NO! Not in my name you don't

BigJimmyB

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

In a word, cobblers.

Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.

simonaspinall

BigJimmyB wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

In a word, cobblers.

Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.

Well, i'm glad that's cleared up then.

rake

should have been dispatched by a secret squad one night , on a need to know basis.

zanes

BigJimmyB wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

In a word, cobblers.

Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.

So no need for (corporate) manslaughter charges as we should just use murder charges all the time?

rake

yes. you seem to have grasped it.

fast as fupp

BigJimmyB wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

In a word, cobblers.

Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.

so you admit you dont understand criminal law?

rake

no one plans to have an horrific accident while drink driving, yet it haPPENS and they get DONE.

fast as fupp

rake wrote:

no one plans to have an horrific accident while drink driving, yet it haPPENS and they get DONE.

get DONE for what?

rake

for being a cnut.

fast as fupp

what like you?

rake

i dont drink and drive and havent murdered anyone. but yes from time to time i am.

fast as fupp

aren't we all?

mroli

The influence of drink and drugs can be discounted from intent as by taking these intentionally you are removing yourself from the "normal" rules.

To the gent that had to battle like f**k to get his autistic child extra help - seriously all power to you. There are so many kids out there that don't have someone like you helping them and I will freely admit that not all of them turn out like Bulger's murderers.

I would also reckon that the love you give your child is far more valuable than any sort of schooling or support provided by institutions.

The point about intent is that an 11 year old, whilst knowing that murder will result in the police coming after them etc are DEEMED to not be able to know the full consequences of their actions - we are taking an extreme here in murder, but it applies to theft, criminal damage etc etc. They need to know the ramifications and consequences to be able to intentionally break a law.

Again - fantastic to see the tough guy personas, cyclists are as representative a category of the population as any other I guess.

Tonymufc

blackpanther wrote:

South Bound wrote:

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

what f king apologist bolloc ks. children of ten know what theyre doing, they might not fully understand the implication of their actions but they know whats right and wrong. the coding for right and wrong is set at a very early age these two will never embody mainstream culture.

Gangreen is best removed since it cant be cured. and bleeding hearts are not for surgeons.

+1. Well said pal. Don't wish to fan any flames, but how did the two boys come to be able to take James away? Apparently his mother was chatting up some guy in a shop and wasn't watching where her son was. As a parent I am constantly worried where my son is. So when we go out I make sure that he's right beside me or his mum.

Anonymous

The way I see it, is they were put away after they were convicted of torturing an infant to death after abducting him.
To do that those 2 lads must havehad a rotten up-bringing and that ended up with an infant being tortured to death.

I believe for the time those two lads were inside, they would have had counselling like you would not believe, therapy, special educational needs applied the lot. There is no way that those two were not counselled until they were deemed fit to be released anonamously.
Heres the rub.
The fact that these two now know the difference between bad and good, are adults and have been supported throughout and one of them still decides he wants to break his terms and conditions, well he should now be left to his own devices and if his identity comes out, so be it. he is an adult and he should now know without a shadow of a doubt the difference of good and bad actions.

I do not think these 2 should have been allowed out for a lot longer time than they did, recieved the continued support for one of them to pi55 it all away.

daviesee

dmclite wrote:

The way I see it, is they were put away after they were convicted of torturing an infant to death after abducting him.
To do that those 2 lads must havehad a rotten up-bringing and that ended up with an infant being tortured to death.

I believe for the time those two lads were inside, they would have had counselling like you would not believe, therapy, special educational needs applied the lot. There is no way that those two were not counselled until they were deemed fit to be released anonamously.
Heres the rub.
The fact that these two now know the difference between bad and good, are adults and have been supported throughout and one of them still decides he wants to break his terms and conditions, well he should now be left to his own devices and if his identity comes out, so be it. he is an adult and he should now know without a shadow of a doubt the difference of good and bad actions.

I do not think these 2 should have been allowed out for a lot longer time than they did, recieved the continued support for one of them to pi55 it all away.

