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 ✨
Options
Jamie Bulger
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
There has been a lot of WHOHA in the news recently about releasing the identities of Jamie Bulger's killers to the public, 8 years on.
Are they right to do this? What are your views?
Are they right to do this? What are your views?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hence anonymity is necessary.
I dont know, but they shouldn't. They were only ten at the time and didnt know any better. What started as simple bullying and egging on went too far. They have paid their debt. I doubt they can live with themselves, the guilt must be terrible. I predict that within ten years one or both of them will have committed suicide.
But do you seriously think that a ten year old child is capable of planning and executing a murder?
Here is what probably happened. They wal into the supermarket and start talking to Jamie. They then start daring each other to hurt him in various ways, like all playground bullies do. They pinch him, or flick his ears. Something that at the time they have no idea of what it will lead to. They contiunally egg each other on and one of them dares the other to lead Jamie away. So they do.
They take him to the train track, because at their age a train track is a "forbidden playground". They have no idea that it is dangerous, nor do they care. The egging on in the playground would have stopped by now with some intervention by another child or a teacher. But no one intervenes so they carry on, "upping" the dares until poor Jamie is dead. I'd like to talk to aybody who can prove that they set out from the very beginning with the intention of killing the poor youngster. It is sad game that unfortunately went way too far, and i hope is never again repeated.
As for the anonyminity, Scotland is still governed by British laws and will be unable to print their new identities. It would also be pretty difficult for foreigners to find out as there are only a handful of people who actually know Jamie's killer's new identities. All of these people will probably have to sign some sort of legally binding document forbidding them to reveal any information.
The only problem (apart from wanting to kill themselves) I can see for them in the future is finding employment. For another 2 years at least they will have to admit to any criminal convictions when applying for a job...could be a potential problem.
Join the Army and travel the world, meet new and exciting people and kill them.
while they have been in their institution they have been lazing around playing snooker and video games, a better life than what they had at home. One of them pleaded to stay inside cos he liked it, the other wants out and the first ones changed his mind too.
i think it was venables who just received some diana award for a refermed personality and BTW neither of the 2 have had any contact since conviction and they will never know each other again.
I think they should be released as i have great faith in the british violence system and i am confident they will be discovered.
harry i felt the same as you only i wasnt physically sick,
what these boys did was disgusting and i feel myself 99% sure that thier identities will be found out,
whowhere you go on about corporal punishment and all that bollox well in my opinion these two lads are evil!!
No amount of daring or bullying would ever have made me do something like that EVER!!
At ten years old you know what is right or wrong and i do know half the stuff harry said is right, it makes me so fucking angry thinking about how that poor little innocent boy felt having all that done to him, and grrrr those two evil cunts that killed him should be paying fo what theyve done, not stting about playing computer games and saying they wanna stay in where ever the fuck they are cos its good, it doesnt sound like theyve been punished to me!!
If anyone ever did something like that to one of my family id do everything i could to find out who they were and if it meant going to another country by god id do it, so i could find the little shits!!
MTS ^5
If they really are reformed characters anyway, they'll be dead in ten years from an overdose due to their massive guilt.
I know it seems like a reversal, but my sociology teacher always told me to look at things objectively. But as for this, and after Harry's info, I cant even remain objective. They should have anonyminity, just so they dont sue the government for trauma, but I wont cry when they are found out and lynched for crimes against humanity.
Sorry J9 for appearing insensitive, I was only 10 at the time so I wasnt aware of the full details about what they did. this would be a good point for my "corporal&capital" punishment topic.....
One kid i smacked hard was one in my year (yr 10 at the time), all he did was shove me around for a laugh but after i hit him he was on the ground crying and i couldn't help but feel sorry for him cos i know how he feels, ive been in his position many times and i didn't do anything to provoke it all those times, and i ended up on the floor surrounded. I just felt sorry for the person i hit.
as for the bulger killers, they'll get found out, and j9, maybe i need to adjust your cerebral cortex with my screwdriver, anoniminity?
my fuckin spotty arse.!!
as a sympathetic and empathetic human being, i dont think that these child murderers should be allowed anonymity. they should be publicly declared and then made to regret what they did every minute of their lives when they are hiding in shops from hoards of people trying to kill them in retribution. my reasonable side says that they DO need protecting, for this very reason. they are humans too. it just seems so disgusting they should be allowed to rob a small innocent child of all his opportunities in life and inflict such pain to friends and relatives, and that they should have their human rights revoked for this. i can understand and see the benefits and problems with each option. it is a very difficult problem to solve. how are the general public going to feel and react when they find out their taxes are not going to anythign worthwhile, such as education or health, but to sending these criminals off for a protected life in the sun?
If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else.
I know that it is an emotive topic, and I have my own opinions....
However, the only thing I would like to say on the subject is to provide a quote:
"The quality of a society is measured by its treatment of others, whether they be right or wrong, good or evil"
Can't remember who said it - but I will take the credit (given half the chance <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"> )
In other words, two wrongs don't make a right and the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth should be cast aside.
In a civilised society, if we persecute those who have comitted against us, then we are no better than them. Where would we end up...?
Forgive, but don't forget.
To put it into perspective, 50 million people were killed in the Second World War. Many of these people were tortured and made to suffer in horrendous conditions. But society has moved on and whilst it is not in the uppermost parts of our minds, it will never be forgotten.
This is not meant to be a comparison in any way, and I appreciate that Jamie Bulgar's parents wouldn't exactly accept such a comment as comforting. I am simply offering an alternative consideration.
HAPPY 2001 !
Alan London
j9
I had a life once, but I stopped feeding it so one day it just walked away.
MTS ^5
if i was a mother though and my child did something like that id be so ashamed and disgraced that i had brought such an evil little fucker in to the world i wouldnt want anything to do with them ever again!
MTS ^5
i agree with you on that point j9. jamie bulger's dad has gone on record saying he'll kill the boys who murdered his son a number of times hasnt he? he has a wife and children so a murder trial for him obviously wouldnt be a good thing...
If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up somewhere else.
i know that sounds harsh and awful but its how strongly i feel about people commit such crimes. the boys identities should be released and they should have to live with what they've done for the rest of their lives - its what they deserve. i don't believe that crap about they didn't know what they were doing coz they were only 10 or whatever. when i was 10 i never would have killed anyone coz i wasn't a disturbed freak. i just feel sorry for bulger's poor parents, they can't ever escape it so why should the killers?
i'm not denying that women are stupid; God made us to match the men.
And their parents would kill you. And probably the child in question because it was (in their eyes) all the child's fault.
In light of the recent news, I have serious doubts about whether or not they should ever be released. At least on of them is still mentally disturbed and should go the way of the dodo.
Sorry but this is is simplistic, humanist nonsense.
Firstly, it's not a case of an "an eye for an eye" etc. That means society would kill murderers in the same way as they murdered, rapists would be raped themselves etc (as was done in biblical days hence the expression). We don't don't punish criminals like that.
Criminals know exactly the consequences of their actions but are prepared to take the risk. They deserve all they get. So it is foolish to say "we are no better than them" when we hand out the punishments that they know they will receive for breaking the law.
It took the killers of Jamie just minutes to coerce him away from the shopping centre so previous arguments that the boys initially just bullied him for a while before deciding on leading him away are a little thin ... within minutes, they had identified their prey and tempted him away. This was premeditated. They crushed his body with rocks, beat him about with sticks, forced back his foreskin until it bled and then put his body on a railway line to be torn in half so as to give the impression that he was killed by a train. They knew that what they were doing was a crime - and even tried to fabricate the evidence.
Yes, 10 year olds can be as wicked as any adult. What they lacked was the finesse required to get away with the crime.
The Bulger incident is extremely unique, horrific and bewildering, and therefore it is unwise to make generalisations from this type of crime (different to what we would normally define as crime imo, too bizarre and extreme) to other more mundane forms. Crime is in fact an issue for society, rooted in society and in the way it organises itself. That event was outside that context, so hence I feel it is wrong to generalise here. That is however what you do.
As I said, apologies if you meant it only in this context (but then why state it there - highly debatable that even if evil did the entities under discussion here consider the consequences in that sense), but it appears to indicate a more deeply / widely held opinion. Forgive me, but this is a vast (and naive) oversimplification of the issues. As I have already said, crime is part of every society (not something that simply happens around it) and is something which is caused by the problems in society. Violence and murder, burglary, shoplifting, drugs usage, car theft, are all rooted in the problems of our society. Poverty, breakdown in communities, people's disenfranchisement from society and the democratic processes that govern it, lack of education and lack of expectations are things that I believe almost everybody (everyone?) who studies the issues agrees are the principal, if not the only, causes of crime.
Note that I have used the term 'society' here to include crime and criminals, because I define a society to include everyone that interacts together and lives alongside each other. If you prefer to define society by those who live 'within the law' (almost nobody, if you include traffic offences etc. lol) and hence exclude criminals, the points made here still stand. In this case society not only still contains the problems which cause crime, but also excludes and targets the symptoms - the people who are the victims of society's failure.
I have said all this, though slightly off topic, because it worries me that people perceive the issues to be those of how to 'scare off' people from crime with more barbaric forms of punishment. Don't attack the symptoms; attack the causes and work to change our society.
If there's one approach that will never solve anything, it's that of fear of pain or revenge. That technique has (for an obvious example) been employed by many branches of Christianity throughout the ages; people have never sinned any differently or any less than they do now. In fact that approach tends to create more problems by making people's lives harder and allowing the underlying problems to go untreated, or worsen. It's no coincidence that in better off areas, with higher standards of living and education, crime rates are much lower (and I'm not talking about the posh end of the chattering classes 'better off' lifestyle there).
Like I said - attack the most damaged sections of society, and you alienate the people while allowing the problems to recur there and elsewhere. To reduce crime, work to reform and improve society. This is of course a huge task and a complicated one. The government has only a proportion of the power in our society. The media, and increasingly business, play probably just as big a role. Pity they're only out for themselves.
I apologise for my generalisation but I felt Alan London's post was simplistic too. He said "In a civilised society, if we persecute those who have comitted against us, then we are no better than them". I have no criminal record for murder, theft, rape etc. So, why am I no better than the criminal? Sure, I might overstep society's boundaries from time to time but I quickly readjust to fall back within the lines again because I realise my obligations to that society.
Certainly, the Bulger killers are a special instance. It was their lack of maturity that made them fail to realise the repercussions of their actions but don't be mislead into thinking that they did not understand what they were doing. Transcripts of their interrogation reveal that they were completely aware of their actions - even if they did blame each other for goading them on. Now, I'm not advocating locking them up for life or anything. I'd love to see them rehabilitated successfully but human nature has a rather discouraging habit of letting us down ...
I think your ideals and arguments are very noble but I am not so sure that they are achievable. There will always be a percentage who will commit crimes regardless of society's reforms and I believe that the majority should be spared the actions of the criminal minority by whatever means possible.
1. You wilfully misunderstand what Alan said <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">...
What he said is "if we persecute them" then we're no better, and in many ways he is right. Simply hurting someone who hurt you doesn't make it better - and won't stop them doing it again. The prisons with the best results (low reoffence rate etc) are almost always the ones which attempt to rehabilitate and change the offenders rather than those which seek to punish and oppress them. Also by simply persecuting offenders you fail to stop others offending - and hence are partially reponsible for their crime too.
On a different note, how is someone "better" than someone else - imo a dangerous concept when stated without a context (ie. as an absolute). Question is... if you had lived their life, would you have done any better? Sometimes yes, sometimes no: offenders tend to have a lot of pain and problems of their own. Upbringing and experience as a child makes or breaks you, and most criminals are in some way broken or damaged, or living broken lives.
2.
What a defeatist, cop-out attitude and statement. So the difference between say, 500 and 10000 violent crimes a year in England wouldn't matter to you? If the attitude is, "Lock them away, punish or kill them, keep them away from us. They are fundamentally different to us and we don't want to know about or see them," (spared by whatever means possible) then what may I ask will make people tackle the problems? People have to confront the malaise in our society and the pain. You can't stop it by removing the symptoms. If you tried to lock up permanently everyone who committed a crime, you would:
a) Probably convict a lot of innocent ppl and create an attitude of intolerance to ppl's situations.
b) Break up a lot of families.
c) Reduce the work force.
d) Have to spend ridiculous amounts of money.
e) Fail to solve the problem: if the problems are still there, new people will be damaged or corrupted by our society, and it will all recur.
Also what would you do with "hidden" problems such as violence in the home? For one thing, violence of this kind is almost always perpetrated by victims of violence or neglect who can't cope with helping themselves to be happier, let alone learning what it is to love and live non-violently. This mostly goes undetected or ignored, especially by traditional "lock 'em up" programs.
In the end, our society creates its own problems, destroying lives as it does so, whether they be those of the victim or perpetrator (likely also a victim). Wealthier members of our society, who typically commit less crime, in general also condone the problems of society by living lives and following ideas that widen the poverty gap, strengthening the (relative) rich while disenfranchising the (relative) poor. They take the small localised view that because they do not 'commit crime' themselves, they are therefore completely blameless for the crime in our society. It is not so. Everybody and everything is interlinked, and to deny that you have an effect on crime (and poverty etc) by what you say, the beliefs you hold and the way you live is either stupid, naive, or an inability to cope with the difficulties and unpleasantness.
Perhaps it is unfair to criticise people for just wanting what our society also promotes: Personal wealth and gratification, to be 'better' than others (ie. beating others through the jobs you get, the place you live etc.), and simply 'to be allowed to live your life how you want to'. But this is at the core of our society's sickness - people believe that it is both morally right and our natural right, to be self serving and greedy (for what else did I just describe?), and that little else matters. I am not saying simply 'people believe [on a conscious level] that it is morally right to be greedy' - because that is not what I said, merely the logical conclusion from the way they live, and believe they should live, their lives. Yet another illustration of what is wrong with our society, n'est ce pas?
