Happ Hazzard Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 How long before he offends again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 what a joke, we now have to pay again to give him yet another new identity to protect HIM.....untill he does something else and it all starts again! why should someone such as him receive so much protection, what about the protection of whoever comes into contact with him not knowing the potential danger and his past, he has already proved he cannot be trusted and his liscence was revoked and he returned to prison, i think they should have just thrown away the key, other countries give sentences to reflect the crimes commited, but here we are too frightened to affect someones 'human rights' surely they have given up their human rights when they commited the crime they did...........they didnt consider their victims human rights and we will be forever paying financially for this scum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 what a joke, we now have to pay again to give him yet another new identity to protect HIM.....untill he does something else and it all starts again! why should someone such as him receive so much protection, what about the protection of whoever comes into contact with him not knowing the potential danger and his past, he has already proved he cannot be trusted and his liscence was revoked and he returned to prison, i think they should have just thrown away the key, other countries give sentences to reflect the crimes commited, but here we are too frightened to affect someones 'human rights' surely they have given up their human rights when they commited the crime they did...........they didnt consider their victims human rights and we will be forever paying financially for this scum I think the difficulties your argument falls into is the fact that Venables committed this heinous crime when he was described as a juvenile, he was therefore sentenced as such and has served the prescribed period in prison, nothing really to do with 'human rights'. As he's on a life license he will (hopefully) be supervised by the probation service and any further misdemeanors will result in him being recalled to prison (I think it was his probation officer who discovered his last post release offending). This supervision continues until he dies and places many conditions on him until he does so. Notwithstanding the pain and suffering James Bulger's parents and family have suffered, no punishment would have been adequate, nor would it bring back their dead son. Venables has to be protected and given a new identity because there are people set on retribution who have as little regard for the law as he and Thompson did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I think the difficulties your argument falls into is the fact that Venables committed this heinous crime when he was described as a juvenile, he was therefore sentenced as such and has served the prescribed period in prison, nothing really to do with 'human rights'. As he's on a life license he will (hopefully) be supervised by the probation service and any further misdemeanors will result in him being recalled to prison (I think it was his probation officer who discovered his last post release offending). This supervision continues until he dies and places many conditions on him until he does so. Notwithstanding the pain and suffering James Bulger's parents and family have suffered, no punishment would have been adequate, nor would it bring back their dead son. Venables has to be protected and given a new identity because there are people set on retribution who have as little regard for the law as he and Thompson did. yeah yeah...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousetunes Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 IMO there shouldn't be a Venables to protect. Sorry I am not as compassionate as others, but certain crimes deserve certain punishment and when he (or rather, it) chose to end a toddler's life in such a disgusting, barbaric and cruel fashion, he should have been faced with the reality that his own pointless existence would come to an end also. In fact, I do have compassion: he should have been extinguished through lethal injection. No electric chairs, no swinging from a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 yeah yeah...... ......quite. ---------- Post added 03-09-2013 at 17:05 ---------- IMO there shouldn't be a Venables to protect. Sorry I am not as compassionate as others, but certain crimes deserve certain punishment and when he chose to end a toddler's life in such a disgustingly cruel fashion, he should be faced with the reality that his own pointless existence should come to an end also. In fact, I do have compassion: he should have been extinguished through lethal injection. No electric chairs, no swinging from a tree. I think adults walking a child to the gallows would leave a pretty bad taste in everyone's mouth wouldn't it OT? The youngest (recorded) child to be executed by the state was John Dean in 1629 who was nine (Venables was 10 when he murdered James Bulger). There were no children executed in the 20th Century and relatively few in the 19th..it seems even Victorian Britain couldn't stomach that particular punishment for children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 ......quite. ---------- Post added 03-09-2013 at 17:05 ---------- I think adults walking a child to the gallows would leave a pretty bad taste in everyone's mouth wouldn't it OT? The youngest (recorded) child to be executed by the state was John Dean in 1629 who was nine (Venables was 10 when he murdered James Bulger). There were no children executed in the 20th Century and relatively few in the 19th..it seems even Victorian Britain couldn't stomach that particular punishment for children. My bold. How can you bring common sense into such a knee-jerk subject, BF? Tsk Tsk. Ten years old is *coff* over the age of criminal responsibility... Why not give in to the pitchforks, and the Hangem and Floggem brigade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 IMO there shouldn't be a Venables to protect. Sorry I am not as compassionate as others, but certain crimes deserve certain punishment and when he (or rather, it) chose to end a toddler's life in such a disgusting, barbaric and cruel fashion, he should have been faced with the reality that his own pointless existence would come to an end also. In fact, I do have compassion: he should have been extinguished through lethal injection. No electric chairs, no swinging from a tree. How you can say you are a Christian and still post this beggars belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 How you can say you are a Christian and still post this beggars belief. "Christian" may be the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 "Christian" may be the problem. Would you have made that comment if he had been a Muslim? I very much doubt it. What he said is as far removed from the Christian message as you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.