John Venables - Scum bag!!

[MC RISK77]

I am 99% sure Venebles spent a lot of time during his period locked away in bristol at the Vinny Green site near Mangotsfield

[EmersonsRed]

What would make a 10 year old abduct and kill a child. Weird.

[Dollymarie]

5 hours ago, EmersonsRed said:

What would make a 10 year old abduct and kill a child. Weird.

Not that it excuses it for a second, but as has been mentioned in the thread already, they’ve probably had terrible things happen to them as children, which screwed up their brains. 

[RedM]

6 hours ago, EmersonsRed said:

What would make a 10 year old abduct and kill a child. Weird.

I remember at the time a lot was made of the fact they used to watch adult horror films/video games and they were reinacting scenes from those. At 10 I fully believe they were aware of what they were doing, even if their parents had good influence l I assumed they had been to school at sometime in their lives?

Has he ever accepted what he has done, has he ever shown remorse, I doubt it. Until he does he won't be able to rejoin society and he just couldn't function and would still be a danger. He has probably learnt to tell authorities what they need to hear and got his freedom like that, which allows him access to child porn that only a sick twisted mind would look at, so there's your answer. Nobody can predict whether he will kill again but why take the chance? Don't forget he was a sadistic and cruel act he did to little Jamie, it wasn't just one fatal blow which was almost an 'accident'.

 

[PHILINFRANCE]

Now, I am no psychologist, but it occurs to me (Jon Venables and the question as to why a 10 year old boy would abduct and kill a child) that JV is simply a sadistic paedophile.

There is another thread on this forum relating to homosexuality and LGBT in general, and a number of posters on that thread together with various LGBT people in recent years have commented that, paraphrasing, 'they knew they were different from an early age', some even revealing that they first experienced such feelings in primary school.

From the outset, let me make it absolutely clear that I am not conflating LGBT with paedophilia, but is it not possible that, even at 10 years old, JV knew, or was at least aware of (questioning?), his sexual orientation, and that James Bulger was simply a tragic victim of JV's first steps in to this monstrous world, for there can be no doubt that the murder of James Bulger was a revolting, evil, heinous and monstrous crime?

Following JV's latest arrest, it has been alleged that he had been searching the Internet for 'single mothers', and surely, if this proved to be true, there is a comparison to be made with, inter alia, Ian Watkins, the Lostprophets singer who, if media reports are to be believed, was doing exactly the same thing.

I really have no wish to expand on this (perhaps outlandish) theory, but it does occur to me also that, if there is any validity in what I am saying, simply changing JV's identity once again and releasing him in to society any time soon is not going to end well. 

   

    

[EmersonsRed]

5 hours ago, RedM said:

I remember at the time a lot was made of the fact they used to watch adult horror films/video games and they were reinacting scenes from those. At 10 I fully believe they were aware of what they were doing, even if their parents had good influence l I assumed they had been to school at sometime in their lives?

Has he ever accepted what he has done, has he ever shown remorse, I doubt it. Until he does he won't be able to rejoin society and he just couldn't function and would still be a danger. He has probably learnt to tell authorities what they need to hear and got his freedom like that, which allows him access to child porn that only a sick twisted mind would look at, so there's your answer. Nobody can predict whether he will kill again but why take the chance? Don't forget he was a sadistic and cruel act he did to little Jamie, it wasn't just one fatal blow which was almost an 'accident'.

 

I think this is a good debate and people would have very different opinions. Personally, for me, I feel sorry for the 10 year old him. Not now. He has had all the help needed to change. But at 10, I believe the opposite to you - I don't think you're in control fully of emotions or understanding. It is clearly awful parenting either way, and he should now never see light of day again

[RedM]

1 hour ago, EmersonsRed said:

I think this is a good debate and people would have very different opinions. Personally, for me, I feel sorry for the 10 year old him. Not now. He has had all the help needed to change. But at 10, I believe the opposite to you - I don't think you're in control fully of emotions or understanding. It is clearly awful parenting either way, and he should now never see light of day again

Obviously emotions and understanding are still developing at that age. For example I don't think a 10 year old can think of the consequences if he stole a disabled persons mobility scooter and set fire to it (recent reports on the news). He wouldn't perhaps consider that person is now housebound and can't get food etc, he wouldn't consider that person might then be too afraid to go out when the scooter is replaced, he won't consider financial implications of his act etc, etc. But I do think that a 10 year old will know that smashing a small child with stones etc until he is not moving is fatal.  From memory I think they put paint on him too. They both must have known it wasnt like a computer game when you die and then jump back up again to carry on. 

