Jon Venables pleads guilty & gets 2 years

[poppins]

He's still free, on license popps.

 

Does that mean he's out on bail ? has he stayed out of trouble ?

 

Thanks ahead

[Suffragette1]

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

 

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.

A highly intelligent and manipulative person can fool a psychiatrist.

 

However, in this case, I suspect that there was very little evidence to suggest that Venables would pose a risk. If we look at what is out in the public domain, he was the one of the pair who is believed to have been led on, Thompson was by all accounts the instigator. I believe that he also kept breaking down and sobbing during questioning in the immediate aftermath and was the only one of the pair to show any remorse.

 

In a psychiatric report prepared in 2000 prior to Venables' release, he was described as posing a "trivial" risk to the public and unlikely to reoffend. The chances of his successful rehabilitation were described as "very high''.

Ref

[boyfriday]

Does that mean he's out on bail ? has he stayed out of trouble ?

 

Thanks ahead

 

He's not on bail because he's been sentenced popps, he received an indeterminate sentence when he was convicted, with conditions that applied if he was released on parole. Those conditions stay with him for the rest of his life. So far he hasn't committed any further offences that have brought him back to court, unlike Venables who now might never see the light of day again.

[danot]

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

Of course, I'm not saying it isn't. But how would the condition a pyschotic pedophile be tested in prison?,

 

Posted by boyfriday

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.

Granted, but what would they be evaluating?, What kind of testing could they do besides asking him questions.

 

Posted by boyfriday

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.

Yes I'm sure they would. Although they'd only know what I wanted them to know, which is how it is with my close friends and family.

 

Posted by boyfriday

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.

This supports the point I made. No-one has any way of knowing the level of risk he presents to the public. The parole board would have to present him with the opportunity to re-offend in order to find that out.

[Suffragette1]

Of course, I'm not saying it isn't. But how would the condition a pyschotic pedophile be tested in prison?,

 

Granted, but what would they be evaluating?, What kind of testing could they do besides asking him questions.

 

Yes I'm sure they would. Although they'd only know what I wanted them to know, which is how it is with my close friends and family.

 

This supports the point I made. No-one has any way of knowing the level of risk he presents to the public. The parole board would have to present him with the opportunity to re-offend in order to find that out.

I don't think that they can in any way that could guarantee 100% accuracy. Although I did read somewhere that in some prisons in the States, paedophiles are 'tested' by being shown images of children and their response is measured by physiological indices (including sexual arousal) in a similar way to that of polygraphs.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Back on topic -

 

This is understandably a highly emotive issue. I cannot imagine the living hell that James Bulger’s parents have to endure on a daily basis and if I were in their position, I am sure I would be consumed with hate and a desire for vengeance. They can’t even escape the fact that their son’s killers have enjoyed a life of privileges and liberty that they denied their son, with the constant stories reported by the tabloids about Venables’ and Thompson’s time during their period of incarceration and the rumours that have abounded about them since their release.

 

Sad and unfortunate, but although society should support the victim's parents, society cannot (and should not) mould its response to mirror their grief.

 

However, one of the burning issues seems to be about whether or not these two should ever have been released.

 

I don't have a problem with punishing offenders, but if we are going to have a system which makes any pretence towards rehabilitating criminals, why should that be a 'burning' issue? (I'm not sure I understand your use of the word.) - Surely [and particularly in the case where the murderers were less than fully developed children] rehabilitation should be the first aim?

 

I read a biography of their lives and certainly Thompson showed sociopathic tendencies quite a while before before that fateful day. Of the two, Venables was considered to be the least likely to reoffend and from what I understand, Thompson’s psychiatric assessment concluded that he was borderline psychopath.

 

I'm neither a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist (though I have friends qualified in both disciplines.) I've worked in prisons and I've worked with both sex offenders, killers and those convicted of serious offences against the person (as well as the whole range of prison inmates.)

 

It's alarming that Thompson's team considered he was likely to re-offend, yet allowed him parole. (I'm sure that when they were talking about re-offending, they were thinking about OAPA offences. - Parking tickets may be anti-social, but we could probably overlook them.

 

I gather that Thompson has not re-offended. "Ich drück mir die Daumen!"

