QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

StevieJ

abaxas wrote: »

Sadly the 70's proved that statement incorrect.

Seems like downhill for the average Joe since the 70's if you believe everything spouted on here.

Nosht

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Anyone know how a young child can be abducted from their parent's caring and secure hands. GG

Well, just look at the Madeline McCann case. If the parents had not been "professionals" would they still be allowed to keep their children? :eek:

N.

puddy

welcome to pitchfork city

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

My wife read the guy who investigated it's book. They may have been young but jesus it most probably one of the worse murders I had heard of in terms of damage and then what they did to the dead body.

Personally I think criminal resposibillity should be lowered to 10/11 lets face it kid's should know right and wrong by then. Perhaps have a system that if it was a one of crime (eg stealling a CD) and they had learnt their lesson their slate is cleaned at around 16-18.
Kid's know their rights now and older kids do so they know a kid under 16 can't be touched so now use them also.

It's a tuff one but I think murder and mutilation should be life whatever your age.
Taking a life should mean you never lead a free normal one yourself either.IMHO

Criminal age of responsibility is currently 10.

Regarding their "rights" bit, a lot of people know their rights. Very few people bang on about their responsibilities.

I don't know enough about this case, so I'm talking generally. However, how did James Bulger get to be wandering around a shopping centre on his own?

Someone else raised the issue - the mccanns get no sympathy from me. They'd rather go out for a jolly meal etc & leave their young kids unsupervised rather than deal with their responsibilities as parents. Show's where their priorities are. Why haven't social services investigated them?

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Criminal age of responsibility is currently 10.

I thought some of it was under 14/16?

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I don't know enough about this case, so I'm talking generally. However, how did James Bulger get to be wandering around a shopping centre on his own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Kohoutek

Really2 wrote: »

Personally I think criminal resposibillity should be lowered to 10/11 lets face it kid's should know right and wrong by then. Perhaps have a system that if it was a one of crime (eg stealling a CD) and they had learnt their lesson their slate is cleaned at around 16-18.

It's a tuff one but I think murder and mutilation should be life whatever your age.
Taking a life should mean you never lead a free normal one yourself either.IMHO

Criminal responsibility is 10 for all crimes. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Venables and Thompson are still serving a life sentence but on (early) parole. Usually, any violation of parole will not be taken lightly, hence why Venables has been returned to prison.

They both served eight years before being released on parole - a very short sentence given the brutal and inhuman nature of the murder. The appropriate sentence depends what your view on punishment/rehabilitation is I suppose.

I think I agree with the OP that these people weren't 'confused' kids, they're just sadistic, evil people or extremely mentally ill. I guess Venable's parole violations shows that the early parole was a mistake.

torontoboy45

The_White_Horse wrote: »

we live in a sick world - and the sickest thing of all, is that people are ashamed to go on QT and say these two killers should have been hanged in case they offend some happy clappy lefty who wants to put the killers interests firsts.

so what if they were abused???????? its just an excuse, and no different to a speeding motorist saying they were late.

so tell us all: what type of punishment would you have meted out to the 2 convicted children?

kriss_boy

Nosht wrote: »

Well, just look at the Madeline McCann case. If the parents had not been "professionals" would they still be allowed to keep their children? :eek:

N.

I reckon in time the facts about what really happened in that case will come to light.

To me its blatantly obvious the parents know more about that night than they are letting on.

Cleaver

kriss_boy wrote: »

I reckon in time the facts about what really happened in that case will come to light.

To me its blatantly obvious the parents know more about that night than they are letting on.

Unless you were involved in investigating the case, how can you say this? What do you base your theory on other than tabloid reports and news reports?