[Super]

Should never be let out.

https://news.sky.com/story/james-bulgers-killer-jon-venables-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children-11239900

[The Batman]

for those of you who follow me on twitter, my tweet from the other night has been draining my phone battery good and proper.

For those of you not in the Twitter world.

 - If you share a photo of Jon Venables or Robert Thompson on social media, you'll get a longer prison sentence than those two did for the horrific crime they committed. They were never punished. Children who kill in America go to prison and stay there.

mostly it was endorsed, but a small few have come back saying that neither the point about the sentencing and the America aspect are true. To which i can clarify further......

 - point 1 - JV and RT never served a day in adult prison. They law states a breach of the injunction carries a prison sentence of up to two years. So if you put a picture of them or new name / address etc on facebook, otib, twitter etc, and the judge sentences you to 2 weeks in prison, you'd have spent more time in adult prison that JV & RT for the crime they committed for killing James Bulger. Granted JV is back in prison, but not for the original crime.

 - point 2 - Eric Smith, Ronald Sanford, Josh Phillips, Lionel Tate, Josh Rosa & Craig Price - google them. All of them committed murder in America, were tried as miners due to their ages and all are still in prison today. Granted, not every child who has committed murder in the USA is still in jail, but at least the more high profile cases brought to the wider public's attention has shown that prison is the only place for these murderous thugs and that a lifetime behind bars is the best thing for them. They also do not have the joy of remaining anonymous.

[cidercity1987]

I watched the documentary on C4 the other night and was totally horrified at the suggestion Venables and Thompson were hard done by.

I was 5 or 6 at the time and knew full well what they did was totally and utterly abhorrent.

To quote an extract from Wikipedia (whether totally accurate or not, presumably tells the gist of what happened)

'One of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had stolen earlier, into Bulger's left eye.[20] They kicked him, stamped on him and threw bricks and stones at him. Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth and,[21] according to police, some batteries may have been inserted into his anus, although none were found.[3] Finally, the boys dropped a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, on Bulger.[22][23][24] He sustained 10 skull fractures as a result of the bar striking his head. Dr Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, stated that Bulger suffered so many injuries —42 in total— that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[25] Thompson and Venables laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After they left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[26] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later on 14 February.[7'

They continue to receive anonymity whilst their families (including younger siblings) were forced to move almost on a yearly basis as people discovered who they were.

It should have been life in prison.

Some people suggest the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 15. Total bullshit.

 

 

[The Batman]

9 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

 

They continue to receive anonymity whilst their families (including younger siblings) were forced to move almost on a yearly basis as people discovered who they were.

 

 

There will come a point where the Public Interest will supersede their right to anonymity. Venables can only go so long committing these crimes without the public expecting the Justice System to simply change his name and spend £££££ on further protection.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, The Batman said:

 

There will come a point where the Public Interest will supersede their right to anonymity. Venables can only go so long committing these crimes without the public expecting the Justice System to simply change his name and spend £££££ on further protection.

You've got to think he'll serve all his time in jail in isolation.  They should put him in a normal wing and let others know who he is. He'd last a week tops. 

[nebristolred]

@The Batman while I don't doubt what you say is true, America's social 'justice' system is absolutely not one we should be aspiring to emulate. Neither is the idea of treating him like a normal criminal and letting the other prisoners deal with him...

This whole situation is particularly tragic because it's so unexplainable, and there really is no 'right' answer with what should be done, or should have been done, with him. There's no doubting what he deserves, but that's not the way justice works.

[The Batman]

@nebristolred dont get me wrong, the American justice system has it faults as do most countries, but at least a convicted murderer will spend the rest of their life behind bars away from the public. Some of their 250 year sentences are a bit of a joke but it determines they will never be released.

The Justice systems have a duty to protect the public also. Considering what he has been arrested for subsequently, it is crystal clear he should never have been released in the first place. Similar to the names i mentioned earlier, they were in juvenile prison until they reached their "adult" age, then they were transferred accordingly, they were not released for their crimes. Venables got released out of his "detention center" and has complete anonymity, an absolute disgrace. I see why he was given it, but ultimately, it should have been waived and he should still be in prison.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing. If there was more of it, i'd be typing this on a beach in the Maldvies after winning the lottery every week.