 

Both were given the benefit of the doubt and Venables has proved that rehabilitation has not worked.

 

You probably know rather more about psychology than I do and in this case, I suspect that (sadly) you are right. Not only has rehabilitation 'not worked' for Venables, but there is no evidence to suggest that - within the next very [very many indeed; like 50+] years it will work.

 

I dread to think what his trajectory would have been had he not been removed from the malign environment in which he grew up. This begs the question as to whether such tendencies can be innate. Are they immutable?

 

No! No! No! - Absolutely not!

 

I beg of you. - Please do not let the horrors you may have seen erase your belief (and your hopes) that people might be cured.

 

The 'nonces' wing (where people 'on the numbers' ['vulnerable' prisoners] are kept tends to be a more gentle wing than is the 'main' - nonces tend to be less violent and perhaps (on average) a little more intelligent than the prisoners 'on the main'.

 

The first time I taught nonces I was impressed. Not by their IQ (mine is hardly shabby) nor by their 'scariness' (I'm not a tiny wimpy guy and although no doubt there are very many people who could marmalise me, my brain doesn't seem to have assimilated that fact and - for some unknown reason - nobody ever seems to want to beat the crap out of me...)

 

What did impress me was the greeting I got from those prisoners. There spokesman said something like this:

 

"Hi. We're criminals. You might think we're monsters, but we're not. We do have problems. Do you have a problem in working with us?"

 

My answer: "I know you're criminals. I didn't send you here - The Judge did that. I'm a teacher. I'm here to teach you. If you **** me off, I will kick your ass around the classroom (I'm not bound by silly 'school rules'.) If you want to work for me, I guarantee you will have the knowledge to get at least an 'A' grade in your exam."

 

Ground rules. We also talked. One of them said to me "I'm really glad I got caught. I hadn't done anything really wrong [i checked, he was telling the truth] but they caught me before I did so much I would've put myself beyond redemption. I'm on a sexual offenders rehabilitation programme."

 

Perhaps it worked (I hope it did.) I talked to some of the (youngish) psycho's who ran it [and to a number of my more senior friends who are psychiatrists] and I was quite scared by what they were doing. This was no wishy-washy 'let's get him out of here' scam - SOTPs in Her Majesty's Prisons are something you really wouldn't want to experience.

 

It is more than possible (IMO) that SOTPs can inhibit offenders.

 

(As I said earlier, I am not a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist.

 

I'm a retired lawyer, an ex-teacher, an ex-stockbroker and an ex government employee ...

 

I've encountered more than one or two 'programmes' which can be used to modify or influence behaviour.

 

There are two ways to look at it:

 

1) Does the fact that it started from a young age mean that it is so inherent that rehabilitation is even more unlikely?

 

or

 

2) Does the young age of the offender mean that rehabilitation is possible because the pattern has yet to become so deeply entrenched?

 

The above dichotomy demonstrates the need for examination on a case by case basis. There may be cases where children are fully rehabilitated and others where they are not. A lot also hinges on the severity of the crime.

 

 

Are you sure? I went to a boarding school. Not through choice; it was all that was available. Step out of line and you got a cane across your arse (In my school, it had been that way for the last 400 years, so nobody got too worked up about it.)

 

I didn't choose to go away to school - it was the only option (if I wanted an education past the age of 12.)

 

I was not physically (I was a big kid- until I was 13) nor sexually abused. But I did learn the rules of the heirarchy [and that was not a problem - X-referring to other threads where people try to argue that University education is invaluable because you learn teamwork and you learn to stand on your own two feet ... Well I could do all that by the time I was 13. About the time that Newton went to Cambridge (but he didn't do 'meeja studies' :hihi:)]

 

Part of the problem, I feel, lies in the fact that we have an idealised and romantic 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 and convince ourselves that it was aberrant behaviour. 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.

 

I hear you, but I have to disagree. Nobody - but NOBODY - is beyond redemption. I know that for a fact, because I know who I am.

 

Am I beyond redemption? - I think not.

 

OK, my name's not Venables, Thompson or any other name you would recognise ... indeed, it is a name few people would recognise - but some might.

 

I don't want to spoil your sleep.

 

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.

