The John Venables identity leak

[BJG1]

V8RX7 said:

If you wish to breed guard dogs do you start with German Shepherds or Corgis ?

Neither is guaranteed but one has the odds loaded in it's favour.

This is utter nonsense. That is because of the physicality and intelligence of the breed, not its capacity for violence. do you think Venebales was physically superior to other 10 year olds?

[Colonial]

V8RX7 said:

If you wish to breed guard dogs do you start with German Shepherds or Corgis ?

Neither is guaranteed but one has the odds loaded in it's favour.

So who did the parents of V and T kill when they were kids then?

What would you emotionally based response do to prevent this from happening?

[Sway]

skwdenyer said:

Welshbeef said:

I see your point but sometimes a crime is so serious they are just pure evil.

The difficulty I have with the V+T issue is that people seem to think that this is "more evil" than any other child-killing, because the perpetrators were children.

It almost seems easier to accept if it is an adult with a sexual urge; we may hate that, but we've seen it before, so we understand it happens.

Why is this one more evil than others?

For my part, I don't believe it was 'more evil' than an adult doing it. Either way, it was 100% evil, and as I'm not Louis Walsh I won't go higher than that.

My belief regarding their punishment is that anyone committing that crime, with a level of clear premeditated and no external mitigation, is so broken, there is no hope of successful rehabilitation.

Even if it were possible, it could never be 100% effective. And so that leaves the very likely probability that some other innocent would be harmed by the actions of an offender who either fooled the system and was fully released, or the harm of someone involved in attempting to rehabilitate. Such as the children involved in the 'secure family home' method proposed earlier.

That, for me, is a risk to far. My children are very young, and have their moments of being vindictive little sts, for which they get punished. They are learning, and doing things that ignore others feelings less often. They are 5 and 7.

In this particular example, I can see no way whereby they could be rehabilitated without the very likely potential of causing further harm. Considering the harm they have already done, that for me is unacceptable. So at the least I would much rather they be locked up for the rest of their lives...

On a separate note, could a lot of the posters, on both sides but particularly the 'treat them' side, take a look at how they are posting. It is rare I have seen such a level of childishness on this forum. Name calling, massive twisting of words, even extending across other non related threads. A lot of posters here are doing themselves no favours whatsoever, and whilst I understand this is an exceptionally emotive issue, there really is no need for that...

[Drclarke]

Has anyone yet denied that the picture leaked is Venables?

[McWigglebum3rd]

A question


If we lived in a society where the state was allowed to kill children. Do you think we would have more or less children being murdered?



I'd guess it would be higher

[SkinnyBoy]

Drclarke said:

Has anyone yet denied that the picture leaked is Venables?

I think that is the real question in this debate. What if those lads in. The "now" pic aren't even them. The whole sorry debacle is a disgrace to humanity.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BJG1 said:

Love how I'm a "do-gooder" because I don't want to kill 10 year olds as well. Christ

It's unbelievable isn't it?

It's also strange how the term "do gooder" has become an insult. Why is wanting to do good a bad thing? Isn't it better than being a do badder?

[AnonSpoilsport]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BJG1 said:

Love how I'm a "do-gooder" because I don't want to kill 10 year olds as well. Christ

It's unbelievable isn't it?

It's also strange how the term "do gooder" has become an insult. Why is wanting to do good a bad thing? Isn't it better than being a do badder?

Never heard of irony then?

[skwdenyer]

BJG1 said:

V8RX7 said:

Your stupidity is incredible.

How do you BREED FEWER child killers - by NOT letting existing ones breed.

How do YOU stop that - oh you don't

Now lets see if we kill them can they breed ?

I wish someone had explained this concept to your parents.

Remind me of who the parents of V & T killed?

You are also taking the word breed too literally. I am clearly referring to the conditions and influences on people that results in them becoming the kind of 10 year old that kills.

He's not stupid. It is IMHO far more frightening than that. I believe that V8RX7 is very close to displaying an affinity for eugenics.

The same rationale says that sterilising those with mental incapacities is reasonable, and - in the past, at least - led quickly to a 'final solution' to one 'problem' or another.

I am not name-calling, nor saying that V8RX7 is there yet, but that particular slippery slope is all-too easy for society (or some sections thereof) to descend very quickly unless checked.

[skwdenyer]

smegmore said:

I found a quote on a totally different subject from another member here which I think sums up the whole Thompson/Venables debacle in a nutshell:

'I personally care little for social engineering or trying to rehabilitate.

I believe in thick Walls and doors. Behind those I find recidivists find it quite hard to commit crime.'

Thank you Mr. X, you know who you are.

The problem with Mr X's approach is that, in the end, the thick walls and doors have to be built for you to live behind. The armour-plated SUV takes you from your compound to some other enclave in which you feel safe. For, once you go down the 'zero-tolerance' route, criminals no longer have an incentive to be at all nice; they might as well kill you just to make sure they don't get imprisoned for life for stealing your watch.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 'thick walls and doors' works for society. It may, in the very short term, keep a particular perpetrator off the streets but, evidence shows, it will lead to more crime and more danger for the population in the long run.

And besides, I don't want my taxes to go up to pay for it, especially when I know how the same (or less) money can change society for the better instead.

[davepoth]

skwdenyer said:

He's not stupid. It is IMHO far more frightening than that. I believe that V8RX7 is very close to displaying an affinity for eugenics.

The same rationale says that sterilising those with mental incapacities is reasonable, and - in the past, at least - led quickly to a 'final solution' to one 'problem' or another.

I am not name-calling, nor saying that V8RX7 is there yet, but that particular slippery slope is all-too easy for society (or some sections thereof) to descend very quickly unless checked.

Godwin in one move...