[nebristolred]

44 minutes ago, The Batman said:

@nebristolred dont get me wrong, the American justice system has it faults as do most countries, but at least a convicted murderer will spend the rest of their life behind bars away from the public. Some of their 250 year sentences are a bit of a joke but it determines they will never be released.

The Justice systems have a duty to protect the public also. Considering what he has been arrested for subsequently, it is crystal clear he should never have been released in the first place. Similar to the names i mentioned earlier, they were in juvenile prison until they reached their "adult" age, then they were transferred accordingly, they were not released for their crimes. Venables got released out of his "detention center" and has complete anonymity, an absolute disgrace. I see why he was given it, but ultimately, it should have been waived and he should still be in prison.

I wouldn't say that's something to aspire to though. Dare I say it, there are murders where a life sentence isn't necessarily appropriate; if it is sensible for a murderer to be released then they should by all means be released. There are certainly situations where murder has been committed and the defendant doesn't deserve an entire lifetime behind bars. I'd much rather have our 'overly soft' approach which so far isn't causing the public any harm, versus America's approach where they house over 1/5th of the prison population of the entire world, and in doing so doom those prisoners to a lifetime of petty crime at best post-release.

But yeah, I agree, your second paragraph is pretty spot on. It's a frustration but he had to be given anonymity, the minute you release these identities and allow the public to serve justice themselves then society collapses. I didn't know he never went to adult prison, he absolutely should have done, he clearly wasn't ready for a 'normal' life. But equally, the state has failed him massively as well. Clearly there was a disturbed 10 year old boy, with a very malleable mind, and with the right counselling and appropriate treatment I'm sure he could have been somewhat 'saved'. It's a sad story on all fronts.

[daored]

22 hours ago, The Batman said:

@nebristolred dont get me wrong, the American justice system has it faults as do most countries, but at least a convicted murderer will spend the rest of their life behind bars away from the public. Some of their 250 year sentences are a bit of a joke but it determines they will never be released.

The Justice systems have a duty to protect the public also. Considering what he has been arrested for subsequently, it is crystal clear he should never have been released in the first place. Similar to the names i mentioned earlier, they were in juvenile prison until they reached their "adult" age, then they were transferred accordingly, they were not released for their crimes. Venables got released out of his "detention center" and has complete anonymity, an absolute disgrace. I see why he was given it, but ultimately, it should have been waived and he should still be in prison.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing. If there was more of it, i'd be typing this on a beach in the Maldvies after winning the lottery every week.

They should both have anonymity when released , like others have said whilst they committed an awful crime they were young and not a lot is known of their backgrounds.

Where the system fails is that Venables continues to commit crime and in particular children are  involved. For me personally his identity should not be hidden , he clearly has problems and whilst he needs to be protected from the lynch mob, the general public need to be protected from him. There are several sites on the internet posting pictures of ‘Venables’.

Regarding Thompson, he is clearly trying to get on with his life , no reported crimes committed and for me his identity should be protected 

[nebristolred]

Pretty sensible post that @daored so I don't mean this to be rude or anything, but I'd be interested to see how releasing his identity protects the public from him. In reality it does no such thing and just appeases the tabloids who will continue to profit from this.

[daored]

4 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Pretty sensible post that @daored so I don't mean this to be rude or anything, but I'd be interested to see how releasing his identity protects the public from him. In reality it does no such thing and just appeases the tabloids who will continue to profit from this.

Thank you !

I guess there are several reasons , firstly there are numerous stories in the media of him being on dating sites. There will be people on there with children, with his crime sheet would you want that type of person contacting your daughter and be in contact with your grandchild and not knowing ?

The other point is people posting images which may or may not be him on Twitter , I would say that is a danger through mistaken identity.

There are counter arguments to both sides. If his identity is released it will cost the tax payer a lot more to protect him, but would also protect society?

[joe jordans teeth]

On 07/02/2018 at 15:30, nebristolred said:

I wouldn't say that's something to aspire to though. Dare I say it, there are murders where a life sentence isn't necessarily appropriate; if it is sensible for a murderer to be released then they should by all means be released. There are certainly situations where murder has been committed and the defendant doesn't deserve an entire lifetime behind bars. I'd much rather have our 'overly soft' approach which so far isn't causing the public any harm, versus America's approach where they house over 1/5th of the prison population of the entire world, and in doing so doom those prisoners to a lifetime of petty crime at best post-release.

