|
23 Jun 01 - 09:34 AM (#490292) Subject: Venables & Thompson From: Fiolar The killers of the toddler James Bulger,Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are now free under licence. A lot of hate exists for the two perpetrators and I wonder how long will it be before they are discovered. I'm not going to ask if they should be free because many people have strong feelings about that, but I wonder if they are found what will happen? Will some "fine upstanding citizen" dispense "justice." Or will some idiot who can just about write his/her name and who for example couldn't tell the difference between a "paediatrician" and a "paedophile" (as happened recently) take the law into his/her own hands? |
|
23 Jun 01 - 09:44 AM (#490297) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Wolfgang A link for those who want to know more. Wolfgang |
|
23 Jun 01 - 04:40 PM (#490505) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Susanne (skw) Fiolar, I share your forebodings. Of course what they did was horrific. I just hope that their detention was put to good use, that they weren't just locked away. The years of adolescence are by and large the time of biggest change in any person's life, so if they've had adequate help there is a chance that they have grown into responsible people who will never do wrong again. (There are examples of this in other child killers. One has become a successful novelist.) However, those who clamour for them to be locked away for life don't see it that way. I understand little Jamie's family reacting less than sensibly, but everybody else ought to take a step back and ask themselves what they are doing. They're interfering, not with justice, for in such cases there can be no justice, but with the law. |
|
23 Jun 01 - 06:06 PM (#490555) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Bernard I can neither condemn nor condone the actions of Thompson and Venables. I do not possess full knowledge of all the facts, which makes it wrong for me, or most other people, to pass judgement. My belief is that these boys were still mentally children, and were not fully aware of the far-reaching consequences of their actions. Many young boys are guilty of pulling legs off spiders, setting off fireworks inside live frogs, and many other cruel acts involving small creatures. The difference is that these children are rarely called to account for their actions, but Thompson and Venables chose a young child. It was inevitable that their actions should attract media attention. However, to say that they deliberately murdered that young child is open to very serious doubt - I believe it was a prank which got out of hand. I stress that I do not know for certain, but my training and subsequent experience as a primary school teacher provides me with an insight others may not have. Mothers of small boys clearly share this insight, but it is interesting that this theory has not been publicly voiced. The killing of James Bulger was horrific, to say the least. But not dissimilar to the fate of many family pets. You will note I deliberately used 'killing' and not 'murder'. 'Murder' specifically requires a pre-meditated act. How can anyone believe that two small boys deliberately set out to murder a child? The whole idea is ludicrous. The family of James Bulger are understandably devastated by the whole thing. Should they, however, compound the problem by allowing their grief to deprive two boys who are now adults of a 'normal' life? Yes, the family have lost James, but punishing the killers cannot bring him back, nor can the killers turn the clock back. What is the likelihood of Venables and Thompson murdering again? I would suggest that the likelihood grows the longer they are unfairly imprisoned. Only they know whether they killed James on purpose, or by accident. If it was an accident (as seems more likely), then continuing punishment is unfair. There is also the unanswered question - were they both responsible, or did only one of them actually kill James? That raises more problems... My heart goes out to the Bulger family. If I were to lose either of my children, or my grandson, I, too, would be devastated. However, I am fortunate that I am not in such a position. The truth may never be known, and we can only pray that a similar death does not occur... |
|
23 Jun 01 - 07:02 PM (#490585) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: GUEST,Ed Wise words, Bernard. Listening to a radio 'phone in, I've just heard the view that if other 'similar' 10 year olds want to 'murder' they'll be more likely to as they'll be free in 8 years... Quite how such people formulate their views makes me a lot sadder than the original tragic act Ed |
|
23 Jun 01 - 07:06 PM (#490589) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: mooman I've been following this case with interest and sorrow too. Of course what they did was terrible. But they themselves were CHILDREN at the time. I think Bernard has summed it up better than I could above. mooman |
|
23 Jun 01 - 09:31 PM (#490647) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Peter K (Fionn) Not sure what you mean by "still mentally children" Bernard? They were ten, which I would have thought made them children, period. There was a slightly similar case in Sweden and the youngster in question didn't even go on trial (as Venables and Thompson would not have done in many countries around the world). There was no public outcry in Sweden; no baying for vengeance; no hysterical idiocy by people unconnected with the case and who should have known better. (Grown men, wholly unconnected with the case, assaulted a police van transporting the ten-year-olds Venables and Thompson!) And no-one believes Sweden is any less safe because it declined to punish the boy. Bernard touched on a point that deserves more attention. No-one can seriously believe that two boys of the same unique evilness just happened, by outrageous coincidence, to cross paths in the same district of Liverpool. One obviously was the prime mover. Just as in the Brady-Hindley axis, it is reasonable to conjecture that one of them might never have transgressed at all, but for falling under the other's spell. I fear such niceties will be beyond the reasoning of any lynch mob that might track down either of these lads. |
|
23 Jun 01 - 10:22 PM (#490656) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Interesting thread, I think this is a very sad case all round, I heard a man on the radio say if he knew were these two were, he would kill them.What good will that do? I used to be in favour of the death penalty, but after thinking about it properly, I have changed my mind. If there was a referendum, I would vote NO.I feel that as a 32 year old, delivery driver I have no right to vote to take another mans life.I think if these two men can become useful members of society it must be better than killing them.this is just my opinion, I might be wrong.I would be interested to know what the rest of you think about this. |
|
24 Jun 01 - 05:25 AM (#490736) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Fiolar Whatever happened 8 years ago cannot now be changed. The hate filled rantings of many people about what they would do to the young offenders serves to fuel the situation and sadly sells papers and makes more viewing figures for the television programmes. For example the BBC on the day that Thompson and Venables got their release spent nearly 25 minutes of the Newsnight programme discussing the situation. Nothing wrong with that, but at the end there was nothing positive produced at least for me. On another tack the doctor Harold Shipman is rumoured to have murdered maybe some 400 people and yet there is very little evidence, at least in the press, of hate and people shouting what they would do to him. One reason maybe is that many if not all the victims were elderly. Hypocrisy or what? |
|
24 Jun 01 - 05:31 AM (#490737) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Bernard I was using the expression 'mentally children' as a means of emphasising that we should not be attributing adult thoughts to their actions. Sorry if I caused confusion... |
|
24 Jun 01 - 06:27 AM (#490741) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Morticia I think it interesting and very sad that I have, several times, heard the case put forward that, since to all intents and purposes the boys had a better quality of life in jail, and managed to take A levels and so on, that somehow makes it more unfair that they should be released, as though they had in someway been 'rewarded for their actions'.........the person not wanting to reflect on what kind of family background could mean you would enhance your life chances in prison or what the implications of that on a ten-year old might be. As for whether they had a fair trial or not, I think few people doubt they did not.With Mr Murdoch, and the rest of the gutter press at the forefront of the public outcry, there was little chance they would. Don't misunderstand me, if that had been my child, I have no doubt I would have gone out of my mind with grief and rage, but is that a good reason for the rest of the country to? |
|
24 Jun 01 - 08:50 AM (#490767) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Willie-O I share the general sentiment here that these children should not be imprisoned for life as adults, or god knows, executed, but hey, WAKE UP you compassionate sensible people. Whatever their "mental ages" or leader-follower relationship, they took a three-year-old, poured paint in his eyes, hit him with a crowbar and then left him on train tracks to be cut in two. YUUUUCCCCHHHH. But that's what happened. It was not an accident and the word "prank" trivializes it beyond belief. Most kids play pranks which can be easily distinguished from cold-blooded murder. A lot of compassionate talk about how one "incident" shouldn't ruin their lives is beside the point. They have already ruined their lives. My understanding is that both boys have come a long way in understanding their own responsibility in this evil deed. That is the basis on which they are being permitted limited freedom. They will never be free of the consequences, which are threefold: from the legal justice system, from society at large, and from their own self-awareness. Having said that, I quite agree that the vengeance-seekers are a sorry and short-sighted lot. The two boys, now young men, have not earned forgiveness and probably never will, since their only hope is to disappear from the public view. But one hopes they will make something useful of their lives. The catch-22 is that if they have truly been rehabilitated, it's hard to imagine what the moral burden they carry feels like, but at a guess, suicide is a distinct possibility. The whole thing is too goddamn sad. I'm wondering, were any other parties charged with anything relating to the environment these boys grew in prior to the killing? I know they were exposed to a lot of ultra-violent videos but little else. Willie-O |
|
24 Jun 01 - 09:06 AM (#490775) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Peter K (Fionn) It's now becoming apparent that they've got no chance of keeping their past identities hidden. For a start, European newspapers are under no constraint, and are already on the trail, so the word will soon filter across the channel. It did work for Mary Bell for many years (another who killed as a child) but times have changed. Maybe new identities is the wrong approach this time round. Maybe these lads have just got to tough it out. Let people see that they've changed, and hope that sanity will prevail. The very fact that they are hidden from view will be a direct factor in whipping up feelings. When Mary Bell's cover was blown, there was outcry for a few days, but the world soon forgot about her again, so ther might be hope. < Another relevant point in this, I think, is that Jamie's mother asked to meet Thompson and Venables, but the request was refused. In this particular instance I do think she had that entitlement - and such a meeting could well have had some positive outcomes. Maybe it's time for those lads to grit their teeth and have that meeting - then take their chances, under their own names. |
|
24 Jun 01 - 09:11 AM (#490776) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Wolfgang Finally of course, there is the matter of the sheer futility of attempting to block the publication of their names, photographs and addresses. This information will surely be placed on the internet, on a server somewhere that the British courts cannot reach, within hours of the two killers future release. There is nothing to be done to stop this and the courts really should not make themselves look foolish by passing an unenforceable injunction. was a recent opinion on this case supporting Fionn's first point. Wolfgang |
|
24 Jun 01 - 01:01 PM (#490861) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Linda Kelly I get very annoyed when the media decide to play judge and jury and 'retry' every case that they see fit in an attempt to sell more papers. There should be no interference with the law by media or Government to pervert the course of justice in the interest of satisfying 'popular' opinion. Baying dogs always howl the loudest and I am sickened that they bay for the blood of these two lads who have served the sentence laid down under law. |
|
24 Jun 01 - 11:52 PM (#491113) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: 8_Pints I wholeheartedly agree with Ickle Dorrit! Bob vG |
|
25 Jun 01 - 01:49 PM (#491542) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: Fiolar I see that some nut in Florida is calling for retribution on the two. God save us. |
|
25 Jun 01 - 02:39 PM (#491577) Subject: RE: Venables & Thompson From: McGrath of Harlow some nut in Florida Unfortunately you don't have to go to Florida to find nuts like that.
There are some crimes where retribution and punishment make some kind of sense. But in a case like this - and it goes for that other one that's subject of a thread at present, about a mother who killed her children - I just can't see how it's relevant.
People who wax vengeful in this kind of situation are scary and sick in the mind, damaged maybe by whatever has happened in their own life to make them like that. (Except when they are newspaper editors cynically doing it for commercial reasons. Theirs is a different kind of sickness.) |