 said:
If Thompson has a better life than he otherwise would have, is that not a good thing? If he had not been a child criminal he might have gone on to become an adult criminal, but he didn't.
By that "logic" we should encourage more ten year olds to torture and kill toddlers. See if you can find the flaw in it.Breadvan72 said:
1.That suggests to me that you are looking to satisfy some urge for condign punishment based on the details of the offence, but is that a rational position?
2. If Thompson has a better life than he otherwise would have, is that not a good thing? If he had not been a child criminal he might have gone on to become an adult criminal, but he didn't.
1. It was an exceptional crime. And that deserves exceptional punishment. Especially as Venables keeps re-offending.2. If Thompson has a better life than he otherwise would have, is that not a good thing? If he had not been a child criminal he might have gone on to become an adult criminal, but he didn't.
2. Absolutely not. He committed an appalling crime and you think it's OK to reward him for that ?
f
k me Breadvan, you'll be calling Venables and Thompson victims next !Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff