View Full Version : 11 year old American- Life in prison with no chance of parole
bbfan1991
27-01-2011, 09:01 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/youngest-american-life-without-parole/#
Thoughts?:)
Smithy
27-01-2011, 09:02 PM
seems right to me
Ninastar
27-01-2011, 09:06 PM
seems right to me
this
GypsyGoth
27-01-2011, 09:07 PM
this
that
I think it's wrong, you cant treat kids differently in every single respect throughout society and then treat him no differently than an adult in the justice system. You cant and shouldnt compare a child murderer to an adult murderer imo..
Ninastar
27-01-2011, 09:13 PM
I think it's wrong, you cant treat kids differently in every single respect throughout society and then treat him no differently than an adult in the justice system. You cant and shouldnt compare a child murderer to an adult murderer imo..
I'm pretty sure they both know what they are doing though.
End a life you should get life.
Jk lol I don't see things that black and white. The kid was eleven. He could have been helped and rehabilitated through extensive mental therapy to mould him into a functionable member of society. There was plenty of time. What's not to say he had a horrible upbringing and could have changed completely in a few years? It happens to drug addicts doesn't it? It happens to grown men and women when they 'find god' in the space of a day at the truck stop.
I'm pretty sure they both know what they are doing though.
Yeah they both known in the visceral, immediate sense that they are ending a life ... but the difference in implications and world view etc between an adult and a child are endless.
Your brain doesn't stop developing at eleven, you know. Eleven year olds don't represent the current apex of human thought and understanding.
InOne
27-01-2011, 09:21 PM
Probably only right. The kid is 13 now and if he is showing no signs of remorse he won't change. He's best kept away from Society
Jessica.
27-01-2011, 09:22 PM
seems right to me
This.
I'm pretty sure they both know what they are doing though.
Maybe but I dont think you can trust an 11 year old to fully understand life and the consequences of their actions as well as an adult can. They're young, naive, stupid and impressionable and cant assess situations the same way an adult can. They also have a far better chance of being able to turn their lives around than adults can and I dont think it's possible to say that because he killed someone at 11 you can just mark him down as an evil murderer for life.
Ninastar
27-01-2011, 09:23 PM
End a life you should get life.
Jk lol I don't see things that black and white. The kid was eleven. He could have been helped and rehabilitated through extensive mental therapy to mould him into a functionable member of society. There was plenty of time. What's not to say he had a horrible upbringing and could have changed completely in a few years? It happens to drug addicts doesn't it? It happens to grown men and women when they 'find god' in the space of a day at the truck stop.
Yeah they both known in the visceral, immediate sense that they are ending a life ... but the difference in implications and world view etc between an adult and a child are endless.
Your brain doesn't stop developing at eleven, you know. Eleven year olds don't represent the current apex of human thought and understanding.
You have a point, but I still believe he deserves life imprisonment
End a life you should get life.
Jk lol I don't see things that black and white. The kid was eleven. He could have been helped and rehabilitated through extensive mental therapy to mould him into a functionable member of society. There was plenty of time. What's not to say he had a horrible upbringing and could have changed completely in a few years? It happens to drug addicts doesn't it? It happens to grown men and women when they 'find god' in the space of a day at the truck stop.
Yeah they both known in the visceral, immediate sense that they are ending a life ... but the difference in implications and world view etc between an adult and a child are endless.
Your brain doesn't stop developing at eleven, you know. Eleven year olds don't represent the current apex of human thought and understanding.
Yeah, I agree with this
ILoveTRW
27-01-2011, 09:46 PM
Death penalty would be more deserving.
Angus
27-01-2011, 10:01 PM
Jon Venables is a living testament as to how a vicious 10 year old child killer, despite being given every chance of rehabilitation, and every help in establishing a new identity and a new life, grows up and continues to offend, secure in the knowledge that our pathetic justice system will continue to make excuses for him, and do gooders will continue to fall over themselves to "explain" his despicable crimes and offer him "rehabilitation".
I doubt Jamie Bulger's parents give a rat's behind as to whether the two scumbags who killed their 2 year old son without an ounce of compassion or remorse, "turn their lives around".
Fetch The Bolt Cutters
27-01-2011, 10:06 PM
another joyful post from angus
Patrick
27-01-2011, 10:11 PM
Suicide is the only way out.
No honestly, if I was in that position that's what I'd do.
Those damn do gooders! Always trying to do good!
Jon Venables is a living testament as to how a vicious 10 year old child killer, despite being given every chance of rehabilitation, and every help in establishing a new identity and a new life, grows up and continues to offend, secure in the knowledge that our pathetic justice system will continue to make excuses for him, and do gooders will continue to fall over themselves to "explain" his despicable crimes and offer him "rehabilitation".
I doubt Jamie Bulger's parents give a rat's behind as to whether the two scumbags who killed their 2 year old son without an ounce of compassion or remorse, "turn their lives around".
Obviously rehabilitation is possible, even more so in the cases of children, and all actions can be explained, it is of great benefit to us all to try and better understand why people commit the crimes they do.
Those damn do gooders! Always trying to do good!
:joker:
Shasown
27-01-2011, 10:45 PM
Jon Venables is a living testament as to how a vicious 10 year old child killer, despite being given every chance of rehabilitation, and every help in establishing a new identity and a new life, grows up and continues to offend, secure in the knowledge that our pathetic justice system will continue to make excuses for him, and do gooders will continue to fall over themselves to "explain" his despicable crimes and offer him "rehabilitation".
I doubt Jamie Bulger's parents give a rat's behind as to whether the two scumbags who killed their 2 year old son without an ounce of compassion or remorse, "turn their lives around".
I take it from that post you are a glass half empty type of person eh?
You could look at it from another angle and say so far the rehabilitators in this case had a 50% success rate.
Bearing in mind when he comes up for early release after serving half of his two year term later this year, the Parole Board have to evaluate first his rehabilitation on the child porn charges, and then if his life licence should be reinstalled.
InOne
27-01-2011, 11:16 PM
Well I'm sure he will be closely watched, and they know the signs to look out for. There isn't really that much information on the case or his upbringing, or what he's done for two years. The the fact he pleaded "not guilty" surely says something. If he's in for say 20 years and let out it could end up even worse.
seems right to me
this
that
Probably only right. The kid is 13 now and if he is showing no signs of remorse he won't change. He's best kept away from Society
This.
These
Well I'm sure he will be closely watched, and they know the signs to look out for. There isn't really that much information on the case or his upbringing, or what he's done for two years. The the fact he pleaded "not guilty" surely says something. If he's in for say 20 years and let out it could end up even worse.
I imagine he didn't handle his own legal case.
InOne
27-01-2011, 11:49 PM
I imagine he didn't handle his own legal case.
Seems an odd plea though, why would they let him? That is the reason why he got life. Obviously he didn't handle it all himself but he must've made the decision to go with that even if it was against their will.
Couldn't tell you, TBH. His legal team obviously thought he might have gotten away with it or that the sentencing could have went different or something. I didn't follow the case so I can't say for sure.
Tis happened before though.
Beastie
28-01-2011, 12:04 AM
He should have pleaded guilty to the case if he actually did it. Mmm.. life imprisonment for an 11 year old does sound harsh. However.. when is the age for a child to know the difference between right or wrong?? I think most children know the difference between right and wrong at the age of 10. 10 is when you can get an Asbo. It depends how he was brought up though. I was lucky to be brought up okay.
It's the curcumstances of how and why he shot his father's pregnant fiance. However like someone just posted.. after 2 years of this terrible crime he is showing no remorse? Seems like he knew what he was doing then and shouldn't be let out.
At 11 he should be in a rehabilitation centre. At 18 they should retrial him or something. Depending how he is at 18 should determine how long he gets in prison. If he shows NO remorse what so ever then when he is 18 he should be then sentenced to life imprisonment. If at 18, and over the years since he was 11 he has been looked at and analysed carefully and is a changed man then his jail sentece should be shorter.
Rehabilitation and extensive mental therapy and all that is what he needs now.
InOne
28-01-2011, 12:06 AM
Apprently he was jealous of the fiance and her kids.
Beastie
28-01-2011, 12:09 AM
Apprently he was jealous of the fiance and her kids.
Oh damn. I am not surprised he was jealous. He shot the fiance in a moment of anger. Well he obviously planned to kill her out of anger but needs to be taught that is not what you do when you are angry with someone. At 13 he is showing no remorse and has not learnt that it was wrong to kill his father's fiance. Has he even said sorry yet?? From the looks of things looks like it may be life imprisonment after all. I hope the workers in the rehabilitation centre, psychiatrists and mental health therapists are doing all they can to change him. There is only so much you can do. And if at 18 he is still an arrogant sod with no remorse then he deserves life imprisonment.
He has a chance to change himself NOW.
There's very little info on the case for us to make a judgement tbh
InOne
28-01-2011, 12:19 AM
There's very little info on the case for us to make a judgement tbh
But seen as we're here we may as well :tongue:
But seen as we're here we may as well :tongue:
True :laugh: But where does it say that he hasnt showed any remorse, I couldnt see it mentioned in the article, or did it say somewhere else?
InOne
28-01-2011, 12:37 AM
True :laugh: But where does it say that he hasnt showed any remorse, I couldnt see it mentioned in the article, or did it say somewhere else?
It's the fact he pleaded "not guilty" which sorta spelt out to the judge he showed no remorse. And he's been there for 2 years, so he must've talked to therapists and that. Also the nature of the crime, cold and callous.
Beastie
28-01-2011, 12:37 AM
There's very little info on the case for us to make a judgement tbh
This. I am just making a judgement on what we know though.
BB_Eye
28-01-2011, 12:48 AM
Jon Venables is a living testament as to how a vicious 10 year old child killer, despite being given every chance of rehabilitation, and every help in establishing a new identity and a new life, grows up and continues to offend, secure in the knowledge that our pathetic justice system will continue to make excuses for him, and do gooders will continue to fall over themselves to "explain" his despicable crimes and offer him "rehabilitation".
I doubt Jamie Bulger's parents give a rat's behind as to whether the two scumbags who killed their 2 year old son without an ounce of compassion or remorse, "turn their lives around".
Venables was a neglected child getting a 15 year jail sentence in an adult court... after pleading guilty at that. What more do you want? Should they have had him hung, drawn and quartered?
Nobody of his age before him was convicted in such a way without the prosecution first being required to prove that a person under the age of 14 can be deemed a culpable in the eyes of the law (doli incapax). This was the only reason they were able to scrape so much as a 10 year minimum sentence for him in the first place. We have media pressure from the gutter press to thank for the additional 5.
The very idea that an 11 year old has the capacity to freely choose between right and wrong is absurd anyhow. People are not born evil and most certainly can never become calculating psychopaths until late adolescence. It's every bit as absurd and dangerous as suggesting that a minor can consent to sex. Such is Britain's national fixation with punishing and mollycoddling children in equal measure.
Indeed, there is something to be learned from Venables re-offending after his release. That throwing children into prison is completely inadequete as both a deterrant and a method of rehabilitation.
It's the fact he pleaded "not guilty" which sorta spelt out to the judge he showed no remorse. And he's been there for 2 years, so he must've talked to therapists and that. Also the nature of the crime, cold and callous.
Hmm true, although his lawyers may well have advised that plea thinking there was not enough evidence or something like that.
Venables was a neglected child getting a 15 year jail sentence in an adult court... after pleading guilty at that. What more do you want? Should they have had him hung, drawn and quartered?
Nobody of his age before him was convicted in such a way without the prosecution first being required to prove that a person under the age of 14 can be deemed a culpable in the eyes of the law (doli incapax). This was the only reason they were able to scrape so much as a 10 year minimum sentence for him in the first place. We have media pressure from the gutter press to thank for the additional 5.
The very idea that an 11 year old has the capacity to freely choose between right and wrong is absurd anyhow. People are not born evil and most certainly can never become calculating psychopaths until late adolescence. It's every bit as absurd and dangerous as suggesting that a minor can consent to sex. Such is Britain's national fixation with punishing and mollycoddling children in equal measure.
Indeed, there is something to be learned from Venables re-offending after his release. That throwing children into prison is completely inadequete as both a deterrant and a method of rehabilitation.
Excellent post
Angus
28-01-2011, 07:22 AM
I take it from that post you are a glass half empty type of person eh?
You could look at it from another angle and say so far the rehabilitators in this case had a 50% success rate.
Bearing in mind when he comes up for early release after serving half of his two year term later this year, the Parole Board have to evaluate first his rehabilitation on the child porn charges, and then if his life licence should be reinstalled.
No I would say they caught the little b*stard before he got around to actually abducting another child and perhaps killing again. I would say it's a 100% fail. He had the benefit of years of psychiatric evaluation and treatment and every educational opportunity, not to mention the mollycoddling he got inside because of his age. The Parole Board have no right to be gambling with the welfare of his potential victims if they get it wrong again.
Angus
28-01-2011, 07:32 AM
another joyful post from angus
If you want chat, games and frivolity, you're on the wrong thread:pat:
Angus
28-01-2011, 07:35 AM
Those damn do gooders! Always trying to do good!
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
InOne
28-01-2011, 11:03 AM
Venables was a neglected child getting a 15 year jail sentence in an adult court... after pleading guilty at that. What more do you want? Should they have had him hung, drawn and quartered?
Nobody of his age before him was convicted in such a way without the prosecution first being required to prove that a person under the age of 14 can be deemed a culpable in the eyes of the law (doli incapax). This was the only reason they were able to scrape so much as a 10 year minimum sentence for him in the first place. We have media pressure from the gutter press to thank for the additional 5.
The very idea that an 11 year old has the capacity to freely choose between right and wrong is absurd anyhow. People are not born evil and most certainly can never become calculating psychopaths until late adolescence. It's every bit as absurd and dangerous as suggesting that a minor can consent to sex. Such is Britain's national fixation with punishing and mollycoddling children in equal measure.
Indeed, there is something to be learned from Venables re-offending after his release. That throwing children into prison is completely inadequete as both a deterrant and a method of rehabilitation.
Not always true. Think of Mary Bell.
Niamh.
28-01-2011, 11:16 AM
Oh damn. I am not surprised he was jealous. He shot the fiance in a moment of anger. Well he obviously planned to kill her out of anger but needs to be taught that is not what you do when you are angry with someone. At 13 he is showing no remorse and has not learnt that it was wrong to kill his father's fiance. Has he even said sorry yet?? From the looks of things looks like it may be life imprisonment after all. I hope the workers in the rehabilitation centre, psychiatrists and mental health therapists are doing all they can to change him. There is only so much you can do. And if at 18 he is still an arrogant sod with no remorse then he deserves life imprisonment.
He has a chance to change himself NOW.
He has a chance, unfortunately the two people he killed have no more chances. That is my main problem with rehabilitation, especially in adults, why should they be given the right to change and turn their life around when they've taken someone elses life away? Now ok maybe for an 11 year old the same rules shouldn't apply but If he ever really was properly rehabilitated how would he ever live with he had done?
InOne
28-01-2011, 11:18 AM
That is why they should be allowed to diagnose Children as Psychopaths, at the moment it's not allowed.
lostalex
28-01-2011, 12:42 PM
The kid hasn't even been convicted yet, let alone been sentenced. This thread is very misleading.
Tom4784
28-01-2011, 02:47 PM
Venables was a neglected child getting a 15 year jail sentence in an adult court... after pleading guilty at that. What more do you want? Should they have had him hung, drawn and quartered?
Nobody of his age before him was convicted in such a way without the prosecution first being required to prove that a person under the age of 14 can be deemed a culpable in the eyes of the law (doli incapax). This was the only reason they were able to scrape so much as a 10 year minimum sentence for him in the first place. We have media pressure from the gutter press to thank for the additional 5.
The very idea that an 11 year old has the capacity to freely choose between right and wrong is absurd anyhow. People are not born evil and most certainly can never become calculating psychopaths until late adolescence. It's every bit as absurd and dangerous as suggesting that a minor can consent to sex. Such is Britain's national fixation with punishing and mollycoddling children in equal measure.
Indeed, there is something to be learned from Venables re-offending after his release. That throwing children into prison is completely inadequete as both a deterrant and a method of rehabilitation.
I agree with this post but mainly the bolded point.
It's a difficult case though, on one hand a life sentence for a child seems wrong yet he's completely unrepentant for his crimes. Maybe give him a long sentence but in a Mental Health facility? I'm not sure. Every solution feels wrong with this one.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
And tired old phrases are the height of it, you virtuoso?
That is my main problem with rehabilitation, especially in adults, why should they be given the right to change and turn their life around when they've taken someone elses life away?
Because somehting positive could come out of it? Because if it is possible - and stripping hyper emotional vengeance and redemption yearnings out of the way - it's much better to rehabilitate someone into a helpful, remorseful member of society than to just put them in a small enclosed area for the rest of their lives?
This stirct, non compromising eye for an eye attitude when it comes to people views on the justice system never ceases to amaze me.
arista
28-01-2011, 06:08 PM
The kid hasn't even been convicted yet, let alone been sentenced. This thread is very misleading.
Then the heading needs editing.
Feel The Force.
Niamh.
28-01-2011, 07:29 PM
And tired old phrases are the height of it, you virtuoso?
Because somehting positive could come out of it? Because if it is possible - and stripping hyper emotional vengeance and redemption yearnings out of the way - it's much better to rehabilitate someone into a helpful, remorseful member of society than to just put them in a small enclosed area for the rest of their lives?
This stirct, non compromising eye for an eye attitude when it comes to people views on the justice system never ceases to amaze me.
I'm pretty sure if it was a relative/friend of yours murdered, your kind and helpful attitude towards the person who did it may change a bit. Good for you for being so forgiving, I'm not.
I'm pretty sure if it was a relative/friend of yours murdered, your kind and helpful attitude towards the person who did it may change a bit. Good for you for being so forgiving, I'm not.
What a boring old card to play.
Don't be so assumptive in your quest to demand we all exhibit the same redemptive pattern as you. People can change and as long as a sufficient period of punishment was served then in certain cases I would have no problem with someone attempting to turn their life around.
I'm not saying I would hand a child rapist serial killer his freedom on a silver platter and a lenghty session with a psychiatrist. A relatively ordinary person who made the horrible mistake of killing someone and has since served the time? Sure.
Niamh.
28-01-2011, 07:47 PM
What a boring old card to play.
Don't be so assumptive in your quest to demand we all exhibit the same redemptive pattern as you. People can change and as long as a sufficient period of punishment was served then in certain cases I would have no problem with someone attempting to turn their life around.
I'm not saying I would hand a child rapist serial killer his freedom on a silver platter and a lenghty session with a psychiatrist. A relatively ordinary person who made the horrible mistake of killing someone and has since served the time? Sure.
I haven't demanded anything Stu, I simply said that you may feel different if you were close to a victim of a murder which I believe is a fair point to make. If you don't think that would make you feel any different fine I take your word for it but I know I wouldn't be happy about hearing my loved ones murderer is walking the streets and rehabilitated, maybe that makes me a bad person but it's the way I feel about it.
Shaun
28-01-2011, 07:51 PM
I'm pretty sure if it was a relative/friend of yours murdered, your kind and helpful attitude towards the person who did it may change a bit. Good for you for being so forgiving, I'm not.
My cousin was stabbed to death. Do I want the perpetrator executed? No.
Much of my family do...but they're...dare I say...of the "punish first, ask later" mentality. I hesitate to use the equally predictable "an eye for an eye leaves us all blind" quote, but there's really no use in killing an 11 year old child.
Ask yourself - did you have a firm grasp on right and wrong at that age? I'm not defending him - but this was more than likely not done in cold blood, it was more than likely a heat-of-the-moment thing.
It just seems so prehistoric to go on screaming for the death penalty. I thought we were more civilised than that.
Niamh.
28-01-2011, 07:55 PM
My cousin was stabbed to death. Do I want the perpetrator executed? No.
Much of my family do...but they're...dare I say...of the "punish first, ask later" mentality. I hesitate to use the equally predictable "an eye for an eye leaves us all blind" quote, but there's really no use in killing an 11 year old child.
Ask yourself - did you have a firm grasp on right and wrong at that age? I'm not defending him - but this was more than likely not done in cold blood, it was more than likely a heat-of-the-moment thing.
It just seems so prehistoric to go on screaming for the death penalty. I thought we were more civilised than that.
Well first of all I never even mentioned executing anyone and secondly I did say in my first post that I wasn't sure about an 11 year old, I was just talking about rehabilitation in adults, this case is unusual and I really don't know what I think about it tbh cos he's so young.
on a side note, I never knew that about your cousin, that's awful :(
Shaun
28-01-2011, 08:05 PM
I didn't mean to kill the debate with something personal and sensitive LOL
And ah, I mistook you for those who did, sorry :p
Zippy
28-01-2011, 08:07 PM
Utterly ridiculous to impose that kind of sentence on a child that young. Shows a total lack of humanity.
If anybody can be rehabilitated its a young child. He could potentially go on to be a positive force in society with proper guidance and education. Why waste two lives when one can be salvaged?
And I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. If guilty he should serve a lengthy sentence. But forever is one hell of a long time and I see no need for it. A very bad child can make a very good adult.
Niamh.
28-01-2011, 08:12 PM
I didn't mean to kill the debate with something personal and sensitive LOL
And ah, I mistook you for those who did, sorry :p
well, having gone through something like this on the victims side it's good to hear your feelings on it, I'm only guessing how I may or may not feel in that situation
bananarama
28-01-2011, 08:20 PM
Firstly lets get rid of the sentimental twaddle about him being young, poor thing to young to realize and so and so.....Utter twaddle...
11 years old......Indeed old enough to know what he was doing
An adult crime deserves an adult sentence. Just what this crime riddled drugs mania country needs.
Those that mutter on about rehabilitation. Why oh why should society spend any more money on a cold blooded killer when other more deserving parts of society are crying out for money....
Society should not even wast public money on long jail sentences.....There are deserving people who need services to be spent on them instead of being wasted on trash......
Zippy
28-01-2011, 08:29 PM
Firstly lets get rid of the sentimental twaddle about him being young, poor thing to young to realize and so and so.....Utter twaddle...
11 years old......Indeed old enough to know what he was doing
An adult crime deserves an adult sentence. Just what this crime riddled drugs mania country needs.
Those that mutter on about rehabilitation. Why oh why should society spend any more money on a cold blooded killer when other more deserving parts of society are crying out for money....
Society should not even wast public money on long jail sentences.....There are deserving people who need services to be spent on them instead of being wasted on trash......
right wing BS
and ignorant. adult sentence? potentially 90 years. Yep thats adult alright!
Tom4784
28-01-2011, 08:31 PM
Firstly lets get rid of the sentimental twaddle about him being young, poor thing to young to realize and so and so.....Utter twaddle...
11 years old......Indeed old enough to know what he was doing
An adult crime deserves an adult sentence. Just what this crime riddled drugs mania country needs.
Those that mutter on about rehabilitation. Why oh why should society spend any more money on a cold blooded killer when other more deserving parts of society are crying out for money....
Society should not even wast public money on long jail sentences.....There are deserving people who need services to be spent on them instead of being wasted on trash......
Yes! Let's not bother wasting money on trials either! We can just execute anyone suspected of a crime. They probably did it anyway right? Kill them all I say, that'll definitely work.
InOne
29-01-2011, 12:28 AM
Have some post been deleted in this thread?
Firstly lets get rid of the sentimental twaddle about him being young, poor thing to young to realize and so and so.....Utter twaddle...
11 years old......Indeed old enough to know what he was doing
An adult crime deserves an adult sentence. Just what this crime riddled drugs mania country needs.
Those that mutter on about rehabilitation. Why oh why should society spend any more money on a cold blooded killer when other more deserving parts of society are crying out for money....
Society should not even wast public money on long jail sentences.....There are deserving people who need services to be spent on them instead of being wasted on trash......
Execution costs the state far more than life imprisonment. I believe you have been told this multiple times before by various members whom you have choosen to ignore.
Maybe you stopped developing at 11 but the rest of us didn't.
InOne
29-01-2011, 10:57 AM
I think 11 is a reasonable age to know what you're doing, some people are going on like he was 5 at the time or something. Has it said if he has shown remorse or anything? But I don't think if you are a definite danger to society you should not be let out, no matter what age you commited the crime. And this is no ordinary crime
Of course he knew what he was doing. Why do I get the feeling I will be explaining this ad nauseam for the rest of my life?
An eleven year old might know they are killing someone. But that's just the physical action and simplistic, child like, presumably angry mindset that led to it. A conscious, reflective understanding and contemplation of the crime though would be vastly different.
A human brain has not even begun maturing at eleven. I don't care what anybody says and I don't need to explain that. That said I will stress again that I am talking in general terms here. Maybe he is a psychopath who will never show remorse.
Then again ... maybe between now and his eighteenth birthday things could change quite drastically and we could make him understand instead of just keeping him gaga and throwing away the key. I'm personally very interested in the could and believe it is worth a shot. It's not as if he will be released anyway at eighteen or whatever age if the rehabilitation is a dismal faliure. But it's worth trying. It's this baseless, Daily Mailized eye for an eye attitude people apply to every title they read without even thinking about it that irks me senseless.
Responses by certain folk may include such phrases as 'oh please!', 'bleeding heart!' 'spare me the ____!' or in light of me getting their first 'your a smart, smug **** aren't you?'.
InOne
29-01-2011, 11:10 AM
Yeah, I also meant to say they should monitor his time in prison and that as well. See how he is and if he improves or whatever. I'm not the whip em and hang em type lol
Pyramid*
29-01-2011, 01:08 PM
Firstly lets get rid of the sentimental twaddle about him being young, poor thing to young to realize and so and so.....Utter twaddle...
11 years old......Indeed old enough to know what he was doing
An adult crime deserves an adult sentence. Just what this crime riddled drugs mania country needs.
Those that mutter on about rehabilitation. Why oh why should society spend any more money on a cold blooded killer when other more deserving parts of society are crying out for money....
Society should not even wast public money on long jail sentences.....There are deserving people who need services to be spent on them instead of being wasted on trash......
I'm with this, and I'll be the first to admit I have a pretty 'blinkered' view on this type of crime and will not be swayed by the old 'rehabilitation' crap.
The victims never got a chance at life first time around - so why the hell should those responsible get a second chance.
forgiving? No, I'm not. Very harsh view? Yes. Am I wrong to have this view? No, because it is my view and I'm at liberty to have it - whilst respecting other's opinions on the rehab slant, it's not a view I share.
InOne
29-01-2011, 01:11 PM
I'm with this, and I'll be the first to admit I have a pretty 'blinkered' view on this type of crime and will not be swayed by the old 'rehabilitation' crap.
The victims never got a chance at life first time around - so why the hell should those responsible get a second chance.
forgiving? No, I'm not. Very harsh view? Yes. Am I wrong to have this view? No, because it is my view and I'm at liberty to have it - whilst respecting other's opinions on the rehab slant, it's not a view I share.
So you dont believe it's worth putting time and effort to possibly make these people better and members of society again?
Pyramid*
29-01-2011, 01:17 PM
So you dont believe it's worth putting time and effort to possibly make these people better and members of society again?
If you want me to be brutally honest? At 11 years of age, the child is old enough to know right from wrong. They may not be fully appreciative of the consequences and ramfications of their actions, but they certainly know right from wrong as far as treatment to another human being is concerned. So the short answer is No, I don't believe it's worth putting time, effort and money into something that will never be a sure an absolutely certainty.
InOne
29-01-2011, 01:18 PM
If you want me to be brutally honest? At 11 years of age, the child is old enough to know right from wrong. They may not be fully appreciative of the consequences and ramfications of their actions, but they certainly know right from wrong as far as treatment to another human being is concerned.
I do agree on the basis that he showed no remorse and could do it again if he was let out.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 10:25 AM
The latest figures I can dig out at a quick glance show rescidivism at 40% in the UK. Four out of every ten prisoners take what the State will give them while they're inside and come out and offend again. Until there is proof that rehabilitation is working FAR more comprehensively than this, no, this child should not be released to potentially kill again. (I know he's in the US but I think the UK rescidivism stats are more relevant for this discussion.) I'm just wondering if those who are on the liberal side of the argument believe that any individual is ever inherently bad, wired wrong and incurable? I do. Firmly. And I think that they should never, ever be left loose on the public again. I'm not in favour of the death penalty but I think that life should mean life and, in the case of adults, murder - intentional, pre-meditated killing - should ALWAYS result in life without parole. The problem is identifying those who are just wrong 'uns. Someone said ^^^^ that no-one's born evil. I don't agree. I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, but I certainly believe that there are aberrations completely devoid of empathy and desensitised. And I think that, while this is often the result of circumstance or trauma, sometimes its innate. So we have to be cold and removed when we look at this and we HAVE to decide that these people should be kept away from the rest of us - permanently. I think that case where the 17 year old girl stamped on a guys head and neck while he lay unconscious and bleeding to death is another example of someone who should never see the light of day again. She was 'ha ha'ing about it on Facebook. Throw away the key; bury it. I do think that, often, becoming a parent is the deciding factor in how you see this kind of thing. I'm a parent and I guarantee you that if anyone harmed one of my children the ONLY thing that would stop me from killing them would be the fact that I would sacrifice my liberty and be unable to look after the rest. And I used to be quite liberal when I was younger.
Pyramid*
30-01-2011, 10:51 AM
The latest figures I can dig out at a quick glance show rescidivism at 40% in the UK. Four out of every ten prisoners take what the State will give them while they're inside and come out and offend again. Until there is proof that rehabilitation is working FAR more comprehensively than this, no, this child should not be released to potentially kill again. (I know he's in the US but I think the UK rescidivism stats are more relevant for this discussion.) I'm just wondering if those who are on the liberal side of the argument believe that any individual is ever inherently bad, wired wrong and incurable? I do. Firmly. And I think that they should never, ever be left loose on the public again. I'm not in favour of the death penalty but I think that life should mean life and, in the case of adults, murder - intentional, pre-meditated killing - should ALWAYS result in life without parole. The problem is identifying those who are just wrong 'uns. Someone said ^^^^ that no-one's born evil. I don't agree. I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, but I certainly believe that there are aberrations completely devoid of empathy and desensitised. And I think that, while this is often the result of circumstance or trauma, sometimes its innate. So we have to be cold and removed when we look at this and we HAVE to decide that these people should be kept away from the rest of us - permanently. I think that case where the 17 year old girl stamped on a guys head and neck while he lay unconscious and bleeding to death is another example of someone who should never see the light of day again. She was 'ha ha'ing about it on Facebook. Throw away the key; bury it. I do think that, often, becoming a parent is the deciding factor in how you see this kind of thing. I'm a parent and I guarantee you that if anyone harmed one of my children the ONLY thing that would stop me from killing them would be the fact that I would sacrifice my liberty and be unable to look after the rest. And I used to be quite liberal when I was younger.
Excellent contribution Patsy. I have to agree.
A few years back ('a few' being around ten!) - I worked at Carstairs - in a senior positon and part of Board Meetings with full access to case records / medical records of all of the patients (as they are classed patients rather than inmates).
I can categorically say here and now, that a high majority of those incarcerated there, were viewed by the Medical Directors as being likely to reoffend - so much so, that it was often extremely difficult to have them moved on from the State Hospital and for the most part, the hospital was full to capacity - because very few other prisons were adequately equipped or had trained staff to deal with these type of people, and any psychiatric hospitals that they could have been introduced into, were not of the opinion that they were safe enough to be transferred to mainstream psych units.
Regardless of the PR - facts like that speak for themselves. Are some people inherrantly evil with little remorse iwth a willingess to continue to reoffend? Yes. As you state, stats do show that prisons house a very high percentage of reoffenders, than first offenders - that shows that rehabilitation means very little, and has very very limited success.
To me, the success rate is too low to take further chances with those who have shown that they are able to kill /murder or be part of manslaughter.
InOne
30-01-2011, 11:00 AM
I don't think people are born 'Evil' but some are born without a Conscience, and they will have the missing factors a normal person has, empathy and all that. But their background and intelligence will determine what they go on to do in life. No doubt it will still be no good though! Some are just better at getting their away with it and bluffing their way out.
Pyramid*
30-01-2011, 11:33 AM
I don't think people are born 'Evil' but some are born without a Conscience, and they will have the missing factors a normal person has, empathy and all that. But their background and intelligence will determine what they go on to do in life. No doubt it will still be no good though! Some are just better at getting their away with it and bluffing their way out.
You post and the wording immediately reminded me of this man... Dr Robert Hare, expert in his field, and amongst other books, wrote one entitled, "Without conscience".
http://www.hare.org/welcome/bio.html
InOne
30-01-2011, 11:34 AM
You post and the wording immediately reminded me of this man... Dr Robert Hare, expert in his field, and amongst other books, wrote one entitled, "Without conscience".
http://www.hare.org/welcome/bio.html
Yeah I've read his book :tongue:
Pyramid*
30-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Yeah I've read his book :tongue:
I had a sneaky wee feeling you might have done! I'm sure it was nothing more than coincedence, but it was the way the word Conscience was capitalised that 'stuck out' and made me think immediately of his book. (the old 'sub-conscious at work !! ).
:)
The latest figures I can dig out at a quick glance show rescidivism at 40% in the UK. Four out of every ten prisoners take what the State will give them while they're inside and come out and offend again. Until there is proof that rehabilitation is working FAR more comprehensively than this, no, this child should not be released to potentially kill again. (I know he's in the US but I think the UK rescidivism stats are more relevant for this discussion.) I'm just wondering if those who are on the liberal side of the argument believe that any individual is ever inherently bad, wired wrong and incurable? I do. Firmly. And I think that they should never, ever be left loose on the public again. I'm not in favour of the death penalty but I think that life should mean life and, in the case of adults, murder - intentional, pre-meditated killing - should ALWAYS result in life without parole. The problem is identifying those who are just wrong 'uns. Someone said ^^^^ that no-one's born evil. I don't agree. I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, but I certainly believe that there are aberrations completely devoid of empathy and desensitised. And I think that, while this is often the result of circumstance or trauma, sometimes its innate. So we have to be cold and removed when we look at this and we HAVE to decide that these people should be kept away from the rest of us - permanently. I think that case where the 17 year old girl stamped on a guys head and neck while he lay unconscious and bleeding to death is another example of someone who should never see the light of day again. She was 'ha ha'ing about it on Facebook. Throw away the key; bury it. I do think that, often, becoming a parent is the deciding factor in how you see this kind of thing. I'm a parent and I guarantee you that if anyone harmed one of my children the ONLY thing that would stop me from killing them would be the fact that I would sacrifice my liberty and be unable to look after the rest. And I used to be quite liberal when I was younger.
Personally I dont think people are born good or bad no. I tend to believe that nurture is stronger than nature and it is peoples experiences which shape their lives and the way they act. Take the case you mentioned of the girl just been found guilty of the homophobic killing; she had had a series of traumas in her life with her father being abusive and him being sentenced for manslaughter for stabbing a man when she was younger. Does it justify it? Of course not, and obviously she isnt the only one who has had a hard life but people cope in different ways and some are better at it than others and she resorted to alcohol.
I'd also say that noone is completely "good" or completely "bad". They're just words really, and peoples perception of what is wrong and what is right, what is moral and immoral, is all relative and subjective.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 02:31 PM
Of course he knew what he was doing. Why do I get the feeling I will be explaining this ad nauseam for the rest of my life?
An eleven year old might know they are killing someone. But that's just the physical action and simplistic, child like, presumably angry mindset that led to it. A conscious, reflective understanding and contemplation of the crime though would be vastly different.
this
I know from personal experience how you can become a totally different person as an adult from when you were a child. It's called growing up and seeing things on a deeper level...with consequences.
I was a criminal not much older than this kid. Spent time in homes and detention centres. Missed years of school.
But now I look back and can't even remember what the hell I was thinking..how I even had the balls to do the stuff I did. Could never do it now and it wouldn't even enter my head to do so. Because Ive grown and Ive learned from my mistakes. My mindset has vastly changed and I care more about how my actions affects others. Young children are often not capable of that...especially if theyre damaged and unloved.
So I say BS to anybody who thinks this boys behaviour is somehow set in stone. NO IT IS NOT. He can still go on to be a good productive member of society. Indeed, many people working in victim support and rehabilitation were once criminals who served time. Now they are giving back in a way thats truly beneficial to society.
Not saying this kid will become an angel. But I think a civilised society should keep all options open and at least give him a chance to redeem himself at some point. His victim aint coming back whatever happens so unless youre all about revenge there's no need to destroy another life here.
But as Ive said, he should still serve a lengthy sentence. I think the killers of Jamie Bulger should have served a much longer sentence too. At that age they can afford to lose at least 15 years of freedom and still have a chance to build a life.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 06:27 PM
Personally I dont think people are born good or bad no. I tend to believe that nurture is stronger than nature and it is peoples experiences which shape their lives and the way they act. Take the case you mentioned of the girl just been found guilty of the homophobic killing; she had had a series of traumas in her life with her father being abusive and him being sentenced for manslaughter for stabbing a man when she was younger. Does it justify it? Of course not, and obviously she isnt the only one who has had a hard life but people cope in different ways and some are better at it than others and she resorted to alcohol.
I'd also say that noone is completely "good" or completely "bad". They're just words really, and peoples perception of what is wrong and what is right, what is moral and immoral, is all relative and subjective.
However, some people are born psychopaths. That's a known criminal and medical fact. They have no empathy and are devoid of fellow feeling. Now I'm not saying either the 11 year old boy or the 17 year old girl fall into that category - I don't know - but there are definitely people who are wired differently to the rest of us and act accordingly. Sadly, there are far too many well documented cases of people who are absolutely and completely 'bad' if that's what you want to call it. It's reassuring to think that there aren't - but there are. Ask anyone who works with the criminally insane.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 06:33 PM
this
I know from personal experience how you can become a totally different person as an adult from when you were a child. It's called growing up and seeing things on a deeper level...with consequences.
I was a criminal not much older than this kid. Spent time in homes and detention centres. Missed years of school.
But now I look back and can't even remember what the hell I was thinking..how I even had the balls to do the stuff I did. Could never do it now and it wouldn't even enter my head to do so. Because Ive grown and Ive learned from my mistakes. My mindset has vastly changed and I care more about how my actions affects others. Young children are often not capable of that...especially if theyre damaged and unloved.
So I say BS to anybody who thinks this boys behaviour is somehow set in stone. NO IT IS NOT. He can still go on to be a good productive member of society. Indeed, many people working in victim support and rehabilitation were once criminals who served time. Now they are giving back in a way thats truly beneficial to society.
Not saying this kid will become an angel. But I think a civilised society should keep all options open and at least give him a chance to redeem himself at some point. His victim aint coming back whatever happens so unless youre all about revenge there's no need to destroy another life here.
But as Ive said, he should still serve a lengthy sentence. I think the killers of Jamie Bulger should have served a much longer sentence too. At that age they can afford to lose at least 15 years of freedom and still have a chance to build a life.
I agree with almost all of the post, apart from the bit in bold. I think there are individuals who are irredeemable and it's a gross error to assume that EVERYONE is 'fixable'. They're not. What happens if we keep trying to fix them and, every time we think the job's done, they go out and kill someone else? A civilised society SHOULDN'T take risks with the safety of the general public because of liberal intentions - however good those intentions may be. We cannot know for certain either way in relation to this boy and it's a matter for psychiatric experts to decide. Particularly in relation to children, we're probably a long way from satisfactory methods of assessment; the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this.
Angus
30-01-2011, 07:11 PM
I agree with almost all of the post, apart from the bit in bold. I think there are individuals who are irredeemable and it's a gross error to assume that EVERYONE is 'fixable'. They're not. What happens if we keep trying to fix them and, every time we think the job's done, they go out and kill someone else? A civilised society SHOULDN'T take risks with the safety of the general public because of liberal intentions - however good those intentions may be. We cannot know for certain either way in relation to this boy and it's a matter for psychiatric experts to decide. Particularly in relation to children, we're probably a long way from satisfactory methods of assessment; the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this.
Completely agree. What's more I have little interest in the sob stories of those who say they have been rehabilitated unless they are accompanied by solid evidence that they made restitution to those that they abused/assaulted/stole from etc etc. I am more concerned as to the welfare and future of the victim, not the criminal. If someone has killed someone, I have less than zero interest in their future wellbeing and would work on the assumption that anyone capable of killing a human being in the first place, does not deserve my trust or confidence that they will not re-offend.
As to the allegations that those of us who wish to see murderers kept well away from mainstream society are simply hellbent on revenge, that is the typical response of your average liberal apologist. How about the fact that what we want to see is actual, equitable and appropriate JUSTICE?
Zippy
30-01-2011, 07:27 PM
I agree with almost all of the post, apart from the bit in bold. I think there are individuals who are irredeemable and it's a gross error to assume that EVERYONE is 'fixable'. They're not. What happens if we keep trying to fix them and, every time we think the job's done, they go out and kill someone else? A civilised society SHOULDN'T take risks with the safety of the general public because of liberal intentions - however good those intentions may be. We cannot know for certain either way in relation to this boy and it's a matter for psychiatric experts to decide. Particularly in relation to children, we're probably a long way from satisfactory methods of assessment; the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this.
A civilised society has to take risks. Otherwise nobody would ever be released from prison or psychiatric hospitals!
Repeat offenders are constantly released time and time again; muggers, burglars, violent abusers,...even rapists. These are far more of a menace to society than somebody who has killed one specific person. Murder is usually a one off act that is never repeated. Which is why serial killers are so rare. Even if this boy were to be released now I think there's a good chance he would never kill again. And, no, Im not saying he should be released now! Point is, as extreme a crime his was its not something he would likely repeat over and over. Most murders are very specific; a personal conflict between individuals. Theyre not random.
I never said this boy will definitely be "fixed". But he is a young child and far far from being fully cooked. I never even had any rehabilitation myself but changed my attitude just through the process of simply growing up. With a child that age there are strong possibilies for growth and change. A civilised society would leave a door open for that to happen. Condemning him to life without parole is shutting every door and leaving him with no hope and nothing to improve himself for. And who benefits from that? Nobody. It's good if revenge is all you want but does sod all to address any other issues.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 07:33 PM
Completely agree. What's more I have little interest in the sob stories of those who say they have been rehabilitated unless they are accompanied by solid evidence that they made restitution to those that they abused/assaulted/stole from etc etc. I am more concerned as to the welfare and future of the victim, not the criminal. If someone has killed someone, I have less than zero interest in their future wellbeing and would work on the assumption that anyone capable of killing a human being in the first place, does not deserve my trust or confidence that they will not re-offend.
As to the allegations that those of us who wish to see murderers kept well away from mainstream society are simply hellbent on revenge, that is the typical response of your average liberal apologist. How about the fact that what we want to see is actual, equitable and appropriate JUSTICE?
you clearly are all about revenge. Pathetic you can't even admit that much.
Your idea of justice, thankfully, isn't mine.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 07:54 PM
A civilised society has to take risks. Otherwise nobody would ever be released from prison or psychiatric hospitals!
Repeat offenders are constantly released time and time again; muggers, burglars, violent abusers,...even rapists. These are far more of a menace to society than somebody who has killed one specific person. Murder is usually a one off act that is never repeated. Which is why serial killers are so rare. Even if this boy were to be released now I think there's a good chance he would never kill again. And, no, Im not saying he should be released now! Point is, as extreme a crime his was its not something he would likely repeat over and over. Most murders are very specific; a personal conflict between individuals. Theyre not random.
I never said this boy will definitely be "fixed". But he is a young child and far far from being fully cooked. I never even had any rehabilitation myself but changed my attitude just through the process of simply growing up. With a child that age there are strong possibilies for growth and change. A civilised society would leave a door open for that to happen. Condemning him to life without parole is shutting every door and leaving him with no hope and nothing to improve himself for. And who benefits from that? Nobody. It's good if revenge is all you want but does sod all to address any other issues.
You seem to have missed the point I was attempting to make. You said it was BS to say that he couldn't be rehabilitated - well I think it's also BS to say he can. You and I don't know either way. Top quality psychiatrict assessment is the only way to establish the probability. BIB1, I didn't say you NEVER take risks; I said you don't take risks with psychopaths out of liberal sentimentality. In terms of rescidivism, I posted at length about exactly this earlier, you must have missed that.
BIB 2, if he's a psychopath, everybody benefits from him being shut away from society for the rest of his natural life - including him, by the way.
Completely agree. What's more I have little interest in the sob stories of those who say they have been rehabilitated unless they are accompanied by solid evidence that they made restitution to those that they abused/assaulted/stole from etc etc. I am more concerned as to the welfare and future of the victim, not the criminal. If someone has killed someone, I have less than zero interest in their future wellbeing and would work on the assumption that anyone capable of killing a human being in the first place, does not deserve my trust or confidence that they will not re-offend.
As to the allegations that those of us who wish to see murderers kept well away from mainstream society are simply hellbent on revenge, that is the typical response of your average liberal apologist. How about the fact that what we want to see is actual, equitable and appropriate JUSTICE?
I agree. Bloody immigrants.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 08:11 PM
You said it was BS to say that he couldn't be rehabilitated - well I think it's also BS to say he can.
Thats just ridiculous. How can it be BS to say he can be rehabilitated?
Youve actually contradicted yourself tbh because you say neither of us know whether he can or can't. But the say it's BS to say he can!
I actually said it was BS to say that his behaviour now was set in stone. Because we all stay stuck in our 11 year old state of mind, right?
wrong.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 08:12 PM
Thats just ridiculous. How can it be BS to say he can be rehabilitated?
Youve actually contradicted yourself tbh because you say neither of us know whether he can or can't. But the say it's BS to say he can!
I actually said it was BS to say that his behaviour now was set in stone. Because we all stay stuck in our 11 year old state of mind, right?
wrong.
Try READING the post. Right. I'll say it as simply as I can. It's BS to say he can or he can't be rehabilitated because none of us are psychiatric experts and none of us has assessed him. DO YOU GET IT NOW?
Oh, and if you're a certified psychopath at 11 then, yes, it is set in stone.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 08:17 PM
Try READING the post. Right. I'll say it as simply as I can. It's BS to say he can or he can't be rehabilitated because none of us are psychiatric experts and none of us has assessed him. DO YOU GET IT NOW?
are you thick or what?
to say somebody CAN be this or that is an obvious fact that leaves all possibilities open. I haven't ever said that this boy will be rehabilitated....just that he COULD be. Stop complicating things with your nonsense.
However, some people are born psychopaths. That's a known criminal and medical fact. They have no empathy and are devoid of fellow feeling. Now I'm not saying either the 11 year old boy or the 17 year old girl fall into that category - I don't know - but there are definitely people who are wired differently to the rest of us and act accordingly. Sadly, there are far too many well documented cases of people who are absolutely and completely 'bad' if that's what you want to call it. It's reassuring to think that there aren't - but there are. Ask anyone who works with the criminally insane.
But psychopaths are not necessarily "evil", they are ill. Not all psychopaths will be "bad" and want to go out and kill people either, the vast majority dont.
And no I dont want to call them "bad", like I said they're just words and peoples perception of the two is subjective imo.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 08:23 PM
are you thick or what?
to say somebody CAN be this or that is an obvious fact that leaves all possibilities open. I haven't ever said that this boy will be rehabilitated....just that he COULD be. Stop complicating things with your nonsense.
Very far from thick, and particularly good at semantics. If you meant COULD and not CAN you should have said COULD and not CAN, now shouldn't you?
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 08:29 PM
this
I know from personal experience how you can become a totally different person as an adult from when you were a child. It's called growing up and seeing things on a deeper level...with consequences.
I was a criminal not much older than this kid. Spent time in homes and detention centres. Missed years of school.
But now I look back and can't even remember what the hell I was thinking..how I even had the balls to do the stuff I did. Could never do it now and it wouldn't even enter my head to do so. Because Ive grown and Ive learned from my mistakes. My mindset has vastly changed and I care more about how my actions affects others. Young children are often not capable of that...especially if theyre damaged and unloved.
So I say BS to anybody who thinks this boys behaviour is somehow set in stone. NO IT IS NOT. He can still go on to be a good productive member of society. Indeed, many people working in victim support and rehabilitation were once criminals who served time. Now they are giving back in a way thats truly beneficial to society.
Not saying this kid will become an angel. But I think a civilised society should keep all options open and at least give him a chance to redeem himself at some point. His victim aint coming back whatever happens so unless youre all about revenge there's no need to destroy another life here.
But as Ive said, he should still serve a lengthy sentence. I think the killers of Jamie Bulger should have served a much longer sentence too. At that age they can afford to lose at least 15 years of freedom and still have a chance to build a life.
Just to be crystal clear. The bit in bold. "He can still go on to be a good productive member of society". Not "he could", not "maybe he can" - "he can".
My point, and I'm exhausted at this stage, is that none of us on here can know definitively that he can or cannot change, unless they are psychiatrists specialising in this area. My original point is that there are people who cannot be fixed.
Pyramid*
30-01-2011, 08:30 PM
are you thick or what?
.
At this point, all reasonable discussion goes right out the window.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 08:31 PM
Very far from thick, and particularly good at semantics. If you meant COULD and not CAN you should have said COULD and not CAN, now shouldn't you?
LOL. what bollocks.
no, you're clearly not good at semantics!
Zippy
30-01-2011, 08:33 PM
At this point, all reasonable discussion goes right out the window.
well I wasn't discussing anything with you so don't worry about it.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 08:35 PM
LOL. what bollocks.
no, you're clearly not good at semantics!
See post 86 dear.
Pyramid*
30-01-2011, 08:37 PM
well I wasn't discussing anything with you so don't worry about it.
Who mentioned anything about worried or me being worried?
Public forum Zippy - I can add what I want to a thread, if it's to do with the thread content and subject matter being discussed, and the manner in which the subject matter is being discussed. Which is precisely what I did. I'm quite at liberty to do that.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 08:43 PM
Who mentioned anything about worried or me being worried?
Public forum Zippy - I can add what I want to a thread, if it's to do with the thread content and subject matter being discussed, and the manner in which the subject matter is being discussed. Which is precisely what I did. I'm quite at liberty to do that.
yeah yeah whatever.
hilarious that you took that sentence so bloody literally! and a bit sad.
Shasown
30-01-2011, 08:46 PM
I agree with almost all of the post, apart from the bit in bold. I think there are individuals who are irredeemable and it's a gross error to assume that EVERYONE is 'fixable'. They're not. What happens if we keep trying to fix them and, every time we think the job's done, they go out and kill someone else? A civilised society SHOULDN'T take risks with the safety of the general public because of liberal intentions - however good those intentions may be. We cannot know for certain either way in relation to this boy and it's a matter for psychiatric experts to decide. Particularly in relation to children, we're probably a long way from satisfactory methods of assessment; the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this.
While it is probably a mistake to assume everyone is 'fixable', shouldn't a civilised society do its best to at least try to rehabilitate children who commit crimes.
Incidentally you mentioned Jamie Bulger, couple of things, first the US criminal justice system is different from ours regarding rehabilitation.
Second there were two criminals involved in the Bulger case, while Venables was sent back to prison for child porn offences Robert Thompson appears to have been rehabilitated, at least so far.
Could i just suggest you also go look at the case of Mary Bell, so 2 out of 3 successes would you say?
Pyramid*
30-01-2011, 08:49 PM
yeah yeah whatever.
hilarious that you took that sentence so bloody literally! and a bit sad.
I took nothing seriously. What I did do however, is show that when you start throwing insults around at people, that's when all reasonable debate goes out the window (as your last few posts and replies on this thread have quite clearly shown).
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 09:03 PM
While it is probably a mistake to assume everyone is 'fixable', shouldn't a civilised society do its best to at least try to rehabilitate children who commit crimes.
Incidentally you mentioned Jamie Bulger, couple of things, first the US criminal justice system is different from ours regarding rehabilitation.
Second there were two criminals involved in the Bulger case, while Venables was sent back to prison for child porn offences Robert Thompson appears to have been rehabilitated, at least so far.
Could i just suggest you also go look at the case of Mary Bell, so 2 out of 3 successes would you say?
I would say that when they die in old age of natural causes, then we can judge whether the system has succeeded or not. It's quite a few decades too early. And three is a rather small sample size. My contribution to the thread initially was exactly what you say in your first sentence. Nothing more.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 09:05 PM
I took nothing seriously.
good
who said you did? :whistle:
Shasown
30-01-2011, 09:07 PM
I would say that when they die in old age of natural causes, then we can judge whether the system has succeeded or not. It's quite a few decades too early. And three is a rather small sample size. My contribution to the thread initially was exactly what you say in your first sentence. Nothing more.
Yeah i suppose it is but it is three times larger than the sample size you incorrectly used, you cited the Bulger case, but only one of the offenders has re-offended.
However you appear to have overlooked the point I was making so let me make it again,
While it is probably a mistake to assume everyone is 'fixable', shouldn't a civilised society do its best to at least try to rehabilitate children who commit crimes.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 09:09 PM
but only one of the offenders has re-offended.
[/B]
and the offence was of a different nature to the Bulger crime.
Shasown
30-01-2011, 09:12 PM
and the offence was of a different nature to the Bulger crime.
Yes and no, it could be argued both are offences against a/the child. Both probably caused by a need to dominate or control someone.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 09:16 PM
Yeah i suppose it is but it is three times larger than the sample size you incorrectly used, you cited the Bulger case, but only one of the offenders has re-offended.
However you appear to have overlooked the point I was making so let me make it again,
Firstly, did or did not one of the offenders in the Bulger case re-offend, despite attempts at rehabilitation? Where was I 'incorrect' in saying that?
I didn't overlook this point, I agree with it and I never said otherwise, did I?
I'm going to say it one last time. Someone said that this boy can be rehabilitated. I said that you cannot say one way or the other whether or not he can definitively be rehabilitated without being the person who assesses him and being appropriately qualified to do so. I also said that there are people who cannot be rehabilitated. I really cannot understand this forum. These seem to be fair points and yet people are coming over all indignant because I made them.
Shasown
30-01-2011, 09:46 PM
Firstly, did or did not one of the offenders in the Bulger case re-offend, despite attempts at rehabilitation? Where was I 'incorrect' in saying that?
I didn't overlook this point, I agree with it and I never said otherwise, did I?
You pulled someone up over using the words "can be rehabilitated" instead of "could be rehabilitated". Then expect to make comments like" the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this".
Can you not see the inconsistency?
Only one of the offenders in the Bulger case re-offended and to a much lesser (though still abhorent) crime, namely Venables. The Bulger Case itself wasnt a breakdown in the rehabilitation system.
Zippy
30-01-2011, 10:53 PM
You pulled someone up over using the words "can be rehabilitated" instead of "could be rehabilitated".
you'd think I'd said he will be rehabilitated.
patsylimerick
30-01-2011, 11:49 PM
You pulled someone up over using the words "can be rehabilitated" instead of "could be rehabilitated". Then expect to make comments like" the Jamie Bolger case seems to indicate this".
Can you not see the inconsistency?
Only one of the offenders in the Bulger case re-offended and to a much lesser (though still abhorent) crime, namely Venables. The Bulger Case itself wasnt a breakdown in the rehabilitation system.
No I cannot. The central point I was making is that not everyone 'can' be rehabilitated. Zippy said that the boy 'can' be rehabilitated. To make the point at all, I sort of had to pull them up on the use of the word 'can'.
I still don't see the inconsistency, as the point about the Bolger case is that the system does not always work and very young offenders who are given the benefit of the doubt 'can' and 'do' re-offend.
Just as an aside, the creation of child pornography necessitates the rape of children. Without an audience, the pornography would never be made. Much lesser? Debatable.
Shasown
31-01-2011, 03:20 AM
I still don't see the inconsistency, as the point about the Bolger case is that the system does not always work and very young offenders who are given the benefit of the doubt 'can' and 'do' re-offend.
Just as an aside, the creation of child pornography necessitates the rape of children. Without an audience, the pornography would never be made. Much lesser? Debatable.
Okay first off let me point out the correct spelling of the name is Bulger.
Second the Bulger case was about the abduction and murder of Jamie Bulger, the people who committed the crime were caught, tried and convicted, and sentenced, end of case.
Third, the two individuals responsible for the murder were re-sentenced by a civil servant (Michael Howard 1994) due to public opinion, that decision was challenged in ECHR and overturned.
Other ECHR rulings removed the "At Her Majestys Pleasure" type sentence and required offenders to be given definitive tariffs or sentences. This caused a minimum tariff of 8 years to be set on them.
In 1999 following an appeal by their lawyers the ECHR upheld their claim they were denied a fair hearing by the nature of the court proceedings for their trial.
The 8 year tariff expired in February 2001.
The psychologists and other staff dealing with them would have preferred them to stay in custody and treatment for an indeterminate time longer. The boys themselves didnt feel ready to be released.
However because a definite time could not be given to the Parole Board, the view was taken they were as ready as they would ever be, as further time after they reached 18 would have to be spent in adult prisons and this would probably undo the work on rehabilitation already carried out.
One other point to bear in mind, the 11 year old in the OP is in the USA, they dont have the ECHR overseeing their decisions, whilst they do have minimum and maximum sentences, their judicial review and Parole system is different to ours.
As for your aside, whilst possession and distribution of child pornography is serious, its not as bad as making the pornography itself, nor is it as bad as abducting and murdering a child, is it?
patsylimerick
31-01-2011, 09:06 AM
Okay first off let me point out the correct spelling of the name is Bulger.
Second the Bulger case was about the abduction and murder of Jamie Bulger, the people who committed the crime were caught, tried and convicted, and sentenced, end of case.
Third, the two individuals responsible for the murder were re-sentenced by a civil servant (Michael Howard 1994) due to public opinion, that decision was challenged in ECHR and overturned.
Other ECHR rulings removed the "At Her Majestys Pleasure" type sentence and required offenders to be given definitive tariffs or sentences. This caused a minimum tariff of 8 years to be set on them.
In 1999 following an appeal by their lawyers the ECHR upheld their claim they were denied a fair hearing by the nature of the court proceedings for their trial.
The 8 year tariff expired in February 2001.
The psychologists and other staff dealing with them would have preferred them to stay in custody and treatment for an indeterminate time longer. The boys themselves didnt feel ready to be released.
However because a definite time could not be given to the Parole Board, the view was taken they were as ready as they would ever be, as further time after they reached 18 would have to be spent in adult prisons and this would probably undo the work on rehabilitation already carried out.
One other point to bear in mind, the 11 year old in the OP is in the USA, they dont have the ECHR overseeing their decisions, whilst they do have minimum and maximum sentences, their judicial review and Parole system is different to ours.
As for your aside, whilst possession and distribution of child pornography is serious, its not as bad as making the pornography itself, nor is it as bad as abducting and murdering a child, is it?
Without purveyors of porn, porn is unnecessary and unprofitable and, therefore, not made. The demand is essential to the crime.
In Ireland, it's always spelled Bolger, but fair enough.
Still, one of the defendants did re-offend, which was all I said.
Reading back through your post, it strikes me that, way back at the start of the thread, I made the point that the facilities for the assessment and treatment of young offenders are inadequate. It seems you are agreeing with me - or maybe you just didn't read my earlier posts - found a line you didn't agree with and just jumped right in.
patsylimerick
31-01-2011, 09:11 AM
Just had a nosey around and it appears Bulger is an English variant of the Irish name Bolger. You learn something new every day.
InOne
31-01-2011, 10:46 AM
But psychopaths are not necessarily "evil", they are ill. Not all psychopaths will be "bad" and want to go out and kill people either, the vast majority dont.
And no I dont want to call them "bad", like I said they're just words and peoples perception of the two is subjective imo.
By law they are not ill and responsible for their actions.
Angus
31-01-2011, 12:58 PM
By law they are not ill and responsible for their actions.
Sadly you will never convince some people on here of that simple truth.
InOne
31-01-2011, 01:02 PM
Sadly you will never convince some people on here of that simple truth.
Mmmmm indeed, I think alot of the time people get blinded by the circumstances of the case if you get me.
Zippy
31-01-2011, 02:13 PM
Just had a nosey around and it appears Bulger is an English variant of the Irish name Bolger. You learn something new every day.
You still spelt it wrong. Continually. :rolleyes:
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 02:16 PM
You still spelt it wrong. Continually. :rolleyes:
because she thought it was the same as the Irish name Bolger, she just said:joker:
lostalex
31-01-2011, 02:27 PM
You still spelt it wrong. Continually. :rolleyes:
*spelled :)
Zippy
31-01-2011, 02:33 PM
because she thought it was the same as the Irish name Bolger, she just said:joker:
but its never been spelt like that and its just not his correct name. He wasn't even Irish.
Zippy
31-01-2011, 02:36 PM
*spelled :)
actually I meant spealt.
and a typo is not the same as spelling somebodies name wrong constantly.
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 02:41 PM
but its never been spelt like that and its just not his correct name. He wasn't even Irish.
That name is spelled Bolger in Ireland, she didn't say that she thought he was Irish, she just said she assumed the spelling would be the same!:joker:
Zippy
31-01-2011, 02:43 PM
That name is spelled Bolger in Ireland, she didn't say that she thought he was Irish, she just said she assumed the spelling would be the same!:joker:
So when its written about in Ireland they spell his name wrong? Now that would be odd.
Im not gonna labour the point but his name is what it is...Bulger. Foreign translations are not really relevent.
Love you! :joker:
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 02:50 PM
So when its written about in Ireland they spell his name wrong? Now that would be odd.
Im not gonna labour the point but his name is what it is...Bulger. Foreign translations are not really relevent.
Love you! :joker:
No, I knew that his name was spelled Bulger but maybe she didn't read alot about it? I don't know! I do know if I hadn't seen it written down and someone asked me to spell it I'd spell it Bolger:joker:
:love:
Zippy
31-01-2011, 03:08 PM
No, I knew that his name was spelled Bulger but maybe she didn't read alot about it?
:love:
well quite. So the fact she(?) kept spelling it wrongly just makes me think she hasn't read much about the case. Because if she had she would be well aware of how it's spealt properly.
I was always taught that getting somebodies name wrong constantly was just rude.
By law they are not ill and responsible for their actions.
Ah right, wasnt aware of that. I think I'd consider it an illness but I can see why they're responsible for actions, I still say being born a psychopath doesnt mean you're born "bad" though
Zippy
31-01-2011, 03:16 PM
Ah right, wasnt aware of that. I think I'd consider it an illness but I can see why they're responsible for actions, I still say being born a psychopath doesnt mean you're born "bad" though
The whole area of mental welfare and what constitutes as mental illness is very inconclusive. Really, its just some appointed analysts opinion.
Some mental issues are just more apparent than others. Personally I think we're all very capable of crazy insane behaviour in certain circumstances.
Tom4784
31-01-2011, 03:32 PM
this
I know from personal experience how you can become a totally different person as an adult from when you were a child. It's called growing up and seeing things on a deeper level...with consequences.
I was a criminal not much older than this kid. Spent time in homes and detention centres. Missed years of school.
But now I look back and can't even remember what the hell I was thinking..how I even had the balls to do the stuff I did. Could never do it now and it wouldn't even enter my head to do so. Because Ive grown and Ive learned from my mistakes. My mindset has vastly changed and I care more about how my actions affects others. Young children are often not capable of that...especially if theyre damaged and unloved.
So I say BS to anybody who thinks this boys behaviour is somehow set in stone. NO IT IS NOT. He can still go on to be a good productive member of society. Indeed, many people working in victim support and rehabilitation were once criminals who served time. Now they are giving back in a way thats truly beneficial to society.
Not saying this kid will become an angel. But I think a civilised society should keep all options open and at least give him a chance to redeem himself at some point. His victim aint coming back whatever happens so unless youre all about revenge there's no need to destroy another life here.
But as Ive said, he should still serve a lengthy sentence. I think the killers of Jamie Bulger should have served a much longer sentence too. At that age they can afford to lose at least 15 years of freedom and still have a chance to build a life.
I actuallly agree with this, I think some members are grasping at straws and taking things too literally. The whole point of that sentence was to say that he COULD change with time. Picking at Zippy's grammar won't discredit his argument.
I agree with the red point fully, it's hardly civilised to damn the kid forever. IF he shows the potential to do good after a few years inside then why let your bloodlust take over and waste that? Better to have him serve his time and then become a contributing member of society then a wasted drain of funds in Prison. That's only IF he eventually shows the capacity for change though, otherwise he should serve a full sentence although I don't agree with a life sentence at his age. Perhaps a long sentence followed by limited freedom? Like House Arrest or something. I'm not sure but a Life sentence just doesn't feel right.
patsylimerick
31-01-2011, 03:46 PM
No, I knew that his name was spelled Bulger but maybe she didn't read alot about it? I don't know! I do know if I hadn't seen it written down and someone asked me to spell it I'd spell it Bolger:joker:
:love:
Thanks. I'm gonna leave ye to it. Life's too short for this place. :wavey:
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 03:59 PM
Thanks. I'm gonna leave ye to it. Life's too short for this place. :wavey:
aw :/
patsylimerick
31-01-2011, 04:01 PM
I actuallly agree with this, I think some members are grasping at straws and taking things too literally. The whole point of that sentence was to say that he COULD change with time. Picking at Zippy's grammar won't discredit his argument.
I agree with the red point fully, it's hardly civilised to damn the kid forever. IF he shows the potential to do good after a few years inside then why let your bloodlust take over and waste that? Better to have him serve his time and then become a contributing member of society then a wasted drain of funds in Prison. That's only IF he eventually shows the capacity for change though, otherwise he should serve a full sentence although I don't agree with a life sentence at his age. Perhaps a long sentence followed by limited freedom? Like House Arrest or something. I'm not sure but a Life sentence just doesn't feel right.
I agree completely with this, in fact. The reason I picked up the word 'can' - and believe me, I'm regretting it - is because the difference between he can and he could is central to my argument. For the 17th time, not everyone, in my opinion can be rehabilitated. There are dangerous psychopaths who should never, ever re-enter society. Sadly. It's a dangerous fallacy that we can fix everyone. That's all I'm saying.
Tom4784
31-01-2011, 04:12 PM
I don't believe everyone can be fixed, I just don't think we should let that salt the effort to do so for the sake of public safety since not all crimes are punishable by life sentence. It's better to try and get through to a few then to throw them all away and take away any chance of them lving a lawful life because that will just lead to more crime.
I think psychopaths are a different and rare kettle of fish, obviously they should never re-enter society but true psychopaths are to rare to have an impact on rehibilation for everyone else I think.
InOne
31-01-2011, 04:19 PM
Ah right, wasnt aware of that. I think I'd consider it an illness but I can see why they're responsible for actions, I still say being born a psychopath doesnt mean you're born "bad" though
Well "bad" is subjective. But no matter how they're brought up, a Psychopath will always play by their own rules. Some are quite subtle and some all out reckless
Well "bad" is subjective. But no matter how they're brought up, a Psychopath will always play by their own rules. Some are quite subtle and some all out reckless
Exactly that was the point I was trying to make to patsylimerick when she said people are born "bad" and "good" and some people are totally "bad"; they're only words really and peoples perception of the two is subjective. As for psychopaths I dont really know much about them tbh so I wouldnt really feel able to have a discussion on them
InOne
31-01-2011, 04:37 PM
Exactly that was the point I was trying to make to patsylimerick when she said people are born "bad" and "good" and some people are totally "bad"; they're only words really and peoples perception of the two is subjective. As for psychopaths I dont really know much about them tbh so I wouldnt really feel able to have a discussion on them
http://www.hare.org/images/wccover.jpg
A good read.
http://www.hare.org/images/wccover.jpg
A good read.
Just looked it up on amazon, seems quite interesting actually, might try and give it a read
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 04:46 PM
I don't believe everyone can be fixed, I just don't think we should let that salt the effort to do so for the sake of public safety since not all crimes are punishable by life sentence. It's better to try and get through to a few then to throw them all away and take away any chance of them lving a lawful life because that will just lead to more crime.
I think psychopaths are a different and rare kettle of fish, obviously they should never re-enter society but true psychopaths are to rare to have an impact on rehibilation for everyone else I think.
yeah but the problem I have with rehabilitation is that the only way to know for sure if it works is sending the person back into society and that's risking innocent people, I don't think that's right
Zippy
31-01-2011, 04:50 PM
yeah but the problem I have with rehabilitation is that the only way to know for sure if it works is sending the person back into society and that's risking innocent people, I don't think that's right
but what are the chances of him killing again? Like I said, serial killers are rare for a reason.
Personally, I'd prefer to live next door to him than some serial burglar. Everytime I left the house I'd be concerned he was round there raiding the place.
Tom4784
31-01-2011, 04:54 PM
yeah but the problem I have with rehabilitation is that the only way to know for sure if it works is sending the person back into society and that's risking innocent people, I don't think that's right
It's better then not bothering and pretty much have most of them definiteley re-offend though.
Shasown
31-01-2011, 04:54 PM
yeah but the problem I have with rehabilitation is that the only way to know for sure if it works is sending the person back into society and that's risking innocent people, I don't think that's right
Isnt that the case with anyone who commits any offence and is caught and punished for it though.
We release paedophiles, rapists, murderers, domestic abusers etc all the time, and lots do go on not to commit offences again.
Should we keep all criminals in jail for life and where do you draw the line between those who get a free life in prison and those who get released back into society?
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 04:55 PM
but what are the chances of him killing again? Like I said, serial killers are rare for a reason.
Personally, I'd prefer to live next door to him than some serial burglar. Everytime I left the house I'd be concerned he was round there raiding the place.
:joker:
I actually meant more in general not specifically this case, this one is quite unusual cos he's young. You know, speaking about this case though, what I'm wondering is about the gun and how did he get his hands on it? I think the gun laws must be quite lax in the states, I hate the thought of having guns anywhere around children.
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 05:00 PM
Isnt that the case with anyone who commits any offence and is caught and punished for it though.
We release paedophiles, rapists, murderers, domestic abusers etc all the time, and lots do go on not to commit offences again.
Should we keep all criminals in jail for life and where do you draw the line between those who get a free life in prison and those who get released back into society?
Yeah, it is and paedophiles regularly re offend, can paedophilia actually "be cured"? Would I like to keep all paedophiles locked away from children forever, absolutely. I realise that all of the list above can't be locked away forever, the jails would be bursting at the seams but I do think the more serious/severe cases and those who get life should be in for life.
Zippy
31-01-2011, 05:05 PM
You know, speaking about this case though, what I'm wondering is about the gun and how did he get his hands on it? I think the gun laws must be quite lax in the states, I hate the thought of having guns anywhere around children.
Its also very easy to pull a trigger. It's a split second decision with huge consequences. Which is another reason why he should be given a second chance at some point.
The Bulger case was a sustained, drawn out physical attack. He was tortured to death basically. But they get released after several years and this kid may die in prison.
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 05:09 PM
Its also very easy to pull a trigger. It's a split second decision with huge consequences. Which is another reason why he should be given a second chance at some point.
The Bulger case was a sustained, drawn out physical attack. He was tortured to death basically. But they get released after several years and this kid may die in prison.
yeah the two cases are miles apart imo those two should never have been let out. And like you say, in this case, a little boy pulled the trigger of a gun it's very different alright.
Shasown
31-01-2011, 05:32 PM
Yeah, it is and paedophiles regularly re offend, can paedophilia actually "be cured"? Would I like to keep all paedophiles locked away from children forever, absolutely. I realise that all of the list above can't be locked away forever, the jails would be bursting at the seams but I do think the more serious/severe cases and those who get life should be in for life.
Yeah lots of paedophiles do re-offend, in my opinion chemical castration would remove sexual urges and still allow the person to be rehabilitated back into society, same for repeat or serial rapists. Dont think Europe would like it though.
:joker:
I actually meant more in general not specifically this case, this one is quite unusual cos he's young. You know, speaking about this case though, what I'm wondering is about the gun and how did he get his hands on it? I think the gun laws must be quite lax in the states, I hate the thought of having guns anywhere around children.
Yeah the US Gun laws are quite liberal compared to those over here, its a right enshrined in their constitution.
Zippy
31-01-2011, 07:26 PM
Yeah lots of paedophiles do re-offend, in my opinion chemical castration would remove sexual urges and still allow the person to be rehabilitated back into society, same for repeat or serial rapists. Dont think Europe would like it though.
I don't think a sexual attraction to children is anymore curable than any other sexual attraction. The best you can hope is that they learn to control their actions. Either by self control or pure fear of being arrested again.
I also think it's all in the mind so I don't see castration as any solution. Theyre not dogs in heat looking to shoot their load. It's much more than that. There's a social element where they just enjoy the company and control of children. Plus most child abuse happens within the home so there is usually some kind of relationship there already.
Niamh.
31-01-2011, 10:15 PM
Yeah lots of paedophiles do re-offend, in my opinion chemical castration would remove sexual urges and still allow the person to be rehabilitated back into society, same for repeat or serial rapists. Dont think Europe would like it though.
That sounds like a good solution to me, If it protects innocent children while not having to lock these people up forever then I don't see the problem.
Yeah the US Gun laws are quite liberal compared to those over here, its a right enshrined in their constitution.
Having a gun in your home when you have children is just wrong and irresponsible imo
Shasown
31-01-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't think a sexual attraction to children is anymore curable than any other sexual attraction. The best you can hope is that they learn to control their actions. Either by self control or pure fear of being arrested again.
I also think it's all in the mind so I don't see castration as any solution. Theyre not dogs in heat looking to shoot their load. It's much more than that. There's a social element where they just enjoy the company and control of children. Plus most child abuse happens within the home so there is usually some kind of relationship there already.
A lot of control issues come from psycho-sexual urges, castration removes the sexual urge aspect, combined with electroconvulsive therapy to create aversion would not only cause them to have greater self control on release but create an enhanced deterrent.
It could even recoup some of the outlay to society by televising live treatment regimes. Puts a new spin on Big Brother. It could even add a new aspect to the gaming industry, how many volts can he take before he starts drooling.
Angus
01-02-2011, 08:22 AM
Just try putting forward the solution of chemical castration for paedophiles (which should also be applied to all rapists IMO) and see the liberal minority come howling out of their ivory towers screeching about the human rights of the perpetrators to enjoy a sex life:bored: No doubt Cherie Blair and her ilk will be first in line to milk the system dry defending this scum - after all she's already made a small fortune off the back of The Human Rights Act. Good old hubby, responsible for introducing this iniquitous and unjust legislation which has subsequently lined the pockets of many lawyers, whilst depriving many victims of THEIR human rights as those of the criminal have been upheld:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.