Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
James Bulger documentary
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
Times have changed since 1964. Forensic science has dramatically improved, surveillance is all over the country, the population has exploded and we have all manner of new problems as well as the old problems to deal with.
Some criminals are practically enemy combatants living in our country. They have declared war on society, there can be no rehabilitation for some. Maybe if we can catch and reform young criminals before they turn to serious crime then we have a chance, but once they become cold blooded killers there is really no point in keeping them around. They are no different at all to a vicious dog.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
Their mothers
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
But that's just an exercise in futility. If there is no chance of parole then why keep them alive?
Did people actually believe Ian Brady was going to give up the location of the bodies that he buried? How naïve! He took them to his grave as I fully expected him to. He was an evil man who took pleasure from inflicting misery on those who were unfortunate enough to cross his path. He should have been exterminated years ago.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I have not seen the documentary but i would not go round hanging the abused mothers of murderers just because their sons have committed. What justice is there in that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
There would be no point. That is why trying to decide on a just civilized punishment for criminals that are brutal and so uncivilized as these is impossible. The criminals stray so far from the norm that it is hard to introduce policy to justly tackle their punishment. Yeah you can stop them committing again by killing them but then you have to draw the line as to what crimes you can kill for and you cannot, that line may be clear in cases like this but other cases not so much. I am not offering an alternative solution because i dont have one. Leave them on an island with nothing for all i care.
The death sentence may be an easy decision to make for these brutes but justice needs consistency and clarity and the death sentence has always introduced complications as far as consistency in judgement goes. The fact that only part of society agree to it make it so you could only have certain people with certain views be the judges in trials like this.I dont agree with what the death sentence can do to the justice system and the possibility of a guilty man meeting the sentence due to a death qualified judge/jury because they are simply more likely to give guilty than a non death qualified one.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
Then you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Perhaps you should spend a few weeks in the company of these people. Perhaps when it is one of your friends or relatives that has been needlessly stabbed to death or their child has been eviscerated by a stolen car doing 90 mph outside of a nursery you might think a little differently. It's easy to pass your opinion when these crimes do not affect you directly or even indirectly
Not nearly compared to faith people place in it thanks to CSI and the like. My mother in law was a forensic scientist for decades and could walk up and down you with the limitations of the evidence they can provide. Never mind that the government have slashed funding for forensic science and privatised it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
What crimes has the mother committed to get a hanging?
Unless you can write it into law and judge them according to it, you cant deal out punishment. That is how our justice system works -Clarity and consistency.
If you had a relative or friend of a victim pass judgement on whoever was standing for trial, you would get a guilty and harsher sentence than normal regardless of how guilty they are or how harsh it should be. If you want vigilantism, there are uncivilized parts of the world for that but we have one of the best justice systems in the world and throwing that away would be stupid and backward.
Last edited:
Eviscerating someone with a car would be a hell of a feat. Cars are quite blunt and evisceration generally demands quite a sharp instrument.
Of course it’s entirely possible that you’re just using gruesome sounding words in the name of hyperbole. Who can say.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,078
Capital punishment for 10 year old children? No.
What they did is horrendous. I don't know if anyone saw the Channel 4 documentary on Monday but they were throwing bricks at his head, dragging him along, they put batteries up his bum and then put him on the railway track where he was decapitated.
But by all accounts John Venables was from a decent family. His mother was on the police tapes coaxing his confession out of him and in full cooperation with the police. It was actually Thomson who had the really horrible family - so everyone assumed he was the 'ringleader' as such. But he hasn't re-offended, and John Venables has at least twice. He's given up his right to freedom now IMO and should just be locked up for the rest of his life as it seems more likely that he was the more depraved of the two (going by their later actions)
As for Thomson, his identity is protected, and there's no evidence he's a "smack head performing criminal acts", as other poster suggested earlier (with no evidence to back up the claim). For what it's worth I heard he was married with two kids...But again that's hearsay.
Anyway, in the C4 documentary there were people on the kids defence team who said trial in an adult court was not the best way to go about things. 10 year old kids can't understand what's going on. I don't know what the alternatives were but some sort of secure centre for kids until they were old enough (16) to be tried might have been better. In the meantime they could have done some long term psychological assessments of them.
Fine, so keep him locked up.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
Again you do not know what you are talking about. You weren't there, you didn't see the body parts strewn across the road. You're talking twaddle. Worse, you are disrespecting and belittling the death of a little girl.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,285
- Location
- Woking
Were you there? Sounds like you might have been.
Evisceration is the removal of the internal organs. I’m not sure what you think you saw, but I doubt you saw that.
We punish people whose Dogs harm other people, why not people whose children go on to do so??
(Semi-serious question actually)
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Because a person in law is responsible and accountable for their dog. A dog is not responsible for themselves and i believe they are property if it makes a difference.
A person can be held accountable or responsible for poor parenting but if you recognize someone as responsible for themselves, how can you start pinning the blame for their actions on others?
The difference is how you define the parties involved maybe. Where do you draw the line?
A parent is accountable for their child's crime?
What about a child who does not care about their parents who seemingly have tried to do what they can?
Are parents of a 18 year old accountable?
Unless you can outline how to judge and punish people you cant achieve a consistent justice system and lack of clarity allows justice systems to be rife with corruption and loopholes.