Jamie Bulgers killer John Venables

[Rob W 0]

No it is NOT a step too far - it is the LAW

 

once you've done your time you are released - and if that upsets some folk it's tough s****

 

If you really want to live in a country where laws are made up on a daily basis to suit those in charge I can suggest a few spots..................

[LeazesMag 0]

No it is NOT a step too far - it is the LAW

 

once you've done your time you are released - and if that upsets some folk it's tough s****

 

If you really want to live in a country where laws are made up on a daily basis to suit those in charge I can suggest a few spots..................

 

what a tough guy

Edited May 16, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Monkeys Fist 39068]

The thing is Rob, Venables has received different treatment upon release than other murderers.

My brothers murderer will be released around 2027, having served his time. Fair enough. However, unlike Venables, he will have murder on his record, which any employer, landlord,etc will have to be informed of.

This cannot be the case for Venables ( or Thompson). Their identity would be blown , so in effect, his record was wiped clean. He has been given more of a 2nd chance than a "normal" killer.

He has fucked that chance up.

His mate Thompson (Im assuming)hasn't, so some credit to him for that.

 

Venables can get to fuck though.

[Guest alex]

The thing is Rob, Venables has received different treatment upon release than other murderers.

My brothers murderer will be released around 2027, having served his time. Fair enough. However, unlike Venables, he will have murder on his record, which any employer, landlord,etc will have to be informed of.

This cannot be the case for Venables ( or Thompson). Their identity would be blown , so in effect, his record was wiped clean. He has been given more of a 2nd chance than a "normal" killer.

He has fucked that chance up.

His mate Thompson (Im assuming)hasn't, so some credit to him for that.

 

Venables can get to fuck though.

Absolutely spot on.

[Rob W 0]

The thing is Rob, Venables has received different treatment upon release than other murderers.

My brothers murderer will be released around 2027, having served his time. Fair enough. However, unlike Venables, he will have murder on his record, which any employer, landlord,etc will have to be informed of.

This cannot be the case for Venables ( or Thompson). Their identity would be blown , so in effect, his record was wiped clean. He has been given more of a 2nd chance than a "normal" killer.

He has fucked that chance up.

His mate Thompson (Im assuming)hasn't, so some credit to him for that.

 

Venables can get to fuck though.

 

 

That is an interesting point - I am open to the argument that if you are given special treatment and then screw it all up then so be it

 

To quote Terry Pratchett "you only get one Angel"

[LeazesMag 0]

The thing is Rob, Venables has received different treatment upon release than other murderers.

My brothers murderer will be released around 2027, having served his time. Fair enough. However, unlike Venables, he will have murder on his record, which any employer, landlord,etc will have to be informed of.

This cannot be the case for Venables ( or Thompson). Their identity would be blown , so in effect, his record was wiped clean. He has been given more of a 2nd chance than a "normal" killer.

He has fucked that chance up.

His mate Thompson (Im assuming)hasn't, so some credit to him for that.

 

Venables can get to fuck though.

 

 

That is an interesting point - I am open to the argument that if you are given special treatment and then screw it all up then so be it

 

To quote Terry Pratchett "you only get one Angel"

 

with all due respect to MF for continuing with this

 

The point is Rob, you are entitled to your opinion but as per usual you would not say the same about ALL these scumbags you defend if something happened to you or someone you knew. Your continued view that they should be let out while others serve a life sentence is disgraceful tbh. The law has a duty to protect the public, and THAT and the feelings of victims are what matters, not the poor feelings of poor little lawbreakers and shitbags who deserve the harshest sentences and treatment going.

[NJS 3989]

The thing is if you reflect public or family opinion in sentencing then there would be no scale (if that's the right word) because everyone would want their loved one's killer's to get whatever the maximum is.

 

I think there are "degrees" of murder and there should be a scale - though accept the starting point might be too low for a lot of people.