 

Not really - but it's yesterday's news. Neither Venables nor Thompson has been accused of a repeat offence. Time to let it go, perhaps?

 

 

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 something to think about. - I'm not concerned about the transfer for sexual reasons (he would've been buggered in the YOI) but there is an air of inevitability - and permanence - on transfer to an adult establishment. I'd rather not see that happen, if possible. - Everybody should be given one chance.

 

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 can't accept that as a 'fact'.

 

I am not permitted to pull my crash helmet off and announce to the world that 'Stog' was a failed bumper car driver who failed to obtain a driving licence on the exacting Lego training circuit.

 

I'm not even allowed to tell you that my favourite flowers are Fresias.

 

If I were to say 'thanks for all the fish' would that do?

[danot]

I don't think that they can in any way that could guarantee 100% accuracy. Although I did read somewhere that in some prisons in the States, paedophiles are 'tested' by being shown images of children and their response is measured by physiological indices (including sexual arousal) in a similar way to that of polygraphs.

Let's hope they haven't begun relying on it. I'm not sure if I have much faith in something that measures sexual arousal.

[Suffragette1]

Let's hope they haven't begun relying on it. I'm not sure if I have much faith in something that measures sexual arousal.

 

I agree, I would not like to see this method employed for all the same reasons that polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence.

[boyfriday]

Of course, I'm not saying it isn't. But how would the condition a pyschotic pedophile be tested in prison?,

I don't know really danot, you can Google 'psychopathy' or 'sociopathy' and there's a lot of details there, I guess psychiatrists who've spent 12 years training before they're qualified in a speciality have really good idea of what they're looking for.

Granted, but what would they be evaluating?, What kind of testing could they do besides asking him questions.

There's a whole range of psychological tests, as well as verbal tests, but obviously the latter won't be straight questions that someone trying to beat the system will know what the right answer is, there will also be control elements to such questioning..but remember it might be carried out over years, not just a couple of ad hoc sessions.

Yes I'm sure they would. Although they'd only know what I wanted them to know, which is how it is with my close friends and family.

Hmm, that's assuming you know what it is they want you to reveal about yourself. Have you never said something in an unguarded moment, or wished you'd bitten your tongue after speaking? I do it all the time on here and that's with the benefit of being able to think before I post!

This supports the point I made. No-one has any way of knowing the level of risk he presents to the public. The parole board would have to present him with the opportunity to re-offend in order to find that out.

I'm only guessing danot, but they probably assess the risk within reasonable parameters of normal behaviour and conclude that represents 'no doubt', probably similar to the guidance juries are given when assessing guilt-which is beyond reasonable doubt, as far as society is concerned once that test has been passed the defendant is guilty, he's done the crime.

[Suffragette1]

Sad and unfortunate, but although society should support the victim's parents, society cannot (and should not) mould its response to mirror their grief.

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with punishing offenders, but if we are going to have a system which makes any pretence towards rehabilitating criminals, why should that be a 'burning' issue? (I'm not sure I understand your use of the word.) - Surely [and particularly in the case where the murderers were less than fully developed children] rehabilitation should be the first aim?

 

 

 

I'm neither a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist (though I have friends qualified in both disciplines.) I've worked in prisons and I've worked with both sex offenders, killers and those convicted of serious offences against the person (as well as the whole range of prison inmates.)

 

It's alarming that Thompson's team considered he was likely to re-offend, yet allowed him parole. (I'm sure that when they were talking about re-offending, they were thinking about OAPA offences. - Parking tickets may be anti-social, but we could probably overlook them.

 

I gather that Thompson has not re-offended. "Ich drück mir die Daumen!"

 

 

 

You probably know rather more about psychology than I do and in this case, I suspect that (sadly) you are right. Not only has rehabilitation 'not worked' for Venables, but there is no evidence to suggest that - within the next very [very many indeed; like 50+] years it will work.

 

 

 

No! No! No! - Absolutely not!

 

I beg of you. - Please do not let the horrors you may have seen erase your belief (and your hopes) that people might be cured.

 

The 'nonces' wing (where people 'on the numbers' ['vulnerable' prisoners] are kept tends to be a more gentle wing than is the 'main' - nonces tend to be less violent and perhaps (on average) a little more intelligent than the prisoners 'on the main'.