But yeah, I agree, your second paragraph is pretty spot on. It's a frustration but he had to be given anonymity, the minute you release these identities and allow the public to serve justice themselves then society collapses. I didn't know he never went to adult prison, he absolutely should have done, he clearly wasn't ready for a 'normal' life. But equally, the state has failed him massively as well. Clearly there was a disturbed 10 year old boy, with a very malleable mind, and with the right counselling and appropriate treatment I'm sure he could have been somewhat 'saved'. It's a sad story on all fronts.

Just out of interest when does taking someone’s life require a life sentence 

[nebristolred]

10 hours ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Just out of interest when does taking someone’s life require a life sentence 

I’m not going to put that into words on here because it’s just my opinion and it’s incredibly difficult to pinpoint. But my point was that there are examples where it doesn’t require a full life sentence. If you are acting out of self defence, to protect somebody else, or if you’re not of sound mind for example. Heck, if someone abused your child and you murdered them, I’d argue that would require prison but not a life sentence. You’re not as much a danger to society as a pre-determined killer. It may be murder but there are still levels to these things.

[TBW]

On 07/02/2018 at 13:13, cidercity1987 said:

I watched the documentary on C4 the other night and was totally horrified at the suggestion Venables and Thompson were hard done by.

I was 5 or 6 at the time and knew full well what they did was totally and utterly abhorrent.

To quote an extract from Wikipedia (whether totally accurate or not, presumably tells the gist of what happened)

'One of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint, which they had stolen earlier, into Bulger's left eye.[20] They kicked him, stamped on him and threw bricks and stones at him. Batteries were placed in Bulger's mouth and,[21] according to police, some batteries may have been inserted into his anus, although none were found.[3] Finally, the boys dropped a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate, on Bulger.[22][23][24] He sustained 10 skull fractures as a result of the bar striking his head. Dr Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, stated that Bulger suffered so many injuries —42 in total— that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[25] Thompson and Venables laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After they left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[26] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later on 14 February.[7'

They continue to receive anonymity whilst their families (including younger siblings) were forced to move almost on a yearly basis as people discovered who they were.

It should have been life in prison.

Some people suggest the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 15. Total bullshit.

 

 

I wish I hadn't read that. I feel sick all over again any time I read or hear the details. It never gets easier to take. 

[BanburyRed]

I never really knew of the depth of this terrible crime but reading that description i am completely sick to the pit of my stomach. Beyond appaling and depraved. Both should never be let out, ever.

How, as a parent, you can ever recover from that? And the pain, suffering and downright fright that little boy must've gone through in his last minutes and hours on this planet.

Also highlights the justice system in this country needs a thorough overhaul to make it fit for purpose.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

On 09/02/2018 at 22:38, joe jordans teeth said:

Just out of interest when does taking someone’s life require a life sentence 

When someone poses such a danger to society that if released they are likely to kill someone else.  No one should be put behind bars for the rest of their life solely for retribution.   In a civilised society it has to be to do with rehabilitation and reform, however long that takes.    Norway has some of the most lenient sentences for murder, and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Part of the problem is that our justice system provides no incentive at all - and indeed possibly even a disincentive - for a murderer to own up to what they've done.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

9 hours ago, BanburyRed said:

I never really knew of the depth of this terrible crime but reading that description i am completely sick to the pit of my stomach. Beyond appaling and depraved. Both should never be let out, ever.

How, as a parent, you can ever recover from that? And the pain, suffering and downright fright that little boy must've gone through in his last minutes and hours on this planet.

Also highlights the justice system in this country needs a thorough overhaul to make it fit for purpose.

I agree that what they did was too awful to contemplate, but the most important thing is to try to understand why it happened so that it can be prevented in other cases.  These were ten year old boys with a different moral compass to adults.  We have to be able to learn from that, but in this country notions of revenge and retribution always seem to be seen as more important.  If you treat every murderer as an evil monster, you'll never get to what matters, which is to learn why they did it. 

The justice system worked in this case.  They were apprehended, convicted and detained.

[Rob k]

2 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I agree that what they did was too awful to contemplate, but the most important thing is to try to understand why it happened so that it can be prevented in other cases.  These were ten year old boys with a different moral compass to adults.  We have to be able to learn from that, but in this country notions of revenge and retribution always seem to be seen as more important.  If you treat every murderer as an evil monster, you'll never get to what matters, which is to learn why they did it. 

The justice system worked in this case.  They were apprehended, convicted and detained.

Would you be interested to 'learn' why they killed that child if it was your kid? 

I wouldn't give a monkeys, I'd want them dead if they did that to mine

[Up The City!]