 

Child murderers are probably the hardest to get right - even if Venables hadn't re-offended I'm sure there are many people who thought 10 years was too short anyway. I thought it was too short but would lean against 30 years plus as I think writing someone off at 10 for life, no matter what they've done is wrong.

[Rob W 0]

The thing is if you reflect public or family opinion in sentencing then there would be no scale (if that's the right word) because everyone would want their loved one's killer's to get whatever the maximum is.

 

I think there are "degrees" of murder and there should be a scale - though accept the starting point might be too low for a lot of people.

 

Child murderers are probably the hardest to get right - even if Venables hadn't re-offended I'm sure there are many people who thought 10 years was too short anyway. I thought it was too short but would lean against 30 years plus as I think writing someone off at 10 for life, no matter what they've done is wrong.

 

that's the point of course - otherwise you finish up with the old eye for an eye or the Muslim bit where they were going to put out some guys eyes because of an acid attack

 

the Law is supposed to take away the emotive aspects

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

that's the point of course - otherwise you finish up with the old eye for an eye or the Muslim bit where they were going to put out some guys eyes because of an acid attack

 

Nothing wrong with Muslims, I spent a great deal of time with Arabs on submarine voyages in the 1800s, or Ooga Booga Boogaloo as they say in the Arabic dialect. Became good friends with a lad called Sinbad; I bunked with him, he had some stories. Anyway they should free Bulger, it is the LAW. No one is above the LAW. Ad nauseum.

[LeazesMag 0]

The thing is if you reflect public or family opinion in sentencing then there would be no scale (if that's the right word) because everyone would want their loved one's killer's to get whatever the maximum is.

 

I think there are "degrees" of murder and there should be a scale - though accept the starting point might be too low for a lot of people.

 

Child murderers are probably the hardest to get right - even if Venables hadn't re-offended I'm sure there are many people who thought 10 years was too short anyway. I thought it was too short but would lean against 30 years plus as I think writing someone off at 10 for life, no matter what they've done is wrong.

 

that's the point of course - otherwise you finish up with the old eye for an eye or the Muslim bit where they were going to put out some guys eyes because of an acid attack

 

the Law is supposed to take away the emotive aspects

 

Of course it does, but its about justice, and protecting the public, that means YOU, not vengeance. If someone threw acid into YOUR eye and put YOUR eye out, would YOU be happy for them to get a slap on the wrist and do a short spell in the slammer then walk out totally free ? Laughing at the law and doing it again. To someone else.

 

You've got a serious problem if you can't see this, at your age.

 

You're the classic example of an "I'm alright Jack". Words fail me, they really do, people like you, with their heads in the sand like this, who think they can get off with such actions, and even worse, if they think they can be "cured" or respond to the kid glove treatment.

[NJS 3989]

The thing is if you reflect public or family opinion in sentencing then there would be no scale (if that's the right word) because everyone would want their loved one's killer's to get whatever the maximum is.

 

I think there are "degrees" of murder and there should be a scale - though accept the starting point might be too low for a lot of people.

 

Child murderers are probably the hardest to get right - even if Venables hadn't re-offended I'm sure there are many people who thought 10 years was too short anyway. I thought it was too short but would lean against 30 years plus as I think writing someone off at 10 for life, no matter what they've done is wrong.

 

that's the point of course - otherwise you finish up with the old eye for an eye or the Muslim bit where they were going to put out some guys eyes because of an acid attack

 

the Law is supposed to take away the emotive aspects

 

Of course it does, but its about justice, and protecting the public, that means YOU, not vengeance. If someone threw acid into YOUR eye and put YOUR eye out, would YOU be happy for them to get a slap on the wrist and do a short spell in the slammer then walk out totally free ? Laughing at the law and doing it again. To someone else.

 

You've got a serious problem if you can't see this, at your age.

