[Beastie]

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]

Apprently he was jealous of the fiance and her kids.

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by InOne

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.

[MTVN]

There's very little info on the case for us to make a judgement tbh

[InOne]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by InOne

But seen as we're here we may as well

True 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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

True 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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

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

[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.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Scott

another joyful post from angus

If you want chat, games and frivolity, you're on the wrong thread

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Stu

Those damn do gooders! Always trying to do good!

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

[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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thebeast

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]

That is why they should be allowed to diagnose Children as Psychopaths, at the moment it's not allowed.

[lostalex]

The kid hasn't even been convicted yet, let alone been sentenced. This thread is very misleading.

[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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by angus58

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

And tired old phrases are the height of it, you virtuoso?

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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.]

Originally Posted by Stu

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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Stu

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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