QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

let's not forget. two 10 year olds with a two year old. 38 adults saw them between the time of abduction and the time of murder, including witnesses who saw the boys hit james and saw james crying and bruised.

if you witness unsupervised children attacking each other should it not be a criminal offence not to intervene?

I think this is the key. For me it is heinous we should NEED a good Samaritan law...more than regulation we need...something human ...something real....

nearlynew

If the white horse had witnessed it, he could have beaten the 2 of them to death there and then.

That would have saved a fortune.

moggylover

chucky wrote: »

i struggle to agree with your posts when you consider the other boy that was convicted with Venables who seems to be continuing with a normal life and has not re-offended and maybe, just maybe is a totally reformed character.

would killing him have been the correct option?

personally i'm not judgemental enough to be able to say that a human life should be taken away.

That is an especially pertinent point since at the time of the trial Thompson was actually seen as being the "higher risk" of the two boys, and the one most likely to have been the "ring leader", at least in the popular press. More detailed reading of the case shows that this is not as clear cut as it appeared at that point and that Venables actually may well have been the bigger "culprit" of the two, but suggests that one might have been given a lesser sentence at the time than the other.

Also begs the question whether this crime would ever have occured if these two boys had not known each other and whether it was their own peculiar chemistry that lead to each crossing the line. But that is another thread.

Really2

moggylover wrote: »

Also begs the question whether this crime would ever have occured if these two boys had not known each other and whether it was their own peculiar chemistry that lead to each crossing the line. But that is another thread.

I think in nearly all cases of 2 people killing the meeting of two people egging on their fantasy's has been the main spark of their crimes and had they never met it may not of ever happened.
But they did, so unless we profile everyone to stop these people meeting as friends this type of analysis is fairly pointless. Unfortunately it only comes to light when it is to late.:(

The_White_Horse

chucky wrote: »

i struggle to agree with your posts when you consider the other boy that was convicted with Venables who seems to be continuing with a normal life and has not re-offended and maybe, just maybe is a totally reformed character.

would killing him have been the correct option?

personally i'm not judgemental enough to be able to say that a human life should be taken away.

i think you have to look at it that he did kill, so he deserves the punishment - no one knows if he will offend again. why take the chance and let some innocent person die? will he be killed if he kills again?

The_White_Horse

nearlynew wrote: »

If the white horse had witnessed it, he could have beaten the 2 of them to death there and then.

That would have saved a fortune.

I would have only demanded some plasters to apply to my cut knuckles.

The_White_Horse

maybe they are now Ant and Dec. that would be an excellent disguise.

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but fundamentally, why is it wrong to kill someone if they are a danger to society and themselves, and keeping them alive only prolongs the problem? we put dogs down that bite people - frankly, I think it is wrong to put dogs down for biting people as that is what a dog does, especially one bred to fight. putting these animals down is inhumane. putting down a crazed psycho killer is not wrong.

I can only say that I do not feel "God like" enough to feel I have a right to decide to kill another person for what I perceive (or even society perceives to be a crime). I do see entirely where you are coming from in your analogy because a dog knows no better, but if brought up in an atmosphere of cruelty, control, and abuse then human children know no better (at the core of their being) either.

look at old people who want to die with dignity - the religious maniacs won't let them do it. there is a fundamental issue about dying and killing that we need to overcome.

My ONLY reservation with the idea of allowing the terminally ill to die with dignity is that I know for an absolute certainty that there are plenty out there who would want their oldies finished off so that they could get their hands on the money and I have my fears that a change in the law would make that easier.

If someone genuinely wants to die, they should be allowed to be assisted if they cannot do it themselves. if someone kills (without valid reason) then they should be put down.

Now, obviously a common sense approach has to be taken. Clearly there are different kinds of murder. Someone who is driving dangerously and kills someone may not warrant death - it depends on the circumstances. A woman (or man) who has been abused and snaps may not warrant death. However, someone who simply kills for (a) the pleasure (sexual or otherwise) or (b) profit or gain - should be put to death.

Here we would have to disagree. For me, there is no difference in someone driving dangerously and any other murderer. He/she may argue that it was an accident, but the moment they got into their car and did not pay due care and attention then they were taking a calculated risk of having that accident. Drunk drivers are as guilty as anyone who premeditates a murder imo. Getting in your car drunk is exactly the same as walking around town with a loaded smg and letting shots into the air randomly. You stand a darn good chance of hitting someone at some point.

Then we have to say "what is pleasure" - if my child was murdered, I may kill the murderer myself. is that for pleasure? or is it revenger? Is revenge and pleasure the same thing? As I say, these are all relevant questions, but with the application of some common sense (which you hope a judge would apply), you would hope that a parent who kills the murderer of their child would not be given death but merely a short custodial sentence (if that). That parent is not a danger to society and would not put anyone at risk, save for the murderer. However, someone like Fred West or Shipman etc etc are simply killing for the thrill. Its just common sense.

We still had murders when the death penalty remained on the table. The USA still has murders in those states that have the death penalty. It doesn't work as a preventative measure.

Despite the fact that I know I would be hard pressed not to want to murder someone who killed my own child (as I already said) I hope that I could rise above my animal instinct because otherwise my righteous fury and revenge is just giving in to my own baser instincts in the way that the murderer did.

Here is one I saw on a programme once. The executioners were giving the criminal an injection, but it started going wrong. The criminal was in a lot of pain and started violently convulsing. One of the executioners decided to put the criminal out of his misery/pain and shot him. He was charged with murder - even though he was in the process of killing him when he shot him!!

It isn't that I cannot see where you are coming from on all of this Horsey. I just feel that I would not want either myself, or the society I lived in, to either be comfortable with the idea of the death sentence or willing to risk even one wrongful conviction resulting in a "legal murder". If it were you being "put down" for a crime you did not commit how do you think you would take it? Would it be an acceptable price to pay for the "good of society"?;)

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

I think in nearly all cases of 2 people killing the meeting of two people egging on their fantasy's has been the main spark of their crimes and had they never met it may not of ever happened.
But they did, so unless we profile everyone to stop these people meeting as friends this type of analysis is fairly pointless. Unfortunately it only comes to light when it is to late.:(

Which, of course, is one reason why we will never actually stop crime altogether:(

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think you have to look at it that he did kill, so he deserves the punishment - no one knows if he will offend again. why take the chance and let some innocent person die? will he be killed if he kills again?

Mary Bell did not kill again, Thompson does not appear to have re-offended, Venables does not appear to have killed again and, indeed, we only have newspaper speculation as to what he "may" actually be guilty of.

Perhaps we should wait until after he is tried again to make these judgements about him. But, tbf, I doubt we will ever have the full details to make the judgements upon.