quote:
The boys dragged and led the toddler three kilometres through town to a railway line, where they hit him with bricks and metal bars, poured paint in his eyes and finally placed him on the tracks where a train cut him in half.
iiiiiiiiish.....damn, these two kids sure were violent at that time.
And why are their pictures released to the public? I thought it is illegal to do so, because they were under-age, and their identities needed to be kept secret.
[ June 22, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
If they could do that then, just think what they could do now! I know that they are meant to have been rehabilitated and all, but I don't buy that at all. 8 Years! That's 8 more years that that poor little boy had, and they'll still be allowed to live to a ripe old age with money and a roof over their heads - the system bloody well sucks!!!
If they're not gonna be shot then they should be locked in a cold, wet and dark cell with no food and water and then have the key melted so that no one can get then out again. If you don't want to go for that then - hit them with bricks and metal bars, poured paint in their eyes and finally place them on the tracks where a train can cut them in half - give them a taste of their own fucking medicine. People like them should be put down at birth.
That's my two pence on the matter - I believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and that the British law is far far too soft. I mean - Person A is killed by Person B and Person B gets life imprisonment (25 years). Ten years later they get out because of good behaviour. But if a law abiding citizen kills someone in self-defence they don't get good behaviour benefits, they have to stay in for 25 years until they get their first review and even then they may end up staying in prison until they die or are at least very old. Shite! Absolutely shite!
Okay, first.
Their pictures haven't been released to the public. I have no idea where you got that idea from. There pictures are not allowed to be released in this country. Of course, that law doesn't apply to other countries, so if someone gets a picture of them, and puts it on a French hosted web-site (for example), that's prefectly legal.
"I believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and that the British law is far far too soft."
I would quote Delenn here, but that would be far too sad. I should point out that in almost all other European countries, they'd have gotten off far lighter, as they would have been under the age of criminal responsibility. They'd have gotten off far lighter. I can't think of any wesern country where they would have received capital punishment. I don't think that even the US is fucked up enough to kill 10 year old kids, no matter what they have done.
"If they're not gonna be shot then they should be locked in a cold, wet and dark cell *snip* People like them should be put down at birth."
Do I need to point out the slight flaw in that argument?
"Person A is killed by Person B and Person B gets life imprisonment (25 years). Ten years later they get out because of good behaviour. But if a law abiding citizen kills someone in self-defence they don't get good behaviour benefits, they have to stay in for 25 years until they get their first review and even then they may end up staying in prison until they die or are at least very old. Shite! Absolutely shite!"
Are we basing that on any sort of precendent? Any at all? Or have we just taken too many antihistamines today?
[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
I sympathize with most Brits who oppose this decision to release these two monsters.
That something being the fact that these two children were TEN YEARS OLD.
There is no way someone should recieve the death penalty for a crime committed while a child. Now, granted, being that the super vast majority of Europe doesn't have the death penalty, they're clear on that area (to bad the US's record isn't as clear). Shame on Blue Electron and others on this board for suggesting that the killings of two children would solve anything.
But, back to the age.
TEN YEARS OLD!
TEN YEARS OLD!
How many people here did something when they were 10 that they know better about now in their teens or twenties or thirties?
It is wrong and mind-boggling to charge children as ADULTS. If you can charge a 10-year old as an adult, well, that 10-year old should also have that same right as adults: driving, drinking, voting, etcetra.
It's one thing to make the case of trying someone as an adult if they're at least in that age range -- say, about 16 or so -- but TEN?! TEN?! And the DEATH PENALTY? No way! Try 'em as an adult if you want, but I fail to see what's solved by executing someone for a crime committed as a minor.
I'm sorry. I just find it ridiculous that boys of ten are being held to the same standards as if two 20-year olds had done this.
You want to keep them in jail? I can understand that.
You want to try them as adults? Can't really understand that ...
You want to kill them? Sounds like you're a sick fuck yourself.
[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff Kardde ]
Now that we have that out of the way, I think that they shouldn't be killed, but still placed in a maximum security prison, where they can be someone's bitch and go thorough some suffering at least, instead of the cushy treatment they got.
[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: MC Infinity ]
They didn't kill someone when they were eighteen. They killed someone when they were ten.
SHAME ON ME!!!!
Man, don't kill the messenger man!
I'm only here to post the freaking article.
I did not express opinions of any kind except that the things that these two kids did was pretty cruel. And certainly I NEVER SAID that kids should be killed of any kind!
[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
"If they're not gonna be shot then they should be locked in a cold, wet and dark cell *snip* People like them should be put down at birth."Do I need to point out the slight flaw in that argument?
OK, so I've screwed up in what I meant to say. What that was, I'm not sure anymore 
Looking at my earlier comments I think that what I meant was - cruel bastards like these two should be shot at birth to prevent them from doing such horrible things. Of course, you'd need some device to determine whether or not people are capable of such things (a DNA reader perhaps), but sadly this does not exist yet.
Mmm, and if I'm not mistaken ladies and gentlemen - this is a discussion forum. It is here for people to discuss ideas and views.
Freedom of speech an' all.
Joke.
"cruel bastards like these two should be shot at birth to prevent them from doing such horrible things. Of course, you'd need some device to determine whether or not people are capable of such things (a DNA reader perhaps), but sadly this does not exist yet."
Oh my God.
And how did I miss that quote? Yeesh.
They should receive at least some sort of punishment, shouldn't they?
My final comment: GO TINY!!
That's because such a thing will never exist. People's actions, while possibly influenced by genetics, are not determined by them.
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Yes. You know more words than me. You obviously have the bigger penis.Joke.
"cruel bastards like these two should be shot at birth to prevent them from doing such horrible things. Of course, you'd need some device to determine whether or not people are capable of such things (a DNA reader perhaps), but sadly this does not exist yet."
Oh my God.
Oh my God what?
quote:
Originally posted by Aethelwer:
Of course, you'd need some device to determine whether or not people are capable of such things (a DNA reader perhaps), but sadly this does not exist yet."
That's because such a thing will never exist. People's actions, while possibly influenced by genetics, are not determined by them.
What about the double Y chromosome men? Can't they be detected?
As for the rest of you - ass-raping? Hey! I don't mind if you people do that in your homes, but please keep it to yourselves. 
[ June 24, 2001: Message edited by: akb1979 ]
While the Y chromosome for men can be detected, and the X for women, that is a major physical trait we're talking about. It's a whole freaking chromosome too. Very large. To genetically test for psychological tendancies and extrapolate the probablility they would manifest themselves would be nearly impossible, if not entirely so, for reasons stated by Aethelwer.
Also, how would you bracket such a tendancy anyway? What sort of range would you use? Oh, this one's a seven. Too bad. *BANG!* It's inhumane. Who are we to play God and determine who should live and die based on something that might not even manifest itself?
Just because someone is genetically prone to having cancer doesn't mean that we should kill them because they won't be a productive asset to society for their entire lives. We are not here to determine the fate of another. How can we deny someone life who hasn't even had a chance to prove their worth?
"Would anyone have any objection to releasing Venables and Thompson if it could be proved that they had reformed, and that they would go on to live full and productive lives, contributing to society?"
Yes. Find a way to make them productive from inside the jail. Anyone who is so capable of doing what they did should not be exposed to society.
What does the 10 commandments say? YOU SHALL NOT KILL.
also while we can detect the double Y cromosome, and prove it makes males more aggressive, we havn't been able to prove that it causes extreme violence in people. i saw a report on tv a while ago. and they said that men with the double Y cromosome are just as likely to commit a violent crime than others.
Oh, and BTW, it's "murder", not "kill". And we've been through this before, so that's all I have to say on the subject. Just FYI.
"What does the 10 commandments say? YOU SHALL NOT KILL."
Um... It may be a good idea, but it isn't like the Book of Exodus is the best moral authority in the world...