 

You're the classic example of an "I'm alright Jack". Words fail me, they really do, people like you, with their heads in the sand like this, who think they can get off with such actions, and even worse, if they think they can be "cured" or respond to the kid glove treatment.

 

But if justice was individual then it wouldn't be law - that's the point you're ignoring - there's an individual who would demand the max in every case who would have to accept it.

 

I'm sure I could also find some stats that rehabilitation does work for a lot of people but what's the point - you won't read it and if you do you'd dismiss it as not "real life".

[Guest alex]

Putting aside the notion of 'personal justice' or vigilante-ism or whatever else you want to call it I think the public at large would like to see much more severe penalties for violent crimes, rapes, sexual assaults etc. than currently seems to be being dished out. I'm on about people who have never been directly affected by these things too. Whether they'd be prepared to pay for them if they had the choice is another matter like.

Another bugbear is early releases. I know you could argue you need some incentive for behaviour on the inside but I'd make that incentive that bad behaviour added to your sentence rather than good behviour seeing it reduced.

Edited May 18, 2011 by alex

[NJS 3989]

Putting aside the notion of 'personal justice' or vigilante-ism or whatever else you want to call it I think the public at large would like to see much more severe penalties for violent crimes, rapes, sexual assaults etc. than currently seems to be being dished out. I'm on about people who have never been directly affected by these things too. Whether they'd be prepared to pay for them if they had the choice is another matter like.

 

Yes - I do fit the cliche of the left winger who's quite right wing on crime - but I also don't want to see people getting 40 years for being in fight that ends in tragedy (not related to this case but you do get odd cases like that).

[Guest alex]

Putting aside the notion of 'personal justice' or vigilante-ism or whatever else you want to call it I think the public at large would like to see much more severe penalties for violent crimes, rapes, sexual assaults etc. than currently seems to be being dished out. I'm on about people who have never been directly affected by these things too. Whether they'd be prepared to pay for them if they had the choice is another matter like.

 

Yes - I do fit the cliche of the left winger who's quite right wing on crime - but I also don't want to see people getting 40 years for being in fight that ends in tragedy (not related to this case but you do get odd cases like that).

Neither do I. That's not the sort of thing I was on about btw. I caught a bit of that Strangeways doc and that paramedic who killed the his ex-girlfriend who was going to testify against him on rape charges wants putting down. It's an absolute disgrace that he was out of bail when he killed her. That sort of thing makes my blood boil. I suspect he would have killed her anyway if he had the chance once he got out. That said, he was alleged to have raped her 9 times so if it was down to me I'd have thrown away the key anyway.

[LeazesMag 0]

The thing is if you reflect public or family opinion in sentencing then there would be no scale (if that's the right word) because everyone would want their loved one's killer's to get whatever the maximum is.

 

I think there are "degrees" of murder and there should be a scale - though accept the starting point might be too low for a lot of people.

 

Child murderers are probably the hardest to get right - even if Venables hadn't re-offended I'm sure there are many people who thought 10 years was too short anyway. I thought it was too short but would lean against 30 years plus as I think writing someone off at 10 for life, no matter what they've done is wrong.

 

that's the point of course - otherwise you finish up with the old eye for an eye or the Muslim bit where they were going to put out some guys eyes because of an acid attack

 

the Law is supposed to take away the emotive aspects

 

Of course it does, but its about justice, and protecting the public, that means YOU, not vengeance. If someone threw acid into YOUR eye and put YOUR eye out, would YOU be happy for them to get a slap on the wrist and do a short spell in the slammer then walk out totally free ? Laughing at the law and doing it again. To someone else.

 

You've got a serious problem if you can't see this, at your age.

 

You're the classic example of an "I'm alright Jack". Words fail me, they really do, people like you, with their heads in the sand like this, who think they can get off with such actions, and even worse, if they think they can be "cured" or respond to the kid glove treatment.

 

But if justice was individual then it wouldn't be law - that's the point you're ignoring - there's an individual who would demand the max in every case who would have to accept it.

