[Angus]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by angus58

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]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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*]

Originally Posted by Zippy

are you thick or what?

.

At this point, all reasonable discussion goes right out the window.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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]

Originally Posted by Zippy

LOL. what bollocks.

no, you're clearly not good at semantics!

See post 86 dear.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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*]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I took nothing seriously.

good

who said you did?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

but only one of the offenders has re-offended.

[/B]

and the offence was of a different nature to the Bulger crime.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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.