The John Venables identity leak

[Previous]

skwdenyer said:

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.

Personally I feel the thick walls and doors approach has its place but needs to be balanced with rehabilitation.

The trouble is many offenders see rehabilitative courses as a soft touch and dont take them seriously. The carrot and stick approach to me makes more sense than just a carrot & carrot or stick and stick approach.

As im sure most would agree, all offenders are different and have their individualities - and as such the challenge is to match the particular balance of carrot and stick to the individual that will result in that person being a normally functioning member of society (whatever one of those is...).

For some criminals simply the threat of being locked away, coupled with rehabilitation courses is enough to comply. Equally, there are some who will never be able to fit in a fuctioning society and as such the thick doors and walls are the most effective way of guaranteeing the saftey of wider society.

One of the key problems I have with the current justce system is it seems to place the rehabilitiative needs of the individual above the needs of society. I would argue that this is the case with the sentencing given to JV, and his behaviour since release would tend to support this.

One of the reasons for the aggression shown towards venables, besides the obvious, I think, is the feeling that he has "gotten away with it". It is a symptom of justice not being seen to be done.

For some crimes, whatever the mitigating factors, the offender may never be suitable for release, as even if the person themselves has managed to change to a point where they could function normally in society, society itself will not accept them. (which in this case, JV's behaviour suggests he hasnt).

For what its worth, I wouldnt support the death penalty against children. I however feel that JV should still be in prison now for the original offence, and probably for a long time yet to come.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Previous said:

For what its worth, I wouldnt support the death penalty against children.

Apparently, on this thread, that makes you a liberal pinko commie lefty namby pamby soft on crime Longfordian do gooder.

[AnonSpoilsport]

BJG1 said:

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.

Do you think everyone has an equal right to 'breed' as everyone else, or that this freedom is (always) wise, in the interests of the majority/the greater good?

[vescaegg]

This pretty much confirms it was him in the pictures incase there was still any doubt;

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-2157...

[Dan_1981]

Interesting to note that under the terms of the order - simply posting a photograph and claiming it to show one of them also counts as a breach and is punishable.

[vescaegg]

I like how the article says 'the images have now been removed'

From what? The whole Internet? Sure they have.

[rohrl]

Dan_1981 said:

Interesting to note that under the terms of the order - simply posting a photograph and claiming it to show one of them also counts as a breach and is punishable.

I should hope so too given the risk to the wrongly identified person.

[RSoovy4]

Dan_1981 said:

Interesting to note that under the terms of the order - simply posting a photograph and claiming it to show one of them also counts as a breach and is punishable.

Well of course it does. Imagine if someone has a grudge against you, and circulates photos of you to millions saying you're Venables.........

How do you feel?



These injunctions protect the public, because they prevent this sort of thing (or at least mean that there are VERY serious consequences for those who breach them - as the losers who just have are about to find out.........) and they also protect the offender. The latter we can argue about mertis wise, but the former is vital.

Edited by RSoovy4 on Tuesday 26th February 09:54

[TameRacingDriver]

vescaegg said:

This pretty much confirms it was him in the pictures incase there was still any doubt;

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-2157...

Where does it confirm that? Oh, it doesn't.

[Dog Star]

Bluebarge said:

Pesty said:

kidnapping, torturing and murdering a little boy? Yes. whole heartedly yes. at ten you know that is wrong, to even consider and go through with it means you have something wrong with you and do not deserve to breath the air.

There is also something wrong with a person who describes those acts as 'something'

Sorry, but this is Daily Wail bks. No matter what the crime, he's been through the judicial process for it, and served his sentence. He does not now deserve vigilante justice at the hands of some keyboard warriors who are (luckily not seriously) advocating the commission of a criminal act not too far removed from the original crime. Bunch of sadsters the lot of you.

+1

I'm astonished - I feel like I've just stumbled into a virtual council estate in Portsmouth in full "lynch the paediatrician" mode! I thought more of the intellect and reason of people on PH than this.