Y0 = spontaneous abortion
X0 = Turner female
XY = "normal" male
XX = "normal" female
XXY = Kleinfelter male (?)
XYY = male, indistinguisable from XY*
XXX = female, indistinguishable from XX
* = IIRC it's been shown that mental retardation is more common in XYYs, but I'm unsure.
And I most certainly could be wrong on a few. This is from memory. I'm scaring myself.
Thompson and Venables were 10 years old at the time of the murder - when they were legally still children without any of the arguments surrounding the mature child. It is perfectly just that they be let out now and public opinion cannot be allowed to dictate what is done to criminals because then it'd be chaos. The politicians have made a decision which in my opinion is right at the time they made it. LIVE WITH IT!
Mmm, I still think that it's time for a sharp exit . . . exit stage left!
And promptly enters stage right.
Mmm, eye for a eye is outdated. OK, I'll agree with that. So we through everyone in prison - that's not such a good idea as they can only hold so many. Hey! What about "death of personality"? Like in B5. The person could be returned to society and be productive and make up for their sins. Of course we'd have to make a load of technical advacnes to do that. Thoughts?
"The politicians have made a decision which in my opinion is right at the time they made it."
Do you want to be the people who have to live next door to them and such, after they're released?
quote:
Do you want to be the people who have to live next door to them and such, after they're released?
Well, no. Because if I know who they are, then everyone else will know, and there'll be an angry mob trampling all over my front garden and crushing my geraniums.
These two kids. . . Their lives are fucked up anyway. Their parents kicked off the start of a bad job, failing to teach them basic morality, right and wrong, the consequences of their actions. Then they were allowed to watch nihilistic slasher films (note: and the parents got off scot-free on this one! Rather than making parents take responsibility for what their children watch, they just went out and banned anything they considered too violent) such as the much-slammed Child's Play 3 which featured a similar crime to the one they subsequently committed.
They're never going to have 'normal' lives. Question is, do you leave them to rot in jail or do you allow them to maybe make something of themselves (although I'd say the near-certain threat of exposure would work against them)? Forget the death penalty, forget "an eye for an eye," that's not gonna happen. They were two stupid, thoughtless, evil little boys who've now spent the majority of their lives in custody. I'd like to hope that 8 or 9 very formative years have undone the damage their asshole parents inflicted.
AKB: I'm a strong believer in rehabilitation, and believe that a process that is managed well can lead to ordinary, decent people being released. They'd obviously have to be given jobs upon release to give them a decent chance of looking after themselves. It is this that is the future, not the draconian measures proposed earlier. If you stop people re-offending, it's one serious problem lessened. Throwing people in jail is only a short termist view and we need to look beyond that because as you rightly said, there are only so many prisons and places to lock people up.
[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
As for Thompson and Venables, had they been 10 years older, and in the States, a call for the Death Penalty would be not be surprising. But given that they are only 10, and the fact that they committed an ADULT crime, then perhaps the best thing to do is to lock them up for a VERY long time even way past their adult years. Perhaps for the rest of their lives.
Yes, I believe in rehabilitation, but only in small crimes such as robbery, fraud, etc. Serious crimes such as rape, attempted murder, and murder should carry harsher sentences, and even juveniles should be charged as adults when they commit these crimes. Finally, murder committed with pre-meditation (what Thompson and Venables did) should carry the harshest punishment of all.
In your opinion.
"If it was a gun-toting maniac (no offense to all pro-gunners) who shot and killed six people in the course of committing a robbery, then he should be fried."
In your opinion.
"If it was someone who killed his victim(s) using a most grotesque and disgusting method, he should be fried."
In your opinion.
See where I'm going with this.
In my opinion, Ham's argument was very good. He said why he disagreed with the death penelty, give rational reasons, and didn't resort to emotionalism. Stating "you're wrong. They should die" is not a good counter-argument. It's nothing more than putting your fingers in your ears, and saying "nyah! You're wrong!"
