Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Jon Venebables

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm from Liverpool. So the first poster on this thread is cheeky. Being barred from Liverpool is a blessing.. K.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's face it, the moron majority will only be happy when Venables is swinging from a tree. If that happens, justice will not have been done and we will have failed dismally as a society if we give in to mob justice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To all those who think that Venebles should be given another chance just imagine being a member of James Bulgers family. What he did to that child was disgusting and both of those criminals should be punished for as long as they live. And yes when you are ten you do know that tourturing and killing someone is wrong, there is absolutely NO excuse for what they have done.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thank you for demonstrating the mob mentality and ignorance Thunderstruck was referring to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To all those who think that Venebles should be given another chance just imagine being a member of James Bulgers family. What he did to that child was disgusting and both of those criminals should be punished for as long as they live. And yes when you are ten you do know that tourturing and killing someone is wrong, there is absolutely NO excuse for what they have done.

    we're not saying give him another chance. We're saying justice won't be served by identifying who he is, if anything it'll make it worse.:rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    he was still a child when he did it. He may have known it was wrong, but theres a hell of a lot of 10 year olds that wouldnt at all grasp the reality of it all or the consequences of their actions. He was a young child and deserved a second chance which he got after a decent punishment.
    \We have no idea what he really got sent back inside for, but the moment he broke his agreement he WAS sent back to prison, so obviously the justice system DOES work
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    he was still a child when he did it. He may have known it was wrong, but theres a hell of a lot of 10 year olds that wouldnt at all grasp the reality of it all or the consequences of their actions. He was a young child and deserved a second chance which he got after a decent punishment.
    \We have no idea what he really got sent back inside for, but the moment he broke his agreement he WAS sent back to prison, so obviously the justice system DOES work

    Sorry just gotta pick you up on 'deserved a second chance which he got after a decent punishment', Venables and Thompson definatley never served a 'decent punishment'! what gets to alotta people is they never really got punished,never spent even 1 day in a prison.
    A secure unit aint the same as a prison,a holiday camp run by social servises springs to mind. It could be argued that they both had a better standard of living,childhood and education than they would have had if they hadn't committed a crime.
    They should have been punished for what they did and fair enough they were young when it happined but punishment should still fit the crime.
    What I think people should be asking 'is this the 1st time 1 of Venables or Thompson has reoffended?' we only know cause there was a leak and it was gonna get printed anyways but whose to say Thompson aint locked up aswell for a crime that we the public have no right to know about!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cassidy04 wrote: »
    It could be argued that they both had a better standard of living,childhood and education than they would have had if they hadn't committed a crime.

    If that is true, it is in itself a pretty grim picture. A child having a better existence locked up in an institution? What an horrific picture of a childhood for anyone.

    I also question why you think the public have a right to know about any subsequent crimes either of them have committed or allegedly committed -why is it in the public's interest to know?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cassidy04 wrote: »
    Sorry just gotta pick you up on 'deserved a second chance which he got after a decent punishment', Venables and Thompson definatley never served a 'decent punishment'! !



    Wherever they ended up, at the end of the day they were only 10. They lost their liberty but the ultimate aim was to rehabilitate them.
    It worked for one of them at least, by all accounts Thompson has vanished and is working hard and has become a productive member of society which is more than we could have hoped for.

    They were locked up, and rightly so. But to treat a 10 year old in the same way you'd treat an adult, that isn't right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The centre, which housed 14 young offenders all deemed either ‘a danger to others or themselves’, was divided into three units, of which one was for girls. All the inmates had their own rooms which were locked at night. Thompson’s was 18ft by 12ft with a bed, desk, chairs, table and bookcase and an en suite shower and toilet.

    Later, a TV and games console were added, and in his teenage years he decorated the walls with prints of paintings by L.S. Lowry and Russian abstract artist Wassily Kandinsky and photographs of his family, including one of his baby brother.
    By the time he reached 14, Thompson was going on regular outings to a nearby shopping centre. ‘Along with a female social worker, I was assigned to him as a chaperone.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html

    And the article continues in this way; trips to the woodlands, having a gf, allowances, birthday money and even gifts from the unit. To me that doesn't sound like a punishment...it sounds a bit closer to the type of things a boarding school teacher would report.

    So i don't think their "punishment" was sufficient for the crime they commited, no they shouldn't have been treated like an adult would have been...but to treat them with "kid gloves" isn't the answer either.