 

I'm sure I could also find some stats that rehabilitation does work for a lot of people but what's the point - you won't read it and if you do you'd dismiss it as not "real life".

 

It only takes 1 "statistic" to get out and kill some other innocent member of the public, to make your kid glove treatment meaningless and "rehabilition" wrong, and THAT is "real life" [if you or someone you know is the victim]. Which is the entire point about do gooders and "I'm alright Jacks" with no regard for the victims.

 

Whats the point though, you'll insist that 90% or whatever can be "cured" so it justifies your point, so long as the victim is somebody else.

[NJS 3989]

Putting aside the notion of 'personal justice' or vigilante-ism or whatever else you want to call it I think the public at large would like to see much more severe penalties for violent crimes, rapes, sexual assaults etc. than currently seems to be being dished out. I'm on about people who have never been directly affected by these things too. Whether they'd be prepared to pay for them if they had the choice is another matter like.

 

Yes - I do fit the cliche of the left winger who's quite right wing on crime - but I also don't want to see people getting 40 years for being in fight that ends in tragedy (not related to this case but you do get odd cases like that).

Neither do I. That's not the sort of thing I was on about btw. I caught a bit of that Strangeways doc and that paramedic who killed the his ex-girlfriend who was going to testify against him on rape charges wants putting down. It's an absolute disgrace that he was out of bail when he killed her. That sort of thing makes my blood boil. I suspect he would have killed her anyway if he had the chance once he got out. That said, he was alleged to have raped her 9 times so if it was down to me I'd have thrown away the key anyway.

 

There are obvious cases that arise like that and represent chances to fix the system - its the suggestion that the whole system needs chucking out in favour of some kind of pre-modern society.

 

I think we do claim cultural superiority over a lot of the world mostly correctly - and a semi-decent justice system which isn't perfect by any means is a good example of that.

[NJS 3989]

The thing is if you reflect public or family opinion in sentencing then there would be no scale (if that's the right word) because everyone would want their loved one's killer's to get whatever the maximum is.

 

I think there are "degrees" of murder and there should be a scale - though accept the starting point might be too low for a lot of people.

 

Child murderers are probably the hardest to get right - even if Venables hadn't re-offended I'm sure there are many people who thought 10 years was too short anyway. I thought it was too short but would lean against 30 years plus as I think writing someone off at 10 for life, no matter what they've done is wrong.

 

that's the point of course - otherwise you finish up with the old eye for an eye or the Muslim bit where they were going to put out some guys eyes because of an acid attack

 

the Law is supposed to take away the emotive aspects

 

Of course it does, but its about justice, and protecting the public, that means YOU, not vengeance. If someone threw acid into YOUR eye and put YOUR eye out, would YOU be happy for them to get a slap on the wrist and do a short spell in the slammer then walk out totally free ? Laughing at the law and doing it again. To someone else.

 

You've got a serious problem if you can't see this, at your age.

 

You're the classic example of an "I'm alright Jack". Words fail me, they really do, people like you, with their heads in the sand like this, who think they can get off with such actions, and even worse, if they think they can be "cured" or respond to the kid glove treatment.

 

But if justice was individual then it wouldn't be law - that's the point you're ignoring - there's an individual who would demand the max in every case who would have to accept it.

 

I'm sure I could also find some stats that rehabilitation does work for a lot of people but what's the point - you won't read it and if you do you'd dismiss it as not "real life".

 

It only takes 1 "statistic" to get out and kill some other innocent member of the public, to make your kid glove treatment meaningless and "rehabilition" wrong, and THAT is "real life" [if you or someone you know is the victim]. Which is the entire point about do gooders and "I'm alright Jacks" with no regard for the victims.

 

Whats the point though, you'll insist that 90% or whatever can be "cured" so it justifies your point, so long as the victim is somebody else.