The way I see it, if you can work things so that offender X will return to the community reformed, in a position to contribute productively to the society s/he damaged, do so. Big 'if', I know, but if you had the opinions of (insert number) docs and shrinks that X wouldn't reoffend etc. etc., why keep hir inside? The only reason I can make out is to make an example of hir, to try and use X as a deterrent to others who might commit the same offence.
Yes, I know that may sound naive and rest on a damn big 'if', but... Really, wouldn't be nice to put in criminal X at one end of this process and get nice-productive-(remorseful ?)-good-citizen X out at the other end?
And before anyone says anything about relying on the judgement of a gaggle of docs and shrinks to certify X as ready for release, recall how few medics it takes to get someone committed.
Okay, so I may have omitted my reasons.
It is possible to rehabilitate offenders of minor crimes, especially Youths. That's where whatever "Youth Justice Act" is best applied here. To ensure that youths do not commit crimes again.
It is also possible to rehabilitate offenders of major crimes, including murder, provided that the defendant show a measure of remorse. However, the period of incarceration should depend on the crime, NOT the age. It is not justice (in my opinion) if a murderer serves a smaller sentence for murder because he is a youth. I have heard examples up here in Canada that Young offenders as young as ten commit violent crimes and thumb their noses at Police KNOWING they cannot be charged (in Canada, only young offenders from 12-18 years of age can be charged), and even if they do, all they get is house arrest.
In terms of very violent criminals where their crimes are committed with premeditation and deadly results, the chances of full rehabilitation are zero. Usually, these criminals do not show any form of remorse whatsoever. Try rehabilitating a convicted serial rapist and killer, who shows no remorse whatsoever.
quote:
It is possible to rehabilitate offenders of minor crimes, especially Youths. That's where whatever "Youth Justice Act" is best applied here. To ensure that youths do not commit crimes again.
Fine, that supports my argument
quote:
It is also possible to rehabilitate offenders of major crimes, including murder, provided that the defendant show a measure of remorse......
I would partly agree with this because I believe that a vast majority of people could be rehabilitated given the right system of dealing with the criminals. Just because they don't show any remorse, does it necessarily mean that they will automatically go out and kill again? Take crimes of passion for example. The murderer may hate the victim with a vengeance and would do it all over again if given the chance, but wouldn't kill anyone else. Does the lack of remorse mean that they should never be released and even fried as you so eloquently put it earlier?
quote:
I have heard examples up here in Canada that Young offenders as young as ten commit violent crimes and thumb their noses at Police KNOWING they cannot be charged (in Canada, only young offenders from 12-18 years of age can be charged), and even if they do, all they get is house arrest.
Fine, change the law and lock them up for a bit, give them some new skills whilst they're inside and then let them out into the community. After experiencing life inside and realising that they are not exempt from the law, the majority of them will come around.
quote:
In terms of very violent criminals where their crimes are committed with premeditation and deadly results, the chances of full rehabilitation are zero. Usually, these criminals do not show any form of remorse whatsoever. Try rehabilitating a convicted serial rapist and killer, who shows no remorse whatsoever.
The key word in there is serial. If they have been convicted lots of times and rehabilitation efforts have failed, then lock them up forever. However, just assuming that these people are beyond redemption without even trying to rehabilitate them is about as callous an act as the original crime of the criminal. I still don't believe in the death penalty for the reasons I made in my earlier post. It will create much more harm than good and I am still to be convinced about its benefits beyond satisfying the blood thirst of the victims families.
[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]
quote:
I believe that a vast majority of people could be rehabilitated given the right system of dealing with the criminals. Just because they don't show any remorse, does it necessarily mean that they will automatically go out and kill again?
Which begs the question, WHAT right system?
Given the best-ever tried rehabilitation system, the recidivism rate (that is, the people who go out and commit the same crimes or worse again) is STILL 80%.