    And as for what will happen now, whether or not Venables should be given a new identity if this one is compromised. No, he made a mess of his second chance and needs to sort his own life out...after all he's not 10 anymore.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, that's the point of rehabilitating a 10 year old, you're trying to see whether or not it's possible to repair what went before. It isn't treating someone with kid gloves to treat them as a child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The impression i was given by the article was that they were being treated like some rich kids at a private boarding school. In my opinion thats not rehabilitation, thats sending mixed signal as if to say "yes, you did something very bad and we're going to treat you better than the average British child because of it"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    The impression i was given by the article was that they were being treated like some rich kids at a private boarding school. In my opinion thats not rehabilitation, thats sending mixed signal as if to say "yes, you did something very bad and we're going to treat you better than the average British child because of it"

    I guess that all depends on whether you think the appropriate goal for punishment should be retribution or rehabilitation.

    I have a lot of problems with the idea of retribution in general, though can accept that it is going to have some role to play in a lot of punishments. But the idea that we might want to take revenge on two clearly extremely damaged and disturbed ten-year old boys is baffling to me.

    But then, I guess it's easier to label them as evil, or sick, rather than recognise the damage and suffering that must have occurred in their childhoods to make them do what they did. If we call them evil, then we don't even have to think about it any further, we can justify locking them up and throwing away the key. If we think that maybe they did what they did because they themselves has suffered terrible traumas, then it's all a lot messier and harder to solve, and implicates us all in some way that children can slip through the net like they did.

    Better to define them as twisted and call for them to be hanged. Much simpler.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    The impression i was given by the article was that they were being treated like some rich kids at a private boarding school. In my opinion thats not rehabilitation, thats sending mixed signal as if to say "yes, you did something very bad and we're going to treat you better than the average British child because of it"

    It is rather "we fucked up and let a 10 year old child get to the stage where they could do this, now we're going to try to somehow put it right so you can be reintegrated to society and live some sort of life".

    I am pretty sure they would have traded their lives for an average British child with an average but loving family, struggles for money a bit, goes to a not-the-best-but-ok comprehensive and whose biggest worries are whether they're gonna get a girlfriend this week.

    I don't know a lot about the case, but I've heard that the boys had pretty shitty upbringings which was very contributory and whether the mens rea was properly there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    The impression i was given by the article was that they were being treated like some rich kids at a private boarding school. In my opinion thats not rehabilitation, thats sending mixed signal as if to say "yes, you did something very bad and we're going to treat you better than the average British child because of it"

    That's the sort of impression people get from any Daily Fail article. It's a rag written in such a way to piss everyone off with people who are convienient scapegoats.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cassidy04 wrote: »
    Sorry just gotta pick you up on 'deserved a second chance which he got after a decent punishment', Venables and Thompson definatley never served a 'decent punishment'! what gets to alotta people is they never really got punished,never spent even 1 day in a prison.

    Eight years in a penal institution, I'd say that was more punishment than most 10 years olds can expect from committing a crime.

    As for it "not being a prison" - do you advocate children spending time in prison then?
    It could be argued that they both had a better standard of living,childhood and education than they would have had if they hadn't committed a crime.

    An indictment more than a reason to punish them more. The argument which could be put forward is that they had already been punished in the preceding ten years of their life...
    punishment should still fit the crime.

    So, what would you suggest?
    What I think people should be asking 'is this the 1st time 1 of Venables or Thompson has reoffended?

    What difference would that make?
    whose to say Thompson aint locked up aswell for a crime that we the public have no right to know about!

    If he is, then isn't that proof that the justice system has worked?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As MoK alludes to, why is it in the public interest anyway? How does knowing their identities and their fates help anyone?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jamelia & Shyboy: You can't just excuse what they did because they had a bad upbringing or that they had traumatics lives that pushed them to what they did. The fact of the matter was that they took a two year old, innocent and helpless child who couldn't defend himself, from his mother and tortured him to horrific extremes and then left him on a train track dead. I don't care what anyone says, a 10year old knows better than to do that. I know so many people who have had bad upbringings, who have come from homes where sexual, physical and emotional abuse were all part of their childhoods but they still knew that hurting a BABY is/was wrong. If someone is capable of doing that at age 10 i'd hate to imagine what they'd be capable of as an adult. Yes, maybe it was a momentary lapse in judgement, maybe through rehabilitation and therapy they could be taught to channel anger, rage or whatever other feelings it was that drove them to do what they did. But what i find awfully difficult to believe was that they both achieved this at the same time and were released together. To me it sounds like they deemed one of them to be rehabilitated and safe for release, then decided why not send them both out instead of transfering the other elsewhere.

    I do believe in second chances, nobody forgives people more easily than i do but maybe the pure and simple fact is that one of them is/was a lot more "damaged" than the other. Perhaps a prison isn't the place for him, maybe he requires medical attention for what he's been through in his life.