(And I'm no bleeding heart by any means; I'm generally regarded as somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun)

[TameRacingDriver]

Dog Star said:

Bluebarge said:

Pesty said:

kidnapping, torturing and murdering a little boy? Yes. whole heartedly yes. at ten you know that is wrong, to even consider and go through with it means you have something wrong with you and do not deserve to breath the air.

There is also something wrong with a person who describes those acts as 'something'

Sorry, but this is Daily Wail bks. No matter what the crime, he's been through the judicial process for it, and served his sentence. He does not now deserve vigilante justice at the hands of some keyboard warriors who are (luckily not seriously) advocating the commission of a criminal act not too far removed from the original crime. Bunch of sadsters the lot of you.

+1

I'm astonished - I feel like I've just stumbled into a virtual council estate in Portsmouth in full "lynch the paediatrician" mode! I thought more of the intellect and reason of people on PH than this.

(And I'm no bleeding heart by any means; I'm generally regarded as somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun)

+2

Lots of moronic posts on here. I expected better.

I'm just so glad that the general public does not get to decide on the fates of individuals.......

[fadeaway]

+ 3

Glad it wasn't just me chaps

[mrmarcus]

I didnt see the recent twitter/ facebook photos but photos easily locatable on the internet. The likeness to the 1993 JV mugshots are very strong.

[anonymous-user]

Someone I'm friends with on Facebook as part of a DJ community 'shared' the alleged 1993/Recent comparison photos and it got loads of 'likes' and comments.

At the time I commented to him that he was committing an offence and should remove it immediately, and all I got was a "Not bothered. Someone should find him and do him in for what he did. It's worth getting in trouble over if some finds him".

Someone else got more aggressive towards my remark and said "I couldn't give a fk if I got locked up for sharing his photo, it's worth it".

Guess that just goes to show what sort of mentality there is out there.

[TameRacingDriver]

NinjaPower said:

Someone I'm friends with on Facebook as part of a DJ community 'shared' the alleged 1993/Recent comparison photos and it got loads of 'likes' and comments.

At the time I commented to him that he was committing an offence and should remove it immediately, and all I got was a "Not bothered. Someone should find him and do him in for what he did. It's worth getting in trouble over if some finds him".

Someone else got more aggressive towards my remark and said "I couldn't give a fk if I got locked up for sharing his photo, it's worth it".

Guess that just goes to show what sort of mentality there is out there.

Sums up this country, doesn't it.

I also had that post appear on my feed, and I didn't comment on it, but I did feel like mentioning to the person who posted it that it could, in fact, be some random person with nothing to do with it, but in the end, whats the point?

[anonymous-user]

TameRacingDriver said:

Sums up this country, doesn't it.

I also had that post appear on my feed, and I didn't comment on it, but I did feel like mentioning to the person who posted it that it could, in fact, be some random person with nothing to do with it, but in the end, whats the point?

Well exactly. You simply can't argue with stupid people.

I was going to suggest that it was probably a good way of thinning out the morons from my Facebook friends or groups: Anyone who posts it is clearly moronic in some way or another and therefore gets deleted. But then I realised that even ordinary non-chavvy 'mums' were sharing it for a bit of good old fashioned Mumsnet style paedo-hysteria... "Could be living next door" etc etc.

I dispair.

[Dan_1981]

Agreed.

The number of people who have shared, liked or commented on these pictures on facebook over the last few weeks is slightly worrying.

I may have to rejudge some of my associations.

[Zod]

fadeaway said:

+ 3

Glad it wasn't just me chaps

This and that McCanns thread really do show an unpleasant side to the PH collective.

[rohrl]

The thing is, if you point out to people that sharing around photos which may or may not be of Thompson and Venables is the wrong thing to do it won't take long before a hysterical idiot accuses you of sympathising with murderers.

[TameRacingDriver]

Which as the other guy says is why you don't argue with idiots.