 

So what's the answer then - all criminals are shot just in case they re-offend against your family?

[Guest alex]

You need a balance though. I can see the justification for trying to rehabilitate burglars for example as I don't think society should write people off like that. I don't think burglary is a 'nothing crime' btw. I'm coming at this from the point of view that I think often these people can be rehabilitated and that, if they are, then it not only benefits them but society as a whole. Kiddy fiddlers on the other hand should instantly forfeit any notion of a '2nd chance'.

[LeazesMag 0]

Putting aside the notion of 'personal justice' or vigilante-ism or whatever else you want to call it I think the public at large would like to see much more severe penalties for violent crimes, rapes, sexual assaults etc. than currently seems to be being dished out. I'm on about people who have never been directly affected by these things too. Whether they'd be prepared to pay for them if they had the choice is another matter like.

 

Yes - I do fit the cliche of the left winger who's quite right wing on crime - but I also don't want to see people getting 40 years for being in fight that ends in tragedy (not related to this case but you do get odd cases like that).

 

that isn't pre-meditated murder though is it ? But it depends what sort of murder ie mowing someone down in a car that you've nicked, and you don't have insurance is the long haul in my book, for instance, irresponsible and should get the book thrown at them and be seen by the public to have the book thrown at them. We aren't talking about someone having a fight in the Bigg Market here.

 

I totally agree with Alex. Early release is bollocks, it should be going the other way if anything.

[NJS 3989]

I'd also add that if you're that worried about the extremely small chance of being a victim that same worry would apply to driving, flying and as suggested on here lately - going to work.

[Kid Dynamite 6056]

There's a rumour (unsubstantiated) that he was a patient/prisoner on our place after he was convicted for the Bulger murder

[NJS 3989]

Putting aside the notion of 'personal justice' or vigilante-ism or whatever else you want to call it I think the public at large would like to see much more severe penalties for violent crimes, rapes, sexual assaults etc. than currently seems to be being dished out. I'm on about people who have never been directly affected by these things too. Whether they'd be prepared to pay for them if they had the choice is another matter like.

 

Yes - I do fit the cliche of the left winger who's quite right wing on crime - but I also don't want to see people getting 40 years for being in fight that ends in tragedy (not related to this case but you do get odd cases like that).

 

that isn't pre-meditated murder though is it ? But it depends what sort of murder ie mowing someone down in a car that you've nicked, and you don't have insurance is the long haul in my book, for instance, irresponsible and should get the book thrown at them and be seen by the public to have the book thrown at them. We aren't talking about someone having a fight in the Bigg Market here.

 

I totally agree with Alex. Early release is bollocks, it should be going the other way if anything.

 

I agree on early release.

 

As I said in my first point your approach just increases the pressure for maximums all the time - I think a scale is better - though I agree the case you describe is towards the max end.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd also add that if you're that worried about the extremely small chance of being a victim that same worry would apply to driving, flying and as suggested on here lately - going to work.

 

whats that got to do with it ?

 

Why are you hiding behind statistics of totally unrelated activities ?

Edited May 18, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

I'd also add that if you're that worried about the extremely small chance of being a victim that same worry would apply to driving, flying and as suggested on here lately - going to work.

 

whats that got to do with it ?

 

Why are you hiding behind daft statistics of totally unrelated activities ?

I think you misjudge NJS tbh Leazes. He's pretty hardline on crime in general.

[Kid Dynamite 6056]

Needs hung imo, he's proven that he hasn't learned his lesson.

 

When someone does that to a bairn and they're just a kid themself, for me it shows they've got something wrong in their genetic make up...get rid before he breeds.

 

Sometimes. Mainly it's down to their parents though. I know how cliched that sounds but we all take it for granted that we were taught right from wrong at a very young age. Some kids aren't. I know of kids that have been passed around their dads mates to have sex with as toddlers, and shit like that has an effect on someones ability to lead a normal life and make normal decisions.