And people who don't show remorse for their bad actions, there's a word for them. SOCIOPATH. And yes, they'll do it again, and again, and again, because they just don't CARE about the consequences. People such as that go on until they are stopped, permanently.
quote:
lock them up for a bit, give them some new skills whilst they're inside and then let them out into the community.
It's called 'school.'
quote:
After experiencing life inside and realising that they are not exempt from the law, the majority of them will come around.
You'd like to think so... but it doesn't happen often. Hell, half of them gain 'gang' cultural prestige for having been locked up... some of them may even get to see family members on the inside.
quote:
If they have been convicted lots of times and rehabilitation efforts have failed, then lock them up forever.
We have this, too. "Three Strikes, you're out." Isn't working as much as it was hyped to, and the prisons are still filling up.
quote:
I am still to be convinced about its benefits beyond satisfying the blood thirst of the victims families.
It insures that that individual will NEVER harm another person again. They won't be paroled, pardoned, escape, or get released some other way. It generally balances out the crime... remember, these aren't milquetoasts who jaywalked. They MURDERED people, usually with what are called 'special circumstances' which usually means in a particularly awful or brutal way. Their deaths should balance the deaths of the person/s they killed. That they don't, that they're usually much softer, is what's unfair about it.
As someone once wrote... "Cruel and unusual crimes demand cruel and unusual punishment. There is then nothing cruel and unusual about it."
They would be diffrent people, and still be able to live full lives, perhaps under diffrent names.
The murderers they once were would be dead.
Not that we'll get it soon. Now brainwashing, that could be improved. I wonder if the turks do that too, apart from their current array of 'processing' prisoners...
And they want to get in the EU, harumph!
quote:
Given the best-ever tried rehabilitation system, the recidivism rate (that is, the people who go out and commit the same crimes or worse again) is STILL 80%.
Which means that 20% don't reoffend. Surely rehabilitation works if you can get these people out into society and contributing effectively. But you'd kill this 20% to stop the 80% reoffending? I'm not saying let everyone out - just the people who show signs of reform. That's what they did with Thompson and Venables - they were questioned by a panel for several hours and it was determined that they could be reformed, so they've been released.
quote:
And people who don't show remorse for their bad actions, there's a word for them. SOCIOPATH. And yes, they'll do it again, and again, and again, because they just don't CARE about the consequences. People such as that go on until they are stopped, permanently.
If you did read my previous post, you'll have seen that I supported locking up these people for good, provided that after careful work, it could be shown that they could not be reformed. The 'remorse' argument however doesn't work in certain cases like crimes of passion where there is only one victim and there will not be another. Do you kill them because you can't be bothered to weed out the people who will go on to be useful members of society?
quote:
It's called 'school.'
School is for 5-16 year olds (in this country anyway) a lot of whom probably don't understand the real reason behind why they're actually there and so don't put the work in. After spending some time inside, a lot of them will in my opinion realise the value of education and its usefulness in society.
quote:
You'd like to think so... but it doesn't happen often. Hell, half of them gain 'gang' cultural prestige for having been locked up... some of them may even get to see family members on the inside.
Again, you seem to be willing to punish everyone, even the people with the possibility of reform because others may cause trouble in the future. In a so called civilised society, that is about as caveman like as you can get. If you really are civilised, you won't employ caveman tactics to counter caveman tactics - it's just counter productive.
quote:
We have this, too. "Three Strikes, you're out." Isn't working as much as it was hyped to, and the prisons are still filling up.
For what types of crimes is this used - just serious crimes or for all, including minor theft.
quote:
It insures that that individual will NEVER harm another person again. They won't be paroled, pardoned, escape, or get released some other way. It generally balances out the crime... remember, these aren't milquetoasts who jaywalked. They MURDERED people, usually with what are called 'special circumstances' which usually means in a particularly awful or brutal way. Their deaths should balance the deaths of the person/s they killed. That they don't, that they're usually much softer, is what's unfair about it.
So it satisfies the blood thirst of the victims families AND of your own society in general. How silly of me.
[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: Orion Syndicate ]