This is am extremely sensitive subject and my thoughts are so mixed on it.

I was 7 years old when this happened but remember it as clear as day. I remember being confused as to why two children, a few years older than me could commit such a horrible crime. But then I come from a loving and supporting family where I was taught right from wrong, they weren't.

I do believe someone can be born evil due to their DNA but I also believe due to experiences their complex brains can become wired differently to ours. The question I repeatedly ask myself is, if these two children (let's not forget they were children) had been born into a loving supporting family and not experienced any trauma in their lives, just like most of us, would they have committed this horrible crime? I struggle to answer this question myself but I'd like to think the answer would be no they wouldn't.

If it's in someone it's in them, but I truly believe with a supporting family they would have their issues and probably turn out to be petty criminals but would not have gone to this extreme.

Something very clearly went terribly wrong in those 10 year old lives for them to end up doing this. 

I really don't want to think of them as victims but if you think about it clearly they must be? They were 10 years old, think back to your 10 year old self if you can, murdering anyone, let alone a small little boy would have not even have come into your thoughts. Personally I was more interested in climbing trees etc and just being a child. Everything seemed a fun adventure at that age, so why wasn't that the case for these two?

I simply can't accept that two ten year old boys woke up one day and suddenly decided they were going to kidnap, torture and kill a young boy. There must have been a build up to this and a degree of planning and I'm disgusted that no intervention was made.

The parents, teachers, social services and any other professionals that had contact with these children must and should take a huge portion of the blame because they could and should have stopped this from happening because 10 year olds simply do not kill without displaying signs. 

Personally I feel they should never have been sent to prison. I know this will be controversial in this country it seems the default position Is that people must be punished. Whilst I understand that and partially agree a part of me thinks this was 2 10 year olds. It's tragic that their brains have along the way been wired to commit murder.

There is clearly some serious mental health problems going on there and I don't think sending them to prison was the correct thing to do as prison is not designed to provide the intensive therapy and treatment that they would have required. They needed to be in an environment where they could be 'fixed' that imo would have been much better for society. 

However public outrage ensured this was never even an option. Now that one of them has began to reoffend in a manner that shows he now fantasies over his crime, it's very clear that the public and the system has got this very very wrong. Despite 8 years of prison this person has now turned into a pedophile, and that makes me wonder how that has happened? 

When did we stop being a caring society? It disgusts me when I hear people say they want to kill them, or see them hurt etc. They were 10 at the time and people wanted to kill them back then, I just can't understand how grown adults wanted to kill two children who killed a child? That just don't sit right with me at all.

One last thing, I'd rather their identities and location were public. I'd feel much safer that way. What the lynch mob have created is now a situation where these two are free to do as they please without anyone knowing who they are. That's a huge risk to take.

I would like to think that if either of these two entered a relationship with someone who had kids, or had kids themselves then services would step in to protect these children. 

I really do apologise if this comes across in anyway as defending these two, I know it sounds like that but I just find the whole thing incredibly sad as it should never have happened. 

[Tipps69]

I don’t buy into this coming from a broken home means that people have a reason to misbehave on any level or that if you come from what’s perceived as a ‘normal’ home should mean you never do anything wrong.

There are undoubtedly millions of people in the world that had poor childhoods that have made a success of their lives or never committed what could be considered a major crime & on the same level, there are undoubtedly millions of people worldwide that have had decent childhoods that have gone on to abuse / rape / murder etc.

People are in control of their own lives & can make their own decisions in life, life isn’t easy for the vast majority of the people in the world, irrespective of their childhoods but it doesn’t mean that we go on to abuse / rape / murder other people!

At 10 years-old, the vast majority of people would know that even contemplating doing even a fraction of what is reported to of happened to James Bulger is wrong & is something that the vast majority of people in the world wouldn’t ever think or imagine doing to anyone or anything!!

For someone to even have those types of thoughts in their head is disturbing, for anyone to actually carry out those kind of thoughts is totally unacceptable & they don’t deserve to be given the opportunity to carry out these thoughts EVER but having been able to do it once, they definitely shouldn’t ever have the opportunity  to ever do it again!!

As a Dad to my 14 year-old daughter, I have enough doubts about any future boyfriends being good enough for her or being safe for her but the thought that she could potentially bring home a Jon Venables or Robert Thompson in the future, there is no way on my life I could allow myself to allow her to be with someone who could of ever done that to another living thing, let alone an innocent 2 year-old who is clearly unable to do anything to warrant having done to him that was done to him!

