BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 06:07 AM

Well Jim, I think Teribus and Keith finished you off publicly a long time back. They put your bizarre theories and lack of credible response to questions into the spotlight for many of us. Maybe you are better off just banging the drum with Des Dalton and the boys !

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 07:58 AM

Whatever Rich, but still no substitute for evidence for your lying claims, innit!!
Back to the discussion in hand if you've no great objection, old man!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 08:42 AM

It occurs to me that the reason children are not punished as severely as others is that they know no better. This two did. They'd been playing the system for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 09:53 AM

Jim, I wasn't actually asking you that question, and your quotes aren't referring to ten year olds; they are in the present tense. If anyone actually supports the execution of ten year olds under UK law, I'm sure they can speak up for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Silas
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 03:16 PM

Nope! twernt me that said they were victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 04:19 PM

It was Jim ~~ here's the quote in b&w. Why is anyone arguing?

"We don't know that Lizzie, but if you are right, then the perpetrators become victims themselves.
Jim Carroll" --

-- followed by, from Silas, "Yes, I was wondering when these evil little bastards would become victims". [yesterday 2.09 pm].

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: GUEST,lurcio
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 04:25 PM

Anyone called Mark Stevens on here?

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Apr 11 - 05:48 PM

The documentary about which this thread was started seemed to be implying that they were some sort of victims, though I didn't catch much of it. I got the impression it was a bit of a damage limitation exercise though. I imagine a lot of people disapproved of their release, and in Venables' case were proved right. However, whatever 'made' them like they were, the end result was the same, and public safety should be the first priority, regardless of how old they were at the time. What I'd like to know is, if they had to let them out, why they weren't watching them a damn sight more closely than was obviously the case. Whoever was responsible for those decisions owes the public an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:37 AM

"It occurs to me that the reason children are not punished as severely as others is that they know no better"
The reason they are not punished severely is that it is regarded that up to a certain age they are not deemed as being fully responsible for their actions - to develop a situation where the authorities can decide that one individual is responsible and another is not would lead to the blackest of black farces - come on Richard - you can do better than that.
We don't send young people to school at a set age, or allow them to freely view certain films, or buy cigarettes, or drink alchohol.... or whatever age restriction we put on their activities, on the basis of their individual capabilities, we - rightly - set a limit for ALL children; otherwise any restriction would be unworkable.
"If anyone actually supports the execution of ten year olds under UK law"
I gave examples of people who had actually declared their support for the execution of ten year olds - this question arose by your claiming it had not happened. Maybe your question should have been' does aybody else....?"
"It was Jim "
I qualified my comment Mike - I have in no way said I agree with what Lizzie said, and I'm not sure I do, but if she is right then they have been made what they are by adult activities - porn, video games and horrifically violent films that present violence as a virtue and an entertainment.
Coincidentally, I glimpsed about ten minutes of one of the films that was said to have been one of their influences - Child's-play (Chucky) 2 - pretty revolting stuff and still freely available on openly accessible television channels for the 'entertainment' of our children.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:57 AM

Well, no, Jim, for many many years the qualified doli incapax rule applied permitting acquittal of those between 10 and 14 if they did not know that what they were doing was wrong. We did indeed apply criminal sanctions on the basis of individual understanding, and, it seems to me, rightly so. This charming pair demonstrated over and over again that they knew that they were doing wrong and that they could escape retribution because they were under 10. They were, as I said before, career criminals.

So, first, from the point of view of punishment, they deserved punishment as much as any other criminal.

Secondly, from the point of view of protection of society they should have been kept away from the public until it could confidently be shown that they were not a menace to society.

The third purpose of a prison/restraint regime is rehabilitation, and that evidently failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:03 AM

··· "It was Jim "
I qualified my comment Mike····

I know you did, Jim. There was no critical or contentious intent or any such in my statement here; just that posters had been arguing about who first intro'd the concept of 'victim', so I was trying to settle the matter in quoting your post simply as a matter of fact.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:15 AM

It's a brain thing, Eliza. Some are born with no lights at all in the Sympathy, Empathy and Caring department.

Hitler surrounded himself with such brains, of course. Whether he was born that way, or became that way after both his parents committed suicide, who knows.

Either way, I think it's very hard to turn those lights back on again, particularly if there are no electrical connections there in the first place in which to place 'new bulbs'...

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:17 AM

"Some are born with no lights at all in the Sympathy, Empathy and Caring department."
Lizzie, you appear to be re-inventing human anatomy to create a new born-a- monster' species; sorry - such creatures are formed by personal circumstances and not born - Ray Bradbury fantasized them brilliantly in a couple of his short stories.
"they should have been kept away from the public until it could confidently be shown that they were not a menace to society."
And presumably it was judged that they were - I don't believe that the crimes committed by Venables, which he almost certainly picked up while incarcerated, counts as failure. If he were to continue with violent criminal activity, that would be a different matter and would be presumably acted on by he authorities. Thankfully Britain doesn't operate a three-strikes-and-you're-out, as does America.
Nothing that has been put forwards here persuades me in any way that this, or any other case should be taken out of the hands of those responsible and put in the hands of what is essentially a vigilante (even lynch) mob.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Silas
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:26 AM

Well Jim, the 'nature/nuture' thing.
Do you really belive that deliquency of any form is due to nuture? Do you not accept that some people are just not nice?

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:48 AM

What a pity that they were not struck by lightning. (Anyone remembe the Bad Seed?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 01:47 PM

I gave examples of people who had actually declared their support for the execution of ten year olds

Yes Jim, twice, but we don't agree on them. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 02:44 PM

"Do you not accept that some people are just not nice?"
Can honestly say I've never met a three/six/nine-month-old 'narsty bastard'.
Children are a blank page - you and me 'write the story' - get it wrong - take the consequences.
"Anyone remember the Bad Seed'
Yeah, and Damien, and The Omen, and The Exorcist; and read Bradbury's The Small Assassin, and The Veldt, and James's Turn of The Screw - great entertainment, but they're all fairy stories.
Does anybody seriously believe in 'original sin' and inherent evil?
That is what is being proposed here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:27 PM

Can honestly say I've never met a three/six/nine-month-old 'narsty bastard'.

Ah, that's because you were fooled by their evil manipulation techniques. They are survival machines with no conscience at that age, and as soon as they have teeth, they will bite you and laugh at your screams.

Or is that just mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:36 PM

Oh, dear, Smokey- I fear for you. :)


No. I do NOT believe that a child is born 'evil', whatever that is at that age. To believe that tripe would be to go back two hundred and more years. How many here - I'm referring to perhaps three Mudcatters - would have been happy with the goings on in Salem, Massachusetts? Hold fast to your beliefs regarding these children and you would likely have found yourself on the committee that condemned those 'witches' to death - and rejoiced at it.

Hey. I think I have just convinced myself of the truth of reincarnation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:43 PM

Ebbie, I'm not complaining, and that's only one way of looking at it. :-)

So far though, their ruthless training has working perfectly & I am a devoted slave.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Silas
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 03:58 PM

No Jim, not by me it's not, so please don't put words in my mouth. However, it's not all nurture as you well know. Brothers with identical upbringings can turn out very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 04:29 PM

It's nonsensical to say it's all down to nurture. If you blame the parents, their shortcomings must be down to nurture too, and so the grandparents', great grandparents', ad infinitum. Leading to the notion that no-one is to blame for anything. In effect, it's not much different to a genetic trait.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:33 PM

Saying it's all down to nurture' does not lead to the notion that no-one is to blame for anything. While there is a genetic component to one's personality, there comes apoint in one's life when responsibility has to be accepted for one's 'sins' even if they were inadvertent - Sophocles put it very well in 'Oedipus Rex' where Oedipus, although he had no way of knowing that he was committing patricide and incest, accepted the responsibilty for his actions and resultant punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:38 PM

"Brothers with identical upbringings can turn out very different."
Upbringing, while a major formative influence, is not the only one on our lives.
"No Jim, not by me it's not,"
Then what - if not built-in evil?
There has been no effort here on anybody's part to move from blaming two legal and actual ten-year-old children for what they became to commit the crimes they committed - and a refusal to accept any suggestion that others might have played a part in their making.
"Leading to the notion that no-one is to blame for anything."
We are still talking about ten-year-old children.
Nobody has suggested an alternative to setting a limit of responsibility for criminal acts, nor has had the courage to discuss the implication for other children, including their own for criminal behavior.
If adults here refuse to face responsibility head on - is it fair to expect two ten-year-olds to face up to their acts?
I'm not putting words in your mouth Silas, but it would be interesting if you did.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:44 PM

The notion, DMK, not the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 05:46 PM

I believe that once someone becomes a sociopath, they don't change. If there are experts here, I'd be happy to hear your views. I could be wrong, and I hope I am. It might well be that a 10 year old can be a sociopath who doesn't identify with other people and is incapable of empathizing. Even those people can learn not to do things that will get them in trouble. These kids never learned that, and I think they remained a danger to society.

I don't think the death penalty is acceptable for children, but they should be kept somewhere where they never have access to potential victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: josepp
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 06:07 PM

Dear Jim Carroll,

I NEVER said I condone the execution of 10-year-olds. I simply said these two should be put to death--they're not 10 anymore, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 06:11 PM

I appreciate that, Josepp, thank you. Mind you, I still think you're being a bit harsh..

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: josepp
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 06:17 PM

////I believe that once someone becomes a sociopath, they don't change.////

You're right. If you're born without a conscience or have it squashed out of you via severe childhood abuse, you can't acquire one later on. You either have one or you don't.

Most sociopaths are not dangerous and will never hurt anyone--they simply have no feelings of love or affection for anyone other than themselves. They're a pain in the ass but little else.

What criminal sociopaths do is learn to mimic real people as they get older. For example, a couple loses their son who was fighting overseas. The sociopath will see others offering their condolences to the bereaved couple. As he gets older, the socipath realizes that he must do the same so that his deficiency is not apparent.

If a coworker is hurt in a car wreck, the sociopath will express great concern for this person's well being not because he is concerned--he has no cpacity for it--but because he knows that this is what is expected of him as an adult. It's purely a survival mechanism--a way of not being caught, of not standing out in a bad way. One of the best examples I can give is Dennis Rader, the BTK killer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 06:25 PM

I reckon we're all born without a conscience, but maybe some are born without the capacity to develop one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 06:44 PM

Actually Josepp, ignore my last post, it was irrelevant hairsplitting now I think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 08:20 PM

They are not 10 years old anymore so they can now be put to death? Is that convoluted thinking or what?

I noticed earlier that you said that they should be "sentenced" now; you never mentioned the possibility of a new trial. So you are saying that if one does something horrific at age 10 (or age 6? Or age whatever?) and survives to age 20 (or age 18?) that person should now be killed?

I wonder how you would go about it: On his or her 20th birthday, perhaps? Maybe at midnight there could be footsteps outside one's cell...

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 08:34 PM

'Twas I who said "I believe Thompson and Venables should have been kept in secure care until they were 18 then sentenced as adults with a complete understanding of what they had done and the full consequences of their actions." That allows for the possibility of being sentenced only for manslaughter or taking into account the time they already spent incarcerated, depending on the seriousness of the case. I wasn't suggesting the inflexibility of capital punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: josepp
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:47 PM

////I noticed earlier that you said that they should be "sentenced" now; you never mentioned the possibility of a new trial. So you are saying that if one does something horrific at age 10 (or age 6? Or age whatever?) and survives to age 20 (or age 18?) that person should now be killed?/////

If a person commits a vicious murder at age 10 or 8 or whatever, they need to be locked away until their 18th birthday and then executed on that day--no appeals.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 10:53 PM

Lovely.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 11 - 11:46 PM

josepp ~~ are you seriously suggesting that someone should live knowingly under sentence of death for 8 years? Just think of the implications of that.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Smokey.
Date: 01 May 11 - 12:01 AM

It doesn't take much working out who hasn't had children around here..

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: josepp
Date: 01 May 11 - 12:07 AM

////josepp ~~ are you seriously suggesting that someone should live knowingly under sentence of death for 8 years? Just think of the implications of that./////

(shrug)

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 01 May 11 - 01:57 AM

Any Daily Mail readers present? Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Silas
Date: 01 May 11 - 05:55 AM

OK Jim, this is how I see it.
I think we are being slightly side-tracked about whether kids are 'born bad' or not. To me it does not really matter. Personally, I think some people are intrinsically 'less good' than others – make of that what you will.
The point is, surely, that for whatever reason, these pair decided to abduct torture and murder horrifically a toddler. It appears that they were well known to the local police who seem to be powerless to do anything about their activities. I am not even slightly interested in how old they were, they clearly knew what they were doing was by any standards wrong, and if they had not been caught, it is likely that they would have gone on to commit further crimes. Now, we do not as a nation have the stomach for the death penalty, and it may well be that it would not be appropriate in this case anyway, but these murderers a should be locked up for life, and I mean life. They are already 'bad', exposing them to criminals inside the penal institutions could hardly make them worse. One of them has been convicted of downloading child pornography. Few people here seem to be aware of the implications of this crime (which should also carry a mandatory life sentence as far as I am concerned), and the victims of this type of pornography, it is evil bastards like Venables who perpetuate this trade and are as bad as the producers of these horrific films and photographs.
So what do we do in this country to help the situation?
We give them false identities at enormous cost, allow them the freedom to re-enter society under a government approved alias, and they are free to associate with whoever they wish, one of them could be marrying your daughter for all you know.
I would like to see them banged up in a secure institution forever, or at least until another inmate does the job for us and snuffs them out.
Hope this is now clear.

---

If you wish to discuss the subject, please do.
If you wish to attack another person posting here, it will be deleted.
If personal attacks are all this thread comes to be about, it will be closed. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 11 - 10:43 AM

"I simply said these two should be put to death--they're not 10 anymore, are they?"
A sort of death row for children until they are old enough to be executed - oooooo; what a good idea!!!!
More later, when I've had time to digest that one!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 01 May 11 - 10:44 AM

I think we remain devided over this sad case. Let's hope it never happens again.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 11 - 11:41 AM

What is clear is we have a bunch of vigilantes with a lynch mob mentality rarin' to 'get' (execute or bang away for life) two children who the law prohibits from treating as adults.
None of you are prepared to bite the bullet and say (or even address) that you would be prepared to abandon the legal limitation as applied to all children - including your own.
Some of you have concocted pseudo- psychological theories to suggest that we are born the way we remain in order to justify this leap backwards.
Two of you make no pretence of wishing two young people executed for crimes committed when they were children - though one of you has added the rider "or at least until another inmate does the job for us and snuffs them out."
I think this will be one of the few times in my life that I find myself totally in agreement with Richie Black.
"I think we remain devided over this sad case"
What a depressing world.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 01 May 11 - 11:52 AM

Agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: josepp
Date: 01 May 11 - 12:00 PM

////A sort of death row for children until they are old enough to be executed - oooooo; what a good idea!!!!////

So what's wrong with that? Listen, folks, instead of just repeating what I say with 10 question marks or exclamation marks after it try actually spelling out in English words exactly what is wrong with the suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: josepp
Date: 01 May 11 - 12:08 PM

/////What is clear is we have a bunch of vigilantes with a lynch mob mentality rarin' to 'get' (execute or bang away for life) two children who the law prohibits from treating as adults.
None of you are prepared to bite the bullet and say (or even address) that you would be prepared to abandon the legal limitation as applied to all children - including your own.
Some of you have concocted pseudo- psychological theories to suggest that we are born the way we remain in order to justify this leap backwards.
Two of you make no pretence of wishing two young people executed for crimes committed when they were children - though one of you has added the rider "or at least until another inmate does the job for us and snuffs them out."/////

Here's where liberalism and I part company--the insane idea that everybody deserves a second chance. No everybody doesn't deserve a second chance--that's just common sense. SOME deserve a second chance. Others clearly DO NOT. And Venables and Thompson fall into the latter category, I'm afraid. Christ, we kill stray pets if nobody wants them because we can't afford to keep caring for them in shelters but these two shit globs have some kind of societal value and have to kept alive and protected at all costs?? Could someone explain this because Jim Carroll obviously can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Penny S.
Date: 01 May 11 - 01:28 PM

So we take two children, with impaired understanding of life, so educationally limited, and make them live almost as long as their lives to the date of their admittedly horric crime, knowiung they will be executed at the age of 18.

This may make sense in a country where people can be kept waiting on Death Row for years, and then be executed when evidence exists that they were innocent because of due court process having been followed and it cannot be overruled.

This may equally make sense to someone with a similar lack of empathy to the actors in this case. Those eight years at that age are a very long time.

That rehabilitation failed is more an indictment of the way they were dealt with in prison. We don't know that enough was done, or tried to be done. If that story about the warder is true, then adequate car4e was not taken. How did Venables become able to download child pornography? These are people who have been failed first by their parents, and then by society. Venables should certainly be kept out of the way of doing harm.

Maybe some people do not deserve a second chance, but the choice of whether it is offered should not be in the hands of people with a shortage of empathy themselves. Empathy, BTW, is not a synonym for sympathy, but an understanding of others' minds. It can, itself, be found in nasty people, who use their understanding to hurt.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 May 11 - 01:48 PM

What's wrong with waiting until a certain age to kill a convicted child? For starters: It is a child. Secondly, a wing or cell block full of children waiting to get old enough to die boggles the mind. On the other hand, it could be a real money maker; one could sell lots of chances to tour the facility and view the condemned. Maybe a spitting room could be provided in order to enhance the experience.

Oh, yeah. You have convinced me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 01 May 11 - 01:51 PM

"Maybe some people do not deserve a second chance, but the choice of whether it is offered should not be in the hands of people with a shortage of empathy themselves. Empathy, BTW, is not a synonym for sympathy, but an understanding of others' minds. It can, itself, be found in nasty people, who use their understanding to hurt."

Hear hear - Well said, Penny.

Subject: RE: BS: Bulger, Thompson, Venables
From: kendall
Date: 01 May 11 - 02:27 PM

Comparing a stray animal to a child is beyond me.
Killing a killer is nothing but revenge, not justice.
No one ever has the right to take the life of another human being UNLESS it is done in self defense, and the threat to ones life is Imminent.