QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

Conrad

I agree on the harsh sentancing rules - for example 10 years for knife carrying.

Where I move away from whitehorse is on the matter of whether child 'criminals' are fully in charge of thier emmotions and behaviours as he would have us believe.

He says they are animals. If I beat a dog every day and it one day then goes and bites another person, would it be entirely the dogs fault?

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

I agree on the harsh sentancing rules - for example 10 years for knife carrying.

Where I move away from whitehorse is on the matter of whether child 'criminals' are fully in charge of thier emmotions and behaviours as he would have us believe.

He says they are animals. If I beat a dog every day and it one day then goes and bites another person, would it be entirely the dogs fault?

I'm going to have to ask again.

Were these children abused?

Gorgeous_George

Odd that a man falsely accused of rape can be identified despite a flawless previous history while another, accused of 'serious sexual offences', cannot be named despite having murdered a child in one the most heinous crime of the 20th century.

It's a funny old world.

GG

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the govt has nothing to do with it - it is the courts and sentencing which is a lefty preserve. The social workers, the prison services - all run by lefties.

whose idea do you think it was to give these murderers 8 years and not let them into an adult prison? it wasn't maggie - it was dim wit left wing liberal fool who now has blood on his hands.

Could you just clarify who it is that you think is the "dim wit left wing liberal fool who now has blood on his hands" (and btw, talking of dim witted, that should have been "witted" not "wit" and your punctuation shows a lack of education that is astounding in one with such strong and educated "standards":cool:

Personally, every time you post I find myself thinking that there seriously might be something to the idea of wiping out a part of Society: the sick, twisted and utterly inhuman part that you appear to inhabit;) But there, my perfect World is different to yours (thank God:D).

I don't think that there is anyone at all suggesting that child killers are not "guilty" of anything. What we are pointing out is that there are extenuating circumstances and that these do have to be taken into consideration in our treatment of them. Should we be unwilling to take those circumstances into consideration then we reduce ourselves to their level (or lower, perhaps, in your own case).

Having said all that, I do not think the actual jail time served was enough, and I would have wanted them in very strictly controlled mental assessment programmes upon release (and yes I am a lefty) not just given a new id and left to get on with their lives.

There is, of course, a sensible middle ground between your harsh "kill 'em all if they do not agree with me" attitude and that of those that make too many excuses and forget the crime. I do neither and there are certainly criminals that I would NEVER allow on the streets again (!!!!!philes and rapists and serial killers) I'm afraid that I do not consider our system so devoid of mistakes that I could ever back a call for the death penalty.

moggylover

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm going to have to ask again.

Were these children abused?

I don't think that has truly ever been completely established! This is quite interesting though:


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/7.html

Worth reading both about Thompson and then Venables on the next page.

The_White_Horse

i'mk sorry, but a 10 yr old child knows that it is wrong to torture and murder. anyone who thinks otherwise is unfit to be a parent. more to the point, any 10 year old that does not know it is wrong, needs to be locked up for good - because there is something wrong with that child. Maybe broadmore is where these two should have gone after the 8 year holiday camp.

there are so many children, so many from broken homes, so many from abusive homes (not that we have any evidence these two were abused) that do not murder or torture, it is offensive to use it as an excuse.

Ok, if it was the norm that all abused kids/kids from broken homes torture and murder, I could perhaps see a point. But they don't.

They don't because they are normal and these two were sick twisted animals. They should have spent 8 years in a young offenders, followed by 25 years in an adult prison. They would still have been out at 43 to live perhaps 40 years or more in freedom.

Whoever was responsible for the 8 year sentence, should be imprisoned.

Graham_Devon

moggylover wrote: »

I don't think that has truly ever been completely established! This is quite interesting though:

Exactly!! Never been established.

Which is the problem I have when conrad keeps talking as if these killers were abused as kids and finding excuses based on this.

What's more, he tells us:

I used to think like you. In my thirties I took the trouble to step outside my pre-formed world view and read some accounts of abused children.

You you should try it rather than carrying on in the belief your fixed world view is the only correct one.

THESE are the thoughts of people I have a problem with. Come down holier than thou, but use something that has never been proven to make their case and talk about it as if it's somehow fact, while preaching to others how they should open their minds!

The_White_Horse

moggylover wrote: »

I don't think that has truly ever been completely established! This is quite interesting though:


http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/7.html

Worth reading both about Thompson and then Venables on the next page.

interesting, but just a load of excuses. they knew exactly what they were doing.

why didn't thompson's brothers kill toddlers for fun?

They are both animals. no more, no less. they should have been put down and used for body parts. The benefits:

No more thompson or venables

No lefty social workers etc getting it wrong

No child !!!!!!/sex attacks on other innocents

Justice for the family

Justice for the country

Some young decent children get the body parts.

No money wasted on rehabilitation and new identities

The cons.... I can't honestly think of any. Can you?

The_White_Horse

moggylover wrote: »

Personally, every time you post I find myself thinking that there seriously might be something to the idea of wiping out a part of Society: the sick, twisted and utterly inhuman part that you appear to inhabit;) But there, my perfect World is different to yours (thank God:D).

thank god we have people to make excuses for child murderers. praise the lord for your existence. without you, we just simply wouldn't have sick deranged people living amongst us without the public having the right to know that they may live next door to a murderer. praise be that you exist. thank god!!!!!!!!!!!!

tomterm8

moggylover wrote: »

I don't think that has truly ever been completely established!

The problem is, they still have a certain amount of clinical confidentiality, so a large proportion of the documents that would answer such questions can't be published. What we do know is that prior to the court case the experts found they were both capable of knowing right from wrong, that there were no medical grounds for diminished responsibility, and both knew that death was permanant.

So, from a legal perspective, even if they were abused it would not be a mitigating factor.