Jon Venables pleads guilty & gets 2 years

[boyfriday]

The public revulsion was and continues to be a manifestation of sheer disbelief that this crime was committed by two children, to this day it still defies belief. I do however think that most people would have difficulty advocating lifelong imprisonment of a child, especially as if they had remained in prison it would have entailed a transfer to an adult facility.

 

That's a good point, the revulsion amongst the public that children can behave this way, creates strong views. Those who believe it's such an aberration that they should be eradicated from existence, and on the other hand people who believe children who err should be treated and punished like children.

 

I think that we have to accept the rather unpalatable fact that some people are simply beyond rehabilitation and their sociopathy and compulsions are so intrinsic that they will always pose a risk to society. The trouble is that very often it is not apparent until they reoffend. Until someone ropes a Mystic Meg type into the judicial system, in most cases, we have no way of knowing.

 

I think if a proper diagnosis of psychopathy can be made then those individuals probably represent a high risk of re-offending. Others who might have one or two traits, might respond positively to treatment. Whether children are easier to treat or not I don't know, but as you say taken out of the poisonous environment that harvested their criminal mentality they might respond well (guessing).

 

Because crimes of this nature are so rare we don't have a lot of experience of other child murderers to go on, the only one I can think of is Mary Bell, and as far as I know she's stayed out of trouble and raised a child who is now and adult. Someone chatting innocently to her, would probably not believe her history, or call for her execution for the crimes she committed.

[Suffragette1]

That's a good point, the revulsion amongst the public that children can behave this way, creates strong views. Those who believe it's such an aberration that they should be eradicated from existence, and on the other hand people who believe children who err should be treated and punished like children.

 

I am extremely uncomfortable with the notion of imprisoning a child for life or of punishing them as they would be if they were adults. I'm also anti-capital punishment.

 

I think if a proper diagnosis of psychopathy can be made then those individuals probably represent a high risk of re-offending. Others who might have one or two traits, might respond positively to treatment. Whether children are easier to treat or not I don't know, but as you say taken out of the poisonous environment that harvested their criminal mentality they might respond well (guessing).

 

Which presumably is the role of those involved in their parole. If they have served their sentence and satisfy the conditions of release, then there needs to be very careful monitoring. It seems to me that there is a quite a lot that we (the public) are unaware of in the post-rehabilitation life of Venables.

 

Because crimes of this nature are so rare we don't have a lot of experience of other child murderers to go on, the only one I can think of is Mary Bell, and as far as I know she's stayed out of trouble and raised a child who is now and adult. Someone chatting innocently to her, would probably not believe her history, or call for her execution for the crimes she committed.

 

I agree, so it is impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions either way, in the absence of data and longitudinal studies, which is one of the reasons why, I assume, they were given the benefit of the doubt.

[boyfriday]

I am extremely uncomfortable with the notion of imprisoning a child for life or of punishing them as they would be if they were adults. I'm also anti-capital punishment.

Me too, although I'd be a lot more comfortable with that fate befalling Venables now.

 

Which presumably is the role of those involved in their parole. If they have served their sentence and satisfy the conditions of release, then there needs to be very careful monitoring. It seems to me that there is a quite a lot that we (the public) are unaware of in the post-rehabilitation life of Venables.

That's very true, you can imagine the parole file documents on Venables would have been immense and detailed pre and post release.

 

I agree, so it is impossible to draw any hard and fast conclusions either way, in the absence of data and longitudinal studies, which is one of the reasons why, I assume, they were given the benefit of the doubt.

I'd like to believe the test is stronger than 'giving them the benefit of the doubt', it sort of implies that the parole panel seek reasons to release someone, rather than refuse them on the grounds of protecting the public, I hope the balance lies nearer the latter.

[Suffragette1]

Me too, although I'd be a lot more comfortable with that fate befalling Venables now.

Ditto, although he should stop be infantalised, he is now a mature adult and has made a choice. So he should suffer the consequences of his actions. He had an ideal opportunity to turn his life around and has probably had more privileges and opportunities than many of his school peers and that he would have had had he continued to live at home.

 

I'd like to believe the test is stronger than 'giving them the benefit of the doubt', it sort of implies that the parole panel seek reasons to release someone, rather than refuse them on the grounds of protecting the public, I hope the balance lies nearer the latter.

 

Certainly with Venables, I think there was a belief in the fact that he had been rehabilitated and no longer posed a risk. From what I have read, this was not so with Thompson, ironically. The decision to release him was borderline.

[donkey]

It sounds like venebles couldn't handle life on the outside anyway, which wouldn't make the prospect of being locked up again a huge deterant. In fact it was probably just a matter of blind luck that he didn't do something really awful again.

[Suffragette1]

It sounds like venebles couldn't handle life on the outside anyway, which wouldn't make the prospect of being locked up again a huge deterant. In fact it was probably just a matter of blind luck that he didn't do something really awful again.

 

Who knows? We do not know the full story by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I was waiting to be seated in an eaterie yesterday and picked up a copy of the Daily Express (which amazingly didn't have a picture of Diana on the front page) and skimmed through an article about Venables. It may have been his solicitor who was quoted as saying that Venables found it extremely difficult to form sexual relationships as one of the terms of their licence is that that they have to reveal their true identity to anyone with whom they form a close relationship.

[danot]

<snip>

 

I'd like to believe the test is stronger than 'giving them the benefit of the doubt', it sort of implies that the parole panel seek reasons to release someone, rather than refuse them on the grounds of protecting the public, I hope the balance lies nearer the latter.

I don't see what other option the parole board would have other than giving him the benefit of the doubt?. His sadistic, psychotic tendencies wouldn't be stirring within him to any great extent whilst he's banged up would they?, to all intents and purposes, he has them under control,.. and isn't that what the parole board are looking for?. Now I don't say that under any illusion that he might actually be reformed, I say it because, without being faced with the opportunity to reoffend, how could he ever be properly evaluated?

[boyfriday]

I don't see what other option the parole board would have other than giving him the benefit of the doubt?. His sadistic, psychotic tendencies wouldn't be stirring within him to any great extent whilst he's banged up would they?, to all intents and purposes, he has them under control,..

It's an illness danot, with testable symptoms, it's like trying to cover up having cancer, there are tests that can prove it.

 

and isn't that what the parole board are looking for?. Now I don't say that under any illusion that he might actually be reformed, I say it because, without being faced with the opportunity to reoffend, how could he ever be properly evaluated?

Well as I said previously, it isn't just a case of the offender sitting in a room with 3 or 4 parole board members and chewing the fat for half an hour. There's a long evaluation process, pre review, and of course they also have all the information made available to them from prison/probation officers and the psychiatrists that deal with them. Imagine you or me in a closed environment for 10+ years, the people you share that space with would probably know more about you than your relatives and close friends.

 

I agree that a cast iron guarantee cant be given, after all we cant look into the future, but the assessment is probably against the offending risks associated with the population at large.

[poppins]

I haven't read everything on here, but I remembered when it happend just wondered what happend to the other boy that was involved.

[boyfriday]

I haven't read everything on here, but I remembered when it happend just wondered what happend to the other boy that was involved.

 

He's still free, on license popps.