+1

Well made fair points one and all.

mroli

I can't find any stats to hand quickly, but this report says that offenders have a 50% to 75% chance of reoffending in the first 2 years after being released from prison; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 72411.html

the "rub" is, as you put it that they must know the consequences of their actions now. Yes, they will do and they will be tried as such for offences that they commit. The protection of their identity is not only for their own protection, but also to prevent future crimes being committed against them resulting in jail time for third parties. Also, to allow their identity to become public would allow for vigilante justice to take place when they have already served their sentence for the crime they committed (although I acknowledge that many feel that sentence was inadequate).

Tonymufc - I acknowledge your parenting and your fear of abduction. The very relevant point to make is that these cases are VERY rare and few and far between. However, certain media portrayal breeds a culture of fear.

Also, a number of large shopping centres have incredibly efficient "lock down" systems, that if a child is abducted, kick into place to prevent that child being removed from the centre.

Anonymous

mroli wrote:

I can't find any stats to hand quickly, but this report says that offenders have a 50% to 75% chance of reoffending in the first 2 years after being released from prison; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 72411.html

the "rub" is, as you put it that they must know the consequences of their actions now. Yes, they will do and they will be tried as such for offences that they commit. The protection of their identity is not only for their own protection, but also to prevent future crimes being committed against them resulting in jail time for third parties. Also, to allow their identity to become public would allow for vigilante justice to take place when they have already served their sentence for the crime they committed (although I acknowledge that many feel that sentence was inadequate).

Tonymufc - I acknowledge your parenting and your fear of abduction. The very relevant point to make is that these cases are VERY rare and few and far between. However, certain media portrayal breeds a culture of fear.

Also, a number of large shopping centres have incredibly efficient "lock down" systems, that if a child is abducted, kick into place to prevent that child being removed from the centre.

This is a very rare case, I agree but there is no way that John venables should be allowed out of prison now for a very long time. He has not served his sentence in any way shape or form. I am sure, at the age of 27 with the emotional, educational, psychological and social therapies he has recieved he is quite aware of his actions and I am not willing to accept that we need to accept blame as a society for his actions and future intentions. He is an adult now, but an adult who will have to face the fact that he tortured a toddler to death. the fact that he may face some public come-uppance for his crime, then he should not have carried out the crime in the first place. He was and still is responsible for torturing a little boy to death, if he were and adult he should have swung for what he helped do.

Mike Healey

What a load of old TAT!! 10 years old and they didn't know what they were doing? BOLLOX
I knew what I was doing at ten, I knew it was wrong to steal from wollies but I still did it! I knew it was wrong to throw stones at buses but I still did it. And in answer to your question at the time I thought they should be wiped off the face of the earth the scheming little scumbags. Dave[/quote]

Maybe you did, but does that mean that they did? For example, does pushing a battery up his bottom, to try and revive him, strike you as the actions of kids who understood the consequences and morality of what they were doing?

As for wiping them off the face of the earth, are you simply deliberately going OTT or do you really believe we should go all 18th Century on children?

I did some mtb sessions for a probation-related charity for kids who had just started getting into trouble. Some of the parents were worried sick about their kids, others didn't seem to give a toss, e.g. dried dogshit on the carpet and dad watching porn when we went to pick his son up. Another was a "tough" 13-yr old who'd never been out of his council estate and was terrified about getting lost.
In most European countries they wouldn't even have gone to court, but been dealt with by social/psychiatric intervention

awallace

Going slightly off topic i believe the free ride that people get in life where they have no desire to better themselves because the state will pay for them means that many children grow up without role models. They see their parents permanently unemployed and still having all the goodies in life and dont see the need to work or become contributors to society.

I understand that some people ARE in poverty and dont have the same chance as others but there are a lot of people bringing up children in a get what you want society. This can only lead to values being erroded.

This obviously isnt the reason they killed a small boy but is part of their make up in a life of low standards.

OffTheBackAdam

The delightful bloke appears to have routