Jon Venables Charged over Child Porn

[mojoworking]

I find your insistence on referring to the dead boy as 'Jamie' rather offensive. It's disrespectful.

 

How so?

[rubydazzler]

How so?

I think Halibut's trying to hint that the family called him James, and the Jamie tag came from the media, rather in the way that the McCann family called their daughter Madeleine not Maddie. And that this somehow makes anything you have to say of no moment.

 

It's a hair-splitting technique he's developed, on each and every thread, to enable him to participate without actually ever stating anything relevant. Take advice from your own siggie.

[mojoworking]

I think Halibut's trying to hint that the family called him James, and the Jamie tag came from the media, rather in the way that the McCann family called their daughter Madeleine not Maddie. And that this somehow makes anything you have to say of no moment.

 

It's a hair-splitting technique he's developed, on each and every thread, to enable him to participate without actually ever stating anything relevant. Take advice from your own siggie.

 

 

Wise words Ruby. Your sagacity can always be relied upon.

[Plain Talker]

Ten years old or not, are you aware of exactly what those animals did to that baby?

 

Let's speak again after the latest court case is concluded and see how you feel then?

 

yes I am aware of what the pathologists report said, thanks, and am also well aware of what less informed reports allege T & V were supposed to have done.

 

As I said, T & V were just ten years old at the time. A ten year old does not have the same understanding of the far-reaching consequences of their actions as an older person would:- even a difference of five or six years older, would be a very different mentality.

 

a 10 year old might understand how "If I do 'x' wrong, my mother will tan my backside for me." A 10 year old might light a fire in his den, and not understand the wider dangers of doing that. (EG, the den itself might catch fire,and spread to the rest of the building, and so-on... the fire may spread further, and there could be loss of life or goods destroyed.. )

 

As I said earlier. I do not in any way say what T & V did 17 years ago was right, or "okay", but we also have to understand that they were barely at the age of criminal responsibility at that time. We also have to appreciate that they were tried as adults, despite being so young, and that they were sentenced, and served time for what they did.

 

I also don't trust that we can give him a fair trial, now, under the circumstances, on the premise "give-a-dog-a-bad-name-and-hang-him!" because of all the presumption of guilt, and the prior infamy hanging over him...

[alchresearch]

I just hope it all comes out in the trial, particularly the stuff which has been covered up.

[Suffragette1]

You won't find many people who will defend the individual, they will defend the principle and a belief in rehabilitation.

 

Yes, there are people like Venables, but by the same token, his co-accused, Thompson hasn't been heard of since his release, presumably because he hasn't troubled the criminal justice system again, hopefully that will continue to be the case-would you still like him dead?

 

There are thousands of offenders who serve their sentences and released back into the community and make a contribution, the nature of the principle means you rarely hear about them because obviously they're keen to guard their privacy, the recidivists have no choice in the matter.

 

Part of the problem, I feel, lies in the fact that we have an idealised view of children. On the rare occasions that child crimes of this magnitude happen the public at large has to have faith in the notion that rehabilitation is the most likely (if not at the very least desirable) outcome and we search desperately for reasons as to how and why children could behave in such a monstrous fashion. More often than not their behaviour is as a result of exposure to violence, abuse, neglect and so on, however, some times (and this is a bitter pill for us to swallow) they are just bad. I'm not saying that this is the case here but it does happen.

 

The public revulsion was and continues to be a manifestation of sheer disbelief that this crime was committed by two children, it defies belief.

 

I think that we have to accept the rather unpalatable fact that some people are beyond rehabilitation and their sociopathy and compulsions are so intrinsic that they will always pose a risk to society.

 

Venables is no longer a 10 year old, he is an adult and should not be infantaslised in my view. He has had better opportunities than many to turn his life around and it has been hinted at on this thread that we are not in possession of the full facts which appear to be very damning.

[boyfriday]

I think that we have to accept the rather unpalatable fact that some people are beyond rehabilitation and their sociopathy and compulsions are so intrinsic that they will always pose a risk to society.

I totally agree, I encountered some pretty vile kids when I was growing up who became equally vile adults.

Venables is no longer a 10 year old, he is an adult and should not be infantaslised in my view. He has had better opportunities than many to turn his life around and it has been hinted at on this thread that we are not in possession of the full facts which appear to be very damning.

 

Assuming he's guilty of the latest offence, I've no sympathy for Venables, and he should be returned to prison under the terms of his license-his second chances will be rescinded.

 

My point about rehabilitation is that it's very easy to say it doesn't work because we hear so many cases of ex offenders re-offending, but if it was daily news when they don't, our perception might be different.

 

The fact we haven't heard any lurid claims about Venables co accused suggest that he's been able to live without resorting to further criminality, if he did he would be subject to the same public outcry and vilification as Venables, deservedly so in my opinion.

[Suffragette1]

I totally agree, I encountered some pretty vile kids when I was growing up who became equally vile adults.

 

 

Assuming he's guilty of the latest offence, I've no sympathy for Venables, and he should be returned to prison under the terms of his license-his second chances will be rescinded.

 

My point about rehabilitation is that it's very easy to say it doesn't work because we hear so many cases of ex offenders re-offending, but if it was daily news when they don't, our perception might be different.

 

The fact we haven't heard any lurid claims about Venables co accused suggest that he's been able to live without resorting to further criminality, if he did he would be subject to the same public outcry and vilification as Venables, deservedly so in my opinion.

 

Yes, that is assuming that he is guilty.

 

I agree that high profile cases and reports (often sensationalised by the tabloids) can distort reality of many situations. However, I think the rate of recidivism amongst all sex crimes is pretty overwhelming evidence that rehabiliation does not work, it appears to be a lifelong compulsion. Without dredging up the facts of the original crime, there was I believe, sexual abuse involved.

[cgksheff]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3479255.stm

[boyfriday]

Yes, that is assuming that he is guilty.

 

I agree that high profile cases and reports (often sensationalised by the tabloids) can distort reality of many situations. However, I think the rate of recidivism amongst all sex crimes is pretty overwhelming evidence that rehabiliation does not work, it appears to be a lifelong compulsion. Without dredging up the facts of the original crime, there was I believe, sexual abuse involved.

 

I don't know whether the rate of recidivism amongst all sex offenders, applies to child sex offenders though Suffy.

 

By definition, their personalities aren't fully formed, and perhaps removed from the malicious environments they've been influenced by, they present a higher chance of rehabilitation than adults?