[Angus]

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".

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by InOne

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.

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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

[InOne]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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.