There is evidence that this offence wasn’t a one off, they are reported to of tried to abduct another small child just hours earlier, with the intent of at least one of them, to kill the small child by pushing them into the path of a moving bus!

The actions of these two scumbags are not normal & how they can be allowed the opportunity to repeat such an offence isn’t acceptable & the subsequent offending of Venables since his release would suggest that he’s clearly not repentant in any such way because despite knowing what he’s allowed to do & what he’s not allowed to do & the fact that the authorities will be keeping an eye on their every move yet he’s still involved in child abuse images etc, hardly the actions of someone who feels guilty about his past!

[nebristolred]

18 hours ago, Rob k said:

Would you be interested to 'learn' why they killed that child if it was your kid? 

I wouldn't give a monkeys, I'd want them dead if they did that to mine

Unfortunately, that would make you one of the worst place individuals to hand out justice as well.

I'd feel exactly the same as you, of course I would. But justice doesn't depend on what the victims and their families want. The post below hits the nail on the head.

21 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

When someone poses such a danger to society that if released they are likely to kill someone else.  No one should be put behind bars for the rest of their life solely for retribution.   In a civilised society it has to be to do with rehabilitation and reform, however long that takes.    Norway has some of the most lenient sentences for murder, and one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

Part of the problem is that our justice system provides no incentive at all - and indeed possibly even a disincentive - for a murderer to own up to what they've done.

Rehabilitation is so much more important than punishment. The latter is obviously necessary but it serves no real purpose to society. Criminals, from petty ones to murderers, come into prison, get a criminal record and are then unable to work properly due to the situation they've been in. More often than not they can't get a job, can't pay taxes, in essence can't repay society. What's the point? What's that more likely to lead you to? More crime. You can't just kill anyone who's ever been guilty of a crime, there has to be a better way.

An entire shift in attitude is necessary for this in some aspects I think. What the defendant 'deserves' is only part of it.

[Tipps69]

38 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Unfortunately, that would make you one of the worst place individuals to hand out justice as well.

I'd feel exactly the same as you, of course I would. But justice doesn't depend on what the victims and their families want. The post below hits the nail on the head.

Rehabilitation is so much more important than punishment. The latter is obviously necessary but it serves no real purpose to society. Criminals, from petty ones to murderers, come into prison, get a criminal record and are then unable to work properly due to the situation they've been in. More often than not they can't get a job, can't pay taxes, in essence can't repay society. What's the point? What's that more likely to lead you to? More crime. You can't just kill anyone who's ever been guilty of a crime, there has to be a better way.

An entire shift in attitude is necessary for this in some aspects I think. What the defendant 'deserves' is only part of it.

And sounds very much like rewarding naughtiness with a reward, very much like sending reoffending youngsters on camp for stealing cars & joyriding, which to me is just ridiculous, sorry!

Rewarding someone for bad behaviour just means that that someone will continue to misbehave until they are rewarded again because it’s worked in the past so it’ll work again. Whereas if I misbehaved when I was young, I knew about it & I sure as hell knew not to do it again unless I wanted to be punished again!! And for the record, I very rarely, if ever, made the same mistake twice! And I never went away on holiday for being bad either!

[PHILINFRANCE]

8 hours ago, Up The City! said:

This is am extremely sensitive subject and my thoughts are so mixed on it.

Personally I feel they should never have been sent to prison. I know this will be controversial in this country it seems the default position Is that people must be punished. Whilst I understand that and partially agree a part of me thinks this was 2 10 year olds. It's tragic that their brains have along the way been wired to commit murder.

There is clearly some serious mental health problems going on there and I don't think sending them to prison was the correct thing to do as prison is not designed to provide the intensive therapy and treatment that they would have required. They needed to be in an environment where they could be 'fixed' that imo would have been much better for society. 

 

In my view, the prospect of a prison sentence should be seen as a deterrent, the sentence itself should, firstly, serve as a punishment (though not, necessarily, retribution), but also important is the chance, especially in the case of such young offenders, for education and rehabilitation.

Whilst, unfortunately, JV does not appear, at present, to have benefited from his sentence, it might be argued that, given he has apparently not re-offended since his release from prison, Robert Thompson has been rehabilitated.

One might ask the question as to whether, had he not been sentenced to prison and removed from the 'unfortunate' environment in which he was living, RT might have gone on to commit further offences in his vulnerable teenage years.