Not strictly true, Internal organs do not constitute a solid lump of stuff all firmly attached to each other. Any impact that is sufficient to rupture the abdominal wall will likely strew the contents thereof over a large area
James Bulger documentary
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Not strictly true, Internal organs do not constitute a solid lump of stuff all firmly attached to each other. Any impact that is sufficient to rupture the abdominal wall will likely strew the contents thereof over a large area
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
You talking to me? Yes I was at the scene.
Would have saved a lot of money and hassle.
They were old enough to know that what they did was wrong. That's the only thing that matters.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,288
- Location
- Woking
I was, and fair enough.
Because surely it is "Easier" to train a Child than a Dog, therefore the responsibility for failing to do so should be greater than rather than less than.
(In much the same way, you can suffer legal sanction if your barking Dog is a nuisance for your neighbors, but apparently not so in the case of noisy children)
The point is people hyperbolise beyond all rationality to try to make a point. He eviscerated her with a car. He has to die. It’s harder to argue with if you use inaccurately graphic or emotive language. He’s a monster, he has to die.
He was speeding. He killed a child. It’s harder to get excited about killing him if you stick to actual facts rather than getting carried away with tabloid language.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I would reign in your insults whether you are BSing or actually emotional. This is a forum discussion about murders and no one is siding with murders.
Personal insults are going to lock this thread and saying 'you weren't there, i was there... your pathetic for using the deaths as xxx' seems hypocritical over the internet. No need for it really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 6,270
- Location
- North London
Train a child ???
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
You can argue that a person/child has more room to cause greater trouble. A person receives a punishment for a dog not being in control but the punishment is for the crime of the dog owner - the dog does not commit a crime, it is property.
You cant apply that to a child.
Basically what i am saying is that the best justice systems in the world are there because clarity and consistency in the law prevent corruption and reduce criminals slipping through the net or innocents getting sentenced.
Imagine if you introduced this law and parents got overzealous with their punishments at home, locked their misbehaving kids up to protect themselves. It could cause more messed up children than it solve. I dont think punishing parents for crimes of children achieves anything positive that is not achieved by punishing parents for bad parenting which we have already.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
Sorry guys, I'm shaking with rage here so I apologize for any insults, Avenged7fold, but i won't apologize for my opinions. Her name was Violet Grace Youens, her dad owned a tattoo studio about 100 yards from my old house.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,537
- Location
- Bucks
I didnt watch the documentary - not sure why anyone would.
The crime was indefensible , they are both disgusting and should have been shot like the feral animals they are a long ******* time ago.
The crime was indefensible , they are both disgusting and should have been shot like the feral animals they are a long ******* time ago.
And a big powerful Dog also has more room to cause greater trouble, which is why owners of such are held to a higher level of responsibility and face more severe consequences if the fail to meet them.
Perhaps arguably not with an older child that is above the age of criminal responsibility and will, of course, be held to it and face the consequences of their own actions., but what about one that is below the age of criminal responsibility?
Are we saying that NOBODY is responsible for the actions of such a child?
The system that they were put in is broken ran by do gooders, what should have happened do the time at the detention(holiday camp) then at the age of 18 moved to an adult jail for another 15-20 years then we wouldn't be in this mess as it now, the whole system is ran by a bunch of clowns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
A big and powerful dog has to be locked up, leashed or accompanied in specific areas so the trouble is limited. you dont have that control with children and if the parent/owner are doing as they should then a child has more freedom to cause trouble as there are periods where a child can escape the control of parent/teachers.
Like i said you can hold parents accountable for bad parenting and judge them accordingly but not the crime of their children. The crime of their children will obviously point to poor parenting and a judgement can be made on it but you cant say 'a parent has to receive all punishments a child would receive if tried as an adult for their crime'. A child committing a crime is not always down to the parents and in many instances, a parent has little control over it.
You are responsible for the action of a child/dog but you are not accountable (in most instances) for the child's crime and a dog does not commit a crime - the owner does through negligence. Unless you can lay it down in a coherent law, it cant work. Where do you draw the line, a child steal and so the parents serve time? A child for little love of the law flitting from foster home to foster home is not going to do anyone good. How many lives can a prison sentence ruin? Remaining sibling that is absolutely fine also has to pay the price.
It is simply not practical in a fair justice system to have parents be responsible for the vast majority of the crimes of the children. Some laws require parents to take some responsibility as it is but it is not the same as passing the punishment on to them. If you focus too much on retribution part of punishment, it removes from the reform, rehabilitation, deterrent aspects of it.
If you thought that some kids could be ******** to their parents before, wait till you give them leverage against their parents in committing crimes.
I recall a kid in my year which was brat and doing stuff like setting fire to sheds and what not. Their parents were not abusive, middle-upper class, gave them everything they wanted and overall too soft. I cant imagine introducing this law would toughen parents up, just give them a weakness and force them to give in more and that will mess up the kid even more.
That’s very sad, and I’m sorry you had to witness that. I’m sorry for being callous about it. That being said, your emotional proximity is exactly what makes you the wrong person to decide on the perpetrator’s fate.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,332
That's a fair point and yea I might be a wind up merchant on here at times but it's only ever about dumb stuff like Star Wars or Katie Hopkins or other such nonsense. Take care