It may be natural to be greedy and self serving - it works well in a chaotic genetic evolutionary situation - but it is not for the best for the human race or for a majority of individuals within any society. Humanity does not evolve in this traditional form of evolution anymore, and soon may be able to choose how to evolve genetically. I pray that before technology gets that far, people do start to live and believe differently, or we could see the biggest divisions created in society since slavery. I really wish that people were able to step back and realise that what is good for their own self-gratification will not often help others, or their children's children's children (and so forth).
This is one reason why I think people should in the end prefer the Labour party to the Tories, especially at the moment, with Hague casting around desperately for pegs such as race issues on which to hang his coat. Labour do at least realise that these problems are not as simple as punishing criminals, they do realise it is not simply an issue of wealth redistribution, and they do recognise and put forward the view that everything in society is related. Their main failure has been to find a solution to how to deal with these problems. But then wtf would you do lol? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> They have limited resources, are constrained by their position (e.g. criticise the media's position, that of wealthy people or that of big business and they will lose their funding and support), and the problems are huge. Noone has found a solution anywhere yet, but at least they are beginning to realise there may be one to look for.
(I should go onto a new thread really shouldn't I lol).
[This message has been edited by JB (edited 17-01-2001).]
I suppose that you and I just have different opinions (and I would be the first to admit that mine are probably wrong - your posts always seem very cool and sensible) but I am not convinced that the majority of criminals commit crimes due to their background. Perhaps my views will change over time.
Warm regards.
J@ke
I would have to agree here with J@ke, There is a common myth that many child molester were themselves abused as children, are emotionally disturbed, and that they are not responsible for their behaviour.
It is documented by professionals on this subject that yes these sick bastards are emotionally disturbed, but at no time are they rendered incapable of assuming responsibility for thier actions.
life is all about cause and effect, every action one takes has an equally powerfull effect, and that is what seperates, honest, caring law abiding citizens from scum who destroy lives.
The only time when I truly believe that someone is incapable of seperating right from wrong, is serious mental illnesses, I have spent time in hospital with people with these problems, and yes it's scary when they coldly look you in the eye and tell you they are going to kill you. But all you can do is keep telling yourself that it's just the illness, getting control of what is naturally a nice person. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/frown.gif">
whenever this topic of crime and punishment or child abuse comes up, it's always about what the offender deserves, everyone forgets, there is always a victim <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/frown.gif"> <tear> aren't they more important than the offender ???.
Luka
The river is wide and oh so deep. I've been walking around in tears, No answers arethere to get. Cause between this world and eternity there is a face I hope to see
As for your other point, I never said they bore no responsibility for their actions - everybody can always choose, unless as you say they are insane. BUT. People are imperfect and make mistakes in the best of circumstances. Everyone loses control when they shouldn't at times in a variety of situations.
As you acknowledge, it is generally known that criminals are emotionally disturbed in some way. They are therefore LESS responsible (not irresponsible) for their actions, and if they had led happier, more supported lives, things would have been far less likely to lead to their offence(s). YES they gave / give in to some sick, twisted and damaged part of their pysche, NO this was not inevitable and predetermined. Hence I was not absolving them from blame, merely saying that through a wider, deeper approach to crime, punishment and society, it is possible to vastly reduce these crimes.
Your comment on what seperates law abiding people and criminals is also too simplistic and comes from experience of a particular type of crime and abuse, which is understandable. There are always shades of grey and crime is no exception. There is such a huge number of people who, through the way they live their lives, cause pain and suffering to those around them, yet never do anything that causes them to be classified as criminal. Much treatment of women (sexual, physical and emotional) which even 20 years ago was ignored by mainstream society is now becoming recognised as criminal (e.g. marital rape) but is still largely a suppressed issue.
Similarly violence and drunkeness and neglect within homes and families is a problem we are only beginning to scratch the surface of. I have seen people with good jobs who are well respected, who you then find out have beaten their wives and been left with emotionally damaged children - yet no one realised for years and years. But why did these things happen: because they had been emotionally damaged themselves, could not express their feelings or control their anger. With therapy and treatment I have also seen people learn to cope with their problems and become better people - but in a better society it would never have happened in the first place. These problems are addressable and widespread, and classifying people with problems simply as criminal and saying they are basically dishonest and uncaring will NOT stop their problems recurring with others in the long run.
it's just wrong to let them out, they have proven themselves unworthy of functioning in todays society, and our legal system needs to start focusing on protecting the innocent rather than the criminals!
This really gets to me, Jamie was robbed of his whole life, and now the killers are getting brand new lives...it makes no logical sense to me...
"Follow the summer along the coast and surf the waves to happiness!"
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!!!!!!!!!! and never shows up again <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/frown.gif">
Look into these tired eyes. See something you might recognise.
How wrong is this?! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/mad.gif">
He got a Playstation 2 for Christmas!
Is this how we treat murderers in this country? What's next? Is Myra Hindley to go and meet Mickey Mouse on an all expenses paid trip to Florida? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/mad.gif">
I am not Jesus, though I have the same initals.