QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

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.

Were these children abused?

wigglebeena

Good question. The assumption seems to be frequently made, but was it established as a fact?

Charlie94

I agree with a lot of the comments here. The penal system is a mess and the sentances for violent crime and murders should be far ,far greater. It infuriates me when I see short sentances handed out for violent crime.


However I think Will Self made a good point on Question Time. Why is it that we see Venables and Thompson as more evil than adult killers? Why do the tabloid press focus so much attention on them? Yes the crime was abhorrent but I agree with Self. These two ten year old must have been incredibly confused children. It is dissapointing that these two receive so much attention compared to adults that have inflicted just as much pain on people.

I agree with another poster who argues that the parents of these children should have perhaps been punished. I think the reason that we see these two children as more evil than adult killers is that it confirms a simple view of the world, that people are born evil. The reality is far more complicated.

Before I get accused of being a bleeding heart liberal I am not. I just think that this crime was exceptional. When children commit such disgusting crimes at such a young age we really need to look at what made them do this. Its too simple just to label them evil and as some have suggested hang them!

I cannot believe some have suggested hanging Venables and Thompson. Could we really be taken seriously as a civilised county if we started hanging ten year olds!

While I feel that Venables and Thompson should be punished I doubt they are a threat to society now. Murder has the lowest reconviction rate of any crime. Thats not to say I don't think murder should carry a far longer sentance and in some case should mean a full life sentance.

stueyhants

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/03/erwin-james-jon-venables

.... " At the time when they killed the toddler they were both 10 years old. It was obvious to anyone who read about their lives before the crime that their formative years had been abusive and damaging. These were not two well brought up little boys who went to a posh school. They were rough kids who had experienced more of life's degradations than any child should. They knew about life on the streets. Perhaps "feral" would have been an appropriate adjective to describe what they had become"

There are two sides to this issue. The first aspect is about punishment of the crime and the second is further protection of the public. Whether you want to hang them or put them in prison for 10/20/30+ years is important but it doesn't change what's happened. The bigger issue for me is do we want people who may do the same again out and free to walk the streets? Are the courts and doctors 100% confident they will not commit further acts, should we hold the courts and social workers to account in the future if they do ?

Gorgeous_George

simongregson wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you think it's OK to hang a 10 year old? It might be a horrific crime, but that would not sit comfortably with the vast majority of people.

No need to apologise.

The answer to the question is yes. Just as I would put down any dog that killed a child. And I love dogs.

The killers' parents should have been the ones sent to prison.

GG

wigglebeena

stueyhants wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/03/erwin-james-jon-venables

.... " At the time when they killed the toddler they were both 10 years old. It was obvious to anyone who read about their lives before the crime that their formative years had been abusive and damaging. These were not two well brought up little boys who went to a posh school. They were rough kids who had experienced more of life's degradations than any child should. They knew about life on the streets. Perhaps "feral" would have been an appropriate adjective to describe what they had become"

There are two sides to this issue. The first aspect is about punishment of the crime and the second is further protection of the public. Whether you want to hang them or put them in prison for 10/20/30+ years is important but it doesn't change what's happened. The bigger issue for me is do we want people who may do the same again out and free to walk the streets? Are the courts and doctors 100% confident they will not commit further acts, should we hold the courts and social workers to account in the future if they do ?

Third-hand and vague. What actual abuse did they suffer? (Not directed personally at you, Stuey. I just find it insufficiently concrete as a justification for kid gloves.) "They knew about life on the streets." What does that mean, precisely? They were proley council estate kids? So was I, and I've never amassed so much as a parking ticket. Are underclass origins to become a ticket out of a long-term prison sentence?

Kohoutek

stueyhants wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/03/erwin-james-jon-venables

.... " At the time when they killed the toddler they were both 10 years old. It was obvious to anyone who read about their lives before the crime that their formative years had been abusive and damaging.

That received wisdom is oversimplified. Robert Thompson came from a broken home, but Venables, who most people accept was the instigator had family problems, but 'abusive and damaging' is maybe too much of a broad brush.

This article in the Guardian about their upbringing is quite interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships and the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-bulger-murder-jon-was-fearful-weak-and-he-was-provoked-in-interviews-with-the-press-association-the-parents-of-jon-venables-and-robert-thompson-talk-about-their-sons-1506474.html

There are sadly plenty of people from abusive backgrounds like Thompson, or families with problems like Venables. If their problems had manifested themselves in theft or burglary or even violent crime I think people would be understanding. But surely the fact that they tortured and murdered a defenceless infant with bricks and metal poles show that at least one of them has something wrong with them that is not just the result of bad parenting. What difference does it really make that they were 10? At what age do people become aware that torture and murder are wrong - I would say earlier than 10.

The way they treated Bulgar reminds me of people who enjoy torturing and killing small animals - the types of people who have psychopathic tendencies that want to feel powerful through sadism and violence. I don't think these kind of people can ever be 'rehabilitated'. Did Fred West and Harold Shipman kill because of abusive childhoods? If you look, maybe you could find evidence, but it doesn't make them blameless for what they did.

The_White_Horse

according to the papers today, he is back in prison for a sexual attack. there you go lefties and liberal bleeding hearts idiots. a murdered child was not enough for you. You had to spend millions of tax payers money to "rehabilitate" the animal - and all you have to show for it is another ruined life. A poor girl raped because the idiot liberals didn't have the guts to do what was needed at the time. And lets hope it was a woman and NOT a another child.

The lefties have untold blood on their hands.

treliac

Emy1501 wrote: »

why no one questioned why 2 ten year olds were wandering around a shopping centre when they should have been at school.

Since it goes on every day in every town centre, it's a situation pretty well out of control.

Mr.Brown_4

Wow. I don't know enough about this subject to make a judgement one way or another. So I'll leave that the experts on here. Just to throw something into the mix though. It wasn't some kids who beat Baha Mousa to death - can anyone remind me what the punishment was in that case? I am assuming the soldiers involved were over the age of criminal responsibilty.

Complex area - crime and punishment.