 

The first time I taught nonces I was impressed. Not by their IQ (mine is hardly shabby) nor by their 'scariness' (I'm not a tiny wimpy guy and although no doubt there are very many people who could marmalise me, my brain doesn't seem to have assimilated that fact and - for some unknown reason - nobody ever seems to want to beat the crap out of me...)

 

What did impress me was the greeting I got from those prisoners. There spokesman said something like this:

 

"Hi. We're criminals. You might think we're monsters, but we're not. We do have problems. Do you have a problem in working with us?"

 

My answer: "I know you're criminals. I didn't send you here - The Judge did that. I'm a teacher. I'm here to teach you. If you **** me off, I will kick your ass around the classroom (I'm not bound by silly 'school rules'.) If you want to work for me, I guarantee you will have the knowledge to get at least an 'A' grade in your exam."

 

Ground rules. We also talked. One of them said to me "I'm really glad I got caught. I hadn't done anything really wrong [i checked, he was telling the truth] but they caught me before I did so much I would've put myself beyond redemption. I'm on a sexual offenders rehabilitation programme."

 

Perhaps it worked (I hope it did.) I talked to some of the (youngish) psycho's who ran it [and to a number of my more senior friends who are psychiatrists] and I was quite scared by what they were doing. This was no wishy-washy 'let's get him out of here' scam - SOTPs in Her Majesty's Prisons are something you really wouldn't want to experience.

 

It is more than possible (IMO) that SOTPs can inhibit offenders.

 

(As I said earlier, I am not a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist.

 

I'm a retired lawyer, an ex-teacher, an ex-stockbroker and an ex government employee ...

 

I've encountered more than one or two 'programmes' which can be used to modify or influence behaviour.

 

 

 

Are you sure? I went to a boarding school. Not through choice; it was all that was available. Step out of line and you got a cane across your arse (In my school, it had been that way for the last 400 years, so nobody got too worked up about it.)

 

I didn't choose to go away to school - it was the only option (if I wanted an education past the age of 12.)

 

I was not physically (I was a big kid- until I was 13) nor sexually abused. But I did learn the rules of the heirarchy [and that was not a problem - X-referring to other threads where people try to argue that University education is invaluable because you learn teamwork and you learn to stand on your own two feet ... Well I could do all that by the time I was 13. About the time that Newton went to Cambridge (but he didn't do 'meeja studies' :hihi:)]

 

 

 

I hear you, but I have to disagree. Nobody - but NOBODY - is beyond redemption. I know that for a fact, because I know who I am.

 

Am I beyond redemption? - I think not.

 

OK, my name's not Venables, Thompson or any other name you would recognise ... indeed, it is a name few people would recognise - but some might.

 

I don't want to spoil your sleep.

 

 

 

Not really - but it's yesterday's news. Neither Venables nor Thompson has been accused of a repeat offence. Time to let it go, perhaps?

 

 

 

 

That's something to think about. - I'm not concerned about the transfer for sexual reasons (he would've been buggered in the YOI) but there is an air of inevitability - and permanence - on transfer to an adult establishment. I'd rather not see that happen, if possible. - Everybody should be given one chance.

 

 

 

I can't accept that as a 'fact'.

 

I am not permitted to pull my crash helmet off and announce to the world that 'Stog' was a failed bumper car driver who failed to obtain a driving licence on the exacting Lego training circuit.

 

I'm not even allowed to tell you that my favourite flowers are Fresias.

 

If I were to say 'thanks for all the fish' would that do?

 

Eeeek - that's a long post (even longer than mine:D).

 

society cannot (and should not) mould its response to mirror their grief.

 

Agreed. Which is why I believe that victims should have no influence in jurisprudence or sentencing.

 

What I meant by one of the burning issues, was that is how it appears on this thread as there are some advocating that Thompson and Venables should never have been released in the first place.

 

I think that many people are unable to divorce this incident from the crime for which Venables was originally convicted.

 

I am not saying that every sex offender is beyond rehabilitation but I do believe that the majority of them are.

 

If I've missed addressing any of your points, please let me know.

 

Congrats on having turned your life around, if I read your post correctly.