QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

Mr.Brown_4

On the plus side I guess Jordan is no longer Britains most hated person. Wonder who it will be next week?

moggylover

Cleaver wrote: »

Are you okay? Like, really, are you alright?

Everyone here is pretty nice, and we're a laid back bunch when it comes to it. If you feel that you have issues and pyschological barriers that prevent you from speaking with a professional then I'm sure people here would be happy for you to talk. To open up. Whatever issues and difficulties you've faced that have resulted in this rather deranged stream of consciousness ramblings towards a symbolic group of pepole you can share with us. I'm sure it would be really cathartic to discuss in an anonymous way. Have a good pixelated sob. You'll feel pure and cleansed and we can help with that.

We love you White Horse. Whatever has happened in the past doesn't make you a bad person. Remember that.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Really2

ninky wrote: »

what would you do if your child seriously assaulted or murdered someone?

Expect them to serve a punishment worthy of the crime. TBH I think some should read the book The jigsaw man by Paul Britton.

This was premeditated and no matter the age deserved a long sentence because no matter what any think on abuse etc etc kids still know murder and torture is wrong.

Parental guidance should enforce this, if that is not there the law has to be second.
Also your bond to the safety of your child is paramount as a parent I would lay my life down for my child but if some on tried to abduct I have no doubt if I saw the person I would cause serious damage to them.

Any one thinking it is mob rule most probably does not have children.
Believe me when you have a young child your feelings change. Until you do you will never be able to put yourself in the "what if it was me" situation.

I think there have been some far out comments on this thread but I think (hope) most on here would agree if the "story" does prove to be true he will need to go away for a long time.
But lets face it if this goes to trial and ends up guilty, people will know hidden identiy or not.
But lets play devils advocate if he is convicted again and found guilty as an adult should they be protected no matter the cost?

Cleaver

Really2 wrote: »

But lets play devils advocate if he is convicted again and found guilty as an adult should they be protected no matter the cost?

No. I think he has had a chance to start again with what sounds like a lot of support and help. And I say that as a 'lefty liberal'.

Here's my take on it all. They should have had a proper, lengthy sentence in the first place (as I believe all cold-blooded murders should have). 30 years or so. For a crime this barbaric, no matter the age of the perpetrator, there should be a substatial jail term which is probably in line with what the vast majority of the public want to see from their criminal justice system. This would have meant that a battery of tests could have been done when they were about 40 to see if they could be released under supervision.

On a sperate issue, all this 'eye for an eye' stuff bothers me. Presumably what upset the nation back in 1993 was the disgusting way in which these two boys killed Jamie Bulger as our society finds murder abhorrent, and the idea of torturing and killing a toddler is pretty much incomprehensible. All this 'we should hang them' stuff makes us, as a society, a bit hypocritical as I've always been of the opinion that punishing murder with murder seems a bit daft. They should be locked away, for a very long time, in conditions that aren't very nice.

In my eyes prison should be an equal mix of punishment and rehabilitation. If you're an 18 year old who's fallen in with a bad crowd and have gone to prison for repeated stealing (for example) then a jail term which is all about rehabilitation seems applicable. The whole sentence should be about working and educating that 18 year old for 12 hours a day: manual labour, courses, life skills. Try and turn them around. I'm going to sound like the White Horse now because I think a prisoner should have a bed and some meagre possessions in their cell. No TVs, no Playstations, no phones, no computers... that's the punishment aspect. For a murderer I think the punishment should come first, rehabilitation second. And this getting out after 11 years is stupid.

Sorry, bit of a waffle there. To summerise Really2: the answer is 'no'.

Really2

Cleaver wrote: »

No. I think he has had a chance to start again with what sounds like a lot of support and help. And I say that as a 'lefty liberal'.

Here's my take on it all. They should have had a proper, lengthy sentence in the first place (as I believe all cold-blooded murders should have). 30 years or so. For a crime this barbaric, no matter the age of the perpetrator, there should be a substatial jail term which is probably in line with what the vast majority of the public want to see from their criminal justice system. This would have meant that a battery of tests could have been done when they were about 40 to see if they could be released under supervision.

On a sperate issue, all this 'eye for an eye' stuff bothers me. Presumably what upset the nation back in 1993 was the disgusting way in which these two boys killed Jamie Bulger as our society finds murder abhorrent, and the idea of torturing and killing a toddler is pretty much incomprehensible. All this 'we should hang them' stuff makes us, as a society, a bit hypocritical as I've always been of the opinion that punishing murder with murder seems a bit daft. They should be locked away, for a very long time, in conditions that aren't very nice.

In my eyes prison should be an equal mix of punishment and rehabilitation. If you're an 18 year old who's fallen in with a bad crowd and have gone to prison for repeated stealing (for example) then a jail term which is all about rehabilitation seems applicable. The whole sentence should be about working and educating that 18 year old for 12 hours a day: manual labour, courses, life skills. Try and turn them around. I'm going to sound like the White Horse now because I think a prisoner should have a bed and some meagre possessions in their cell. No TVs, no Playstations, no phones, no computers... that's the punishment aspect. For a murderer I think the punishment should come first, rehabilitation second. And this getting out after 11 years is stupid.

Sorry, bit of a waffle there. To summerise Really2: the answer is 'no'.

