[Shasown]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by InOne

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

You still spelt it wrong. Continually.

because she thought it was the same as the Irish name Bolger, she just said

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Zippy

You still spelt it wrong. Continually.

*spelled

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

because she thought it was the same as the Irish name Bolger, she just said

but its never been spelt like that and its just not his correct name. He wasn't even Irish.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by lostalex

*spelled

actually I meant spealt.

and a typo is not the same as spelling somebodies name wrong constantly.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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!

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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!

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!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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!

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

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No, I knew that his name was spelled Bulger but maybe she didn't read alot about it?

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by InOne

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Thanks. I'm gonna leave ye to it. Life's too short for this place.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

Thanks. I'm gonna leave ye to it. Life's too short for this place.

aw :/

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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]

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.