[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Stu

Just throw him in a nice, clean cell with three solid meals and a half hour stroll in a concrete yard a day for the rest of his life.

It's more than enough punishment. He will have god knows how many years to slowly rot away in agonising, torturous, sanitised boredom. Don't ever let him out and just reduce him to a number. It's a cheaper death penalty without having blood on our hands. I do not think it's healthy for a nation to legislate murder no matter what the circumstances. I know it's dissapointing for the legion of tabloid gobblers totally unaffected by it who want something to go with their Sky News and grim convorsations because the soaps don't start till' seven.

Sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by Jordan.

I don't agree with new identities at all. I don't care how reformed someone may claim to be they should be made to live with their actions, especially in this case where a whole life has been taken away before it even properly started. Why should he get his back after a few lousy years? Its a complete joke.

Yes, exactly.

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

Two things. First, I firmly believe, and I think we've discussed this before, that some people are just rotten and without empathy and out of control and will NEVER be rehabilitated to a sufficient level to safely allow them access to potential victims.
Second, even if it were possible to rehabilitate someone who does something like this, they don't deserve it. Back to Stu's suggestion, I think.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Fair comment. Seems very odd to enter a thread yet know nothing about what it is discussing, nor taking into account anything that has been said in relation to the very article in question that started the topic off, but opt to select one random post to address without being aware of the discussion on the thread. But hey, each to their own, live and let live as they say.

You're being pedantic, I knew the story but not the concrete facts and i repled to the post that intrigued me the most.

I'm actually stunned I have to explain this to be honest. It's kinda common sense.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

.... i said in the post you've quoted I've not commented on the story since I don't know enough about it. I've only talked about the law system and new identities. I'm not quite sure why you are trying to discredit me by trying to put words in my mouth when you've got my post quoted for everyone to see.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're being pedantic, I knew the story but not the concrete facts and i repled to the post that intrigued me the most.

I'm actually stunned I have to explain this to be honest. It's kinda common sense.

I'm not being pedantic at all - your very own replies are lending themselves to much confusion. I'm unclear why you are 'actually stunned'.

In one post you say you didn't read the article in the daily mail that was provided (because it wasn't clear from the title of the thread), you then make comment about "typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact" (despite not reading the article), then you say , "I didn't comment on the story as I didn't know enough about it", and now you say that "You knew the story but not the concrete facts".

No wonder I'm confused! (note: that's a laugh in general at the confusion, not at you specifically)

In all fairness Dezzy - regardless of which newspapers stories are printed, tabloids or broadsheets - not all of them do offer up the concrete facts - especially in cases such as this - as very few of them are privy to the concrete facts.

Let's both agree to disagree on what you knew about the story or not - Regardless of where the information / article came from. The topic for discussion that was contained in the article was in respect of this particular man, Jason Owen being allowed the possiblity of being given a New ID, given the sickening crimes he committed.

Back to the thrust of the thread. your post below

Originally Posted by Dezzy
where does this idea come from that he'd be given some sort of luxurious come from? He'd be given a dive to live in and a dead end job that he'd have to keep up due to the agreements he'd make upon getting a new identity. He'd be under severe restrictions and he'd always be watched. He's not gonna get some executive position and a penthouse to live in at the expense of the taxpayer.

and my reply....

Who said anything about some sort of 'luxurious'? Who inferred he was going to be given any executive position or penthouse. Not one person as far as I can see. If ever I saw an example of trying to throw a curve ball ...this really has to be it.

There are many homeless people who are far more deserving of being given a home. There are many people on the dole who are far more willing to work and simply cannot get a job - who deserve to be immediately placed in employement than scumbags like this man.

Why should low life like this be allowed such things when other more deserved in society, who may have committed no crime at all, far less an henious crime such as this man committed, be overlooked in favour of a child abuser and paedophile?

Do you honestly think a man such as Owen who has such background, such history (men like them at all - ie: Jon Venables) - should have more rights over those who may not have committed any crime, far less anything on the scale of Owen - that they should be afforded the same right to automatic housing, being given a job without question etc? You agree that someone like him, capable of inflicting such horrendous torture on an innocent child, should be given these priviledges all paid for out of the public purse?

[Pyramid*]

[QUOTE=Dezzy;4330195]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

Two things. First, I firmly believe, and I think we've discussed this before, that some people are just rotten and without empathy and out of control and will NEVER be rehabilitated to a sufficient level to safely allow them access to potential victims.

Second, even if it were possible to rehabilitate someone who does something like this, they don't deserve it. Back to Stu's suggestion, I think.

Hi Pats. Cannot agree more - especially given the latest new Jon Venables - if anyone needs proof that some people are out of control and will never be rehabilitated - even when that rehabilitation starts at a very young and very impressionable age: when they are not meant to be 'set in their way'....... JV is proof of that.

I know we have very differing views on keeping them in prison etc - but as far as protecting the public from such people, I'm 100% in agreeance with you on this one.

[Harry!]

He should NOT be entitled to a new identity, what he did to poor Peter was wrong and deserves to be in prison for much longer then that. Our system is so wrong on so many levels.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

how can the parole board, the powers that be, or the public be assured that he is a reformed character? If he is so 'reformed' and there is absolute proof of this: he should not require any new identity.

Do you honestly feel that 'reformed character or not' - that a person who has inflicted such horror and torture upon a young child, should benefit from the taxpayer paying for his new ID, house, job and all other manner of things that that would entail.

Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?

If there was a choice between the monies being spent on the New ID or what I have posed above: what would your preference be?

Do you think that if there were absolute proof of rehabilitation then that would stop some of the vigilante idiots from still pursuing their misguided concept of justice and trying to form a lynch mob? Working on the presumption that he has indeed been rehabilitated then I wouldnt be opposed to him having a new identity if there was sufficient evidence that his life was under threat.

And that's not really an answerable question because it presumes that the money can either be spent on one thing or the other. I'd rather taxpayers money wasnt being spent in the billions on unjust wars in Afghanistan, Iraq & now Libya, or that so much was spent on Trident etc. but it does, it's a straw man to say that because I wouldnt mind him having a new identity I, by extension, want to see sick children not be treated.

[Vicky.]

I saw something on tv earlier...about apparently the police are going to name and shame criminals to stop people thinking they are too soft.

Not sure what I saw it on though :/

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Do you think that if there were absolute proof of rehabilitation then that would stop some of the vigilante idiots from still pursuing their misguided concept of justice and trying to form a lynch mob? Working on the presumption that he has indeed been rehabilitated then I wouldnt be opposed to him having a new identity if there was sufficient evidence that his life was under threat.

And that's not really an answerable question because it presumes that the money can either be spent on one thing or the other. I'd rather taxpayers money wasnt being spent in the billions on unjust wars in Afghanistan, Iraq & now Libya, or that so much was spent on Trident etc. but it does, it's a straw man to say that because I wouldnt mind him having a new identity I, by extension, want to see sick children not be treated.

Given that the thread is nothing to do with wars etc, your 2nd paragraph is a completely moot point.

Re your first paragraph: if I am very honest: I really don't care. Owens didn't give a damn, why should I be concerned for his welfare. I'm not, and I don't pretend to be either.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Given that the thread is nothing to do with wars etc, your 2nd paragraph is a completely moot point.

Re your first paragraph: if I am very honest: I really don't care. Owens didn't give a damn, why should I be concerned for his welfare. I'm not, and I don't pretend to be either.

What the hell, of course it's relevant, this thread isnt specifically about sick children either but you brought that up and that's fine because public expenditure is relevant to the thread and wars are obviously a part of that

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

What the hell, of course it's relevant, this thread isnt specifically about sick children either but you brought that up and that's fine because public expenditure is relevant to the thread and wars are obviously a part of that

you will find you are taking my comment out of context......if you care to read the rest of what I wrote on that same paragraph - ie:

Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?

The word 'sick' meant in regards to their mentail health due to such abuse and torture.

The thread is NOT about where public monies should be spent. Wars or not.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

you will find you are taking my comment out of context......if you care to read the rest of what I wrote on that same paragraph - ie: The word 'sick' meant in regards to their mentail health due to such abuse and torture.

The thread is NOT about where public monies should be spent. Wars or not.

I disagree, considering the thread is about how innapropiate you feel it is that this is what taxpayers money is being spent on then surely it's relevant to make other points in regards to how taxes are spent, is it not?

Anyway this is going off topic, I dont care much for an argument over the relevance of an argument so I'll leave it there

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I disagree, considering the thread is about how innapropiate you feel it is that this is what taxpayers money is being spent on then surely it's relevant to make other points in regards to how taxes are spent, is it not?

Anyway this is going off topic, I dont care much for an argument over the relevance of an argument so I'll leave it there

No it's not MTVN. It's painfully clear what this thread is about - not general allocation of funds from the public purse for any possible discussion topic - it's very specifically related to the public purse money being used to provide child abusers and killers with new identities - monies being used to protect violent, sick, abusing criminals and child killers.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

No it's not MTVN. It's painfully clear what this thread is about - not general allocation of funds from the public purse for any possible discussion topic - it's very specifically related to the public purse money being used to provide child abusers and killers with new identities - monies being used to protect violent, sick, abusing criminals and child killers.

If you want to say that taxpayers money can be better spent elsewhere than it is perfectly reasonable to discuss what else taxpayers money is spent on. But this is stupid and going nowhere. And for the first couple of pages this thread had nothing to do with having a new identity so dont pretend you're suddenly incredibly indignant that you feel the discussion has drifted off topic ever so slightly

[Grimnir]

i dont give 2 ****s anymore

the world is a nasty sesspit full of scumbags who defend other scum

so let them all out i say **** it

let them all out and give them TiBB accounts so they can contribute to this forum

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

If you want to say that taxpayers money can be better spent elsewhere than it is perfectly reasonable to discuss what else taxpayers money is spent on. But this is stupid and going nowhere. And for the first couple of pages this thread had nothing to do with having a new identity so dont pretend you're suddenly incredibly indignant that you feel the discussion has drifted off topic ever so slightly

You might want to go check again...you were there commenting in the first few pages - and were pretty indignant when I said some of the views that some had - in relation to child abusers, child killers - sickened me - one of those views being yours because I disagreed that this man (and those like him), should be have his human rights considered now - after the crime he committed - and I strongly objected to that and him being given the possibilty of new id etc.

I love a good debate, but your recent input is not adding much to the heart of the matter. I really am going to respecfully request that you stop trying to skew the thread off rails, it's very clear what the subject is. Thanks very much.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

i dont give 2 ****s anymore

the world is a nasty sesspit full of scumbags who defend other scum

so let them all out i say **** it

let them all out and give them TiBB accounts so they can contribute to this forum

Actually - you have said something that has struck a chord. Let out the scum - and when they come knocking on the homes of those who defend them, and abuse the children of those who defend them - let's see if their sympathies still lie where they once did.

After all, new Ids haven't been overly successful in the past - look at Venables and Carr.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Actually - you have said something that has struck a chord. Let out the scum - and when they come knocking on the homes of those who defend them, and abuse the children of those who defend them - let's see if their sympathies still lie where they once did.

After all, new Ids haven't been overly successful in the past - look at Venables and Carr.

As far as I know Maxine Carr has not reoffended (although I'm surprised she was given a new identity in the first place) and you can also look at Mary Bell who killed 2 people when she was 10, was given a new identity and has never reoffended and is now a grandmother. Even Robert Thompson has presumably not reoffended despite him being the one to show least remorse following the death and considering the manner in which their persecution went ahead.

It's all very well to point out cases of recidivism and say rehabilitation can't work but you have to consider cases where it has been successful as well.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

As far as I know Maxine Carr has not reoffended (although I'm surprised she was given a new identity in the first place) and you can also look at Mary Bell who killed 2 people when she was 10, was given a new identity and has never reoffended and is now a grandmother. Even Robert Thompson has presumably not reoffended despite him being the one to show least remorse following the death and considering the manner in which their persecution went ahead.

It's all very well to point out cases of recidivism and say rehabilitation can't work but you have to consider cases where it has been successful as well.

I don't think the successful cases are worth the failed ones.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I don't think the successful cases are worth the failed ones.

I see your point but I think the fact that rehabilitation can be sucessful means that times where it has failed is more due to problems with the system itself, as oppose to some people being inherently unreformable, I dont think anyone is past being rehabilitated (unless we're talking about people who are mentally ill, or psychopathic)

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I see your point but I think the fact that rehabilitation can be sucessful means that times where it has failed is more due to problems with the system itself, as oppose to some people being inherently unreformable, I dont think anyone is past being rehabilitated (unless we're talking about people who are mentally ill, or psychopathic)

personally, I believe paedophiles and people who torture others, especially children are mentally ill.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I see your point but I think the fact that rehabilitation can be sucessful means that times where it has failed is more due to problems with the system itself, as oppose to some people being inherently unreformable, I dont think anyone is past being rehabilitated (unless we're talking about people who are mentally ill, or psychopathic)

I understand what you are saying because I don't think we like to believe people are 'all bad' and therefore 'redeemable' or able to be rehabilitated given the right circumstances. I think its our nature to try and seek out the good in people. However, we have to judge people on their actions also and it is hard not to feel that some actions are unredeemable.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

As far as I know Maxine Carr has not reoffended (although I'm surprised she was given a new identity in the first place) and you can also look at Mary Bell who killed 2 people when she was 10, was given a new identity and has never reoffended and is now a grandmother. Even Robert Thompson has presumably not reoffended despite him being the one to show least remorse following the death and considering the manner in which their persecution went ahead.

It's all very well to point out cases of recidivism and say rehabilitation can't work but you have to consider cases where it has been successful as well.

Actually, I don't have to consider cases where it has been successful.

These people do not deserve a 2nd chance. Their victims didn't get a 2nd chance. They should 'do their time' and take their chances on the outside - whether that be successful or not - I care not one jot.

Polish it whatever way you like: my views on this are clear. I do not agree with you.