That sums up what I think to. I don't agree with the eye for eye stuff either. But if either go to prison they should no longer receive special treatment in terms of protection for their past crime.

lemonjelly

Cleaver wrote: »

No. I think he has had a chance to start again with what sounds like a lot of support and help. And I say that as a 'lefty liberal'.

Here's my take on it all. They should have had a proper, lengthy sentence in the first place (as I believe all cold-blooded murders should have). 30 years or so. For a crime this barbaric, no matter the age of the perpetrator, there should be a substatial jail term which is probably in line with what the vast majority of the public want to see from their criminal justice system. This would have meant that a battery of tests could have been done when they were about 40 to see if they could be released under supervision.

On a sperate issue, all this 'eye for an eye' stuff bothers me. Presumably what upset the nation back in 1993 was the disgusting way in which these two boys killed Jamie Bulger as our society finds murder abhorrent, and the idea of torturing and killing a toddler is pretty much incomprehensible. All this 'we should hang them' stuff makes us, as a society, a bit hypocritical as I've always been of the opinion that punishing murder with murder seems a bit daft. They should be locked away, for a very long time, in conditions that aren't very nice.

In my eyes prison should be an equal mix of punishment and rehabilitation. If you're an 18 year old who's fallen in with a bad crowd and have gone to prison for repeated stealing (for example) then a jail term which is all about rehabilitation seems applicable. The whole sentence should be about working and educating that 18 year old for 12 hours a day: manual labour, courses, life skills. Try and turn them around. I'm going to sound like the White Horse now because I think a prisoner should have a bed and some meagre possessions in their cell. No TVs, no Playstations, no phones, no computers... that's the punishment aspect. For a murderer I think the punishment should come first, rehabilitation second. And this getting out after 11 years is stupid.

Sorry, bit of a waffle there. To summerise Really2: the answer is 'no'.

There is a nice balance here cleaver.

Difficulty is, too many see prison as being one of either punishment (the vast majority) or rehabilitation.

uite rightly, it is about finding the balance.

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

That sums up what I think to. I don't agree with the eye for eye stuff either. But if either go to prison they should no longer receive special treatment in terms of protection for their past crime.

I disagree, the reason for the decision to hide their identity was that there were creditable threats to torture and kill them. Really, a decent society doesn't let that kind of thing happen; society should be better than criminals. As a leftie, I think these boys should not have been released so quickly, but irrespective of that, I don't think mob justice should be allowed either. These boys should recieve the punishment the law provides for, not the punishment some nutbar decides to meet out (and no, I am not talking about anyone on this forum).

I think that there are three reasons for prison: punishment, rehabilitation, and protection for society.

The_White_Horse

shockingly, i am in agreement with Cleaver on this.

however, when it comes to the death penalty, i don't really see it as a "punishment" as I think sitting alone, in a cold empty cell for 40 years is probably worse punishment. I see it as protection for society, as murderers are gone, and we don't have to worry about looking after them, paying for them, protecting them, policing them, providing health care for them and...

...yes, thats right, the lefties let them collect dole in jail. what a joke. and why? it will help them prepare for life on the outside. jokers.

by killing venables and thompson, society would be 100% safe from them, society would incur no costs of looking after them and jail space for more minor offenders would be freed up. Plus, their organs could have been given to deserving children. I can't really see one con of executing these two. can anyone?

if people didn't want to execute a 10 year old who committed a pre-meditated murder in cold blood against a helpless toddler, I think a compromise could have been reached by keeping them alive until their 18th birthday. I know it is stupid, but its just an idea to appease the lefty.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

I disagree, the reason for the decision to hide their identity was that there were creditable threats to torture and kill them. Really, a decent society doesn't let that kind of thing happen; society should be better than criminals. As a leftie, I think these boys should not have been released so quickly, but irrespective of that, I don't think mob justice should be allowed either. These boys should recieve the punishment the law provides for, not the punishment some nutbar decides to meet out (and no, I am not talking about anyone on this forum).

I think that there are three reasons for prison: punishment, rehabilitation, and protection for society.

They will go to prison with the new identity so why should they not serve time next to people who have offended?
What is the point of a new identity if you are going to use the old one as a shield?

There will be no punishment or rehabilitation if they are made "special cases" again IMHO.
If guilty they now need to serve time under the new identity just like anyone else IMHO

decent society doesn't let that kind of thing happen; society should be better than criminals

A very odd quote as this is an ideal but has never met with reality, people get murdered everyday and have done for centuries (perhaps more so in the last 50 years excluding war) is that an indication society is permanently not working?

So although I agree in jail notcorporal punishment I do fail to see what the "lefti" approach has done either. I think the move has may have been a bit to far to the left now and longer stricter prison terms should be enforced for the worst crimes.

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

They will go to prison with the new identity so why should they not serve time next to people who have offended?
What is the point of a new identity if you are going to use the old one as a shield?

There will be no punishment or rehabilitation if they are made "special cases" again IMHO.
If guilty they now need to serve time under the new identity just like anyone else IMHO

Given that the entire prison population probably knows exactly who they are by now, (there have only been 86 people recalled to prison from a life licence since maggie invented this system, so it will stick out like a sore thumb), I don't think that is practicable. There is no real difference between making them serve sentances under their old name, or under their new name. I have no doubt it is now easy to work out exactly who he is.

As for my opinion, I gave it earlier: I think it is impossible to know, in this case, whether they are safe or not, and so I don't think they should ever have been released.