[Fatboy]

skwdenyer said:

BJG1 said:

V8RX7 said:

Your stupidity is incredible.

How do you BREED FEWER child killers - by NOT letting existing ones breed.

How do YOU stop that - oh you don't

Now lets see if we kill them can they breed ?

I wish someone had explained this concept to your parents.

Remind me of who the parents of V & T killed?

You are also taking the word breed too literally. I am clearly referring to the conditions and influences on people that results in them becoming the kind of 10 year old that kills.

He's not stupid. It is IMHO far more frightening than that. I believe that V8RX7 is very close to displaying an affinity for eugenics.

The same rationale says that sterilising those with mental incapacities is reasonable, and - in the past, at least - led quickly to a 'final solution' to one 'problem' or another.

I am not name-calling, nor saying that V8RX7 is there yet, but that particular slippery slope is all-too easy for society (or some sections thereof) to descend very quickly unless checked.

I recognise that this isn't a popular view, but I don't think that eugenics is necessarily a bad idea (IIRC it was practiced in Sweden in the 1930s, and that's hardly what you'd call a totalitarian state) - there are plenty of people who really shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. I'd be willing to put a lot of money on V&T's parents being utterly st, and whether or not any of their siblings end up as bad as V&T (which I seriously doubt they will), I'd be amazed if any of them amount to anything productive.

The problem with eugenics is where the line is drawn - as you say it is a slippery slope once started on, and can too easily go from gentle improvement of society to gross repression...

[Fatboy]

coyft said:

Fatboy said:

gentle improvement of society

Guess that's how hitler spun it.

Do you actually have an argument or are you just going straight for the Godwin?

[Colonial]

Fatboy said:

coyft said:

Fatboy said:

gentle improvement of society

Guess that's how hitler spun it.

Do you actually have an argument or are you just going straight for the Godwin?

Considering what happened in Germany at the time it is a fair comment to make.

What, we can't bring up the events that happened in Nazi Germany because of Godwin?

[AnonSpoilsport]

Fatboy said:

I recognise that this isn't a popular view, but I don't think that eugenics is necessarily a bad idea (IIRC it was practiced in Sweden in the 1930s, and that's hardly what you'd call a totalitarian state) - there are plenty of people who really shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. I'd be willing to put a lot of money on V&T's parents being utterly st, and whether or not any of their siblings end up as bad as V&T (which I seriously doubt they will), I'd be amazed if any of them amount to anything productive.

The problem with eugenics is where the line is drawn - as you say it is a slippery slope once started on, and can too easily go from gentle improvement of society to gross repression...

Yes, ask the Australians, eh Colonial?

[Fatboy]

Colonial said:

Fatboy said:

coyft said:

Fatboy said:

gentle improvement of society

Guess that's how hitler spun it.

Do you actually have an argument or are you just going straight for the Godwin?

Considering what happened in Germany at the time it is a fair comment to make.

What, we can't bring up the events that happened in Nazi Germany because of Godwin?

Not really, it's a lazy rebuttal, unless one is specifically discussing the Nazi regime. As I said there were plenty of other countries that practiced it that didn't turn into genocidel hellholes, simply picking an utterly vile regime that practiced it and claiming that's how it will be isn't making much of an argument.

Off to bed now, will pick up tomorrow evening (not just ignoring you!)

[Sway]

IIRC, Sweden practiced eugenics into the 90s,for Downs and other similar genetic conditions.

Personally, whilst I understand the revulsion some feel towards such things, I think there is a case for it in certain circumstances. We've eradicated polio pretty much, why not debilitating genetic conditions?

[BJG1]

Fatboy said:

Colonial said:

Fatboy said:

coyft said:

Fatboy said:

gentle improvement of society

Guess that's how hitler spun it.

Do you actually have an argument or are you just going straight for the Godwin?

Considering what happened in Germany at the time it is a fair comment to make.

What, we can't bring up the events that happened in Nazi Germany because of Godwin?

Not really, it's a lazy rebuttal, unless one is specifically discussing the Nazi regime. As I said there were plenty of other countries that practiced it that didn't turn into genocidel hellholes, simply picking an utterly vile regime that practiced it and claiming that's how it will be isn't making much of an argument.

Off to bed now, will pick up tomorrow evening (not just ignoring you!)

I don't think it's a lazt reference. You are suggesting not allowing certain people to breed and using soft phrasing to justify it. Seems perfectly reasonable to bring up Hitler in this case, it's a perfect example of the road that eugenics can end up going down.

[rohrl]

Calling "Godwin" when other people on the same thread are advocating eugenics is improper use of the law.

[Fatboy]

BJG1 said:

Fatboy said:

Colonial said:

Fatboy said:

coyft said:

Fatboy said:

gentle improvement of society

Guess that's how hitler spun it.

Do you actually have an argument or are you just going straight for the Godwin?

Considering what happened in Germany at the time it is a fair comment to make.

What, we can't bring up the events that happened in Nazi Germany because of Godwin?

Not really, it's a lazy rebuttal, unless one is specifically discussing the Nazi regime. As I said there were plenty of other countries that practiced it that didn't turn into genocidel hellholes, simply picking an utterly vile regime that practiced it and claiming that's how it will be isn't making much of an argument.

Off to bed now, will pick up tomorrow evening (not just ignoring you!)

I don't think it's a lazt reference. You are suggesting not allowing certain people to breed and using soft phrasing to justify it. Seems perfectly reasonable to bring up Hitler in this case, it's a perfect example of the road that eugenics can end up going down.

Making an instant comaprison to Hitler because someone brings up eugenics isn't reasonable - yes it's a road that eugenics policies can end up going down, but it's certainly not the case that practising Eugenics automatically leads to genocide, which is what crofty was implying. Hence my position that it's a lazy reference.