    Whowhere: Forget the opinionated bits, look at the facts in the article; a pretty decent allowance, their own rooms and bathrooms, tv and game consoles in said rooms....doesn't sound too bad to me. Yes, i'm aware they've probably left all the bad things out of the article but i still think the unit was a little over the top. Have them share rooms to teach them social skills, have a few communal tv's and game consoles to teach them about sharing etc

    Overall though, this really does hit a nerve with me. I have a two year old and the thought that there are people out there who'd do something so evil to her makes me physically ill. The thought of a child even being able to bring themselves to something so grotesque makes me want to keep her at home all the time, because children are meant to be innocent and if you can't trust a child then you really can't trust anyone
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've got a three year old. It doesn't stop me from thinking about this rationally though, and it shouldn't stop anyone from thinking about it rationally. Apart from anything, in just seven years' time, my little boy will be the same age as they were when they committed this crime. Still a child.

    Saying "I don't care what anyone says, a 10year old knows better than to do that" is no argument for anything. If someone else disagrees, what have you got to defend your position? Nothing except your gut feeling.

    What I just cannot, for the life of me, get my head around is why people want harsher punishments, greater vengeance, for this crime than they do for lots of other cases. Children are murdered by adults all the time. Children are neglected and abused and left to starve by adults, adults who are supposed to protect them, their parents. Why are the two boys who did this to James Bulger so much worse than that? I just don't understand that, at all. Why are child killers worse than adult ones? Surely that's the wrong way round?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are totally missing my point! I'm not asking for harsher punishments although maybe they could be used as a deterent. But right now we are looking at a case where they deemed a man who murdered AND mutililated a baby to a point where his own mother couldnt identify him and he did this as a child. They tried rehabilitating him but obviously released him too soon because now as a fully grown and "rehabilitated" adult he has reoffended.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ive got a 2 year old, but ive also got a 9 year old and whilst im as sure as i can be that he would never hurt a fly. I know that he doesnt make proper well thought out judgements. He doesnt grasp stuff like consequences very well. Hes very impulsive. Hes just a young child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But this isn't about well thought out judgements or knowing consequences, this is about killing a child. If that isn't bad enough they tortured him. And the part the makes it truly disgusting is the fact that one of them could have easily said "stop" or "that's enough" to the other and James Bulger may not be dead today. It isn't even as if they knew this child and hated him, they picked any random they could. That is what truly disturbs me.

    Impulsive would be taking a child and playing with them, the parents would be scared but the child would be found relatively unharmed. Impulsive would have meant realising what they did was wrong when a woman stopped them to ask why James was crying instead of them lying and saying he was their brother. Impulsive would have been them realising that taking him was wrong and leaving him alone somewhere...alive. What they did wasn't in any way impulsive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When you call what they did "torture" it makes it sound evil. When you recognise they were trying to stop the child from crying by punishing him, you recognise what a terrible upbringing they had.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    im not defending what they did. It was awful. Im just saying they were young children themselves whod been neglected themselves. They did a terrible thing, but its very possible they didnt realise the magnitude of what they were doing. Its not the same as when an adult does something like this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    And the part the makes it truly disgusting is the fact that one of them could have easily said "stop" or "that's enough" to the other and James Bulger may not be dead today.

    I'm not defending what they did but, I don't think this is how group misbehaviour works, I expect it was more the sort of situation where once you've started it's difficult to stop.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    You are totally missing my point! I'm not asking for harsher punishments although maybe they could be used as a deterent. But right now we are looking at a case where they deemed a man who murdered AND mutililated a baby to a point where his own mother couldnt identify him and he did this as a child. They tried rehabilitating him but obviously released him too soon because now as a fully grown and "rehabilitated" adult he has reoffended.

    That assumes it's an issue of time, rather than the methods used to rehabilitate someone. And what usually happens in cases like this is that the rehabilitation seems to come second to appeasing the angry mob, which is also exactly what happened with the trial in the first place. If someone had spent the first half of your childhood with terrible, abusive parents, what would make anyone think the way to rehabilitate them would be to spend the second half behind bars?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its not particularly rare for adults to abuse, torture and kill children unfortunately, but for some reason, it doesnt get as much attention or baying for blood as this case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    When you call what they did "torture" it makes it sound evil. When you recognise they were trying to stop the child from crying by punishing him, you recognise what a terrible upbringing they had.
    Yes, because their parents were so terrible that they gouged Thompson's and Venables eyes out. Please explain how anyone over the age of two believes that will stop a child from crying
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    Yes, because their parents were so terrible that they gouged Thompson's and Venables eyes out. Please explain how anyone over the age of two believes that will stop a child from crying

    because they learnt to stop crying, or 'get something to cry about"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if we accept that what they did was evil, it still raises the question of whether they are essentially evil or whether they (along with everyone) is capable of evil? This then raises the issue of whether we should lock people away from society for the rest of their lives because they are intrinsically evil, or they have commited an evil act, or if we should attempt to rehabilitate people who have performed evil acts because people are not intrinsically evil and can change.
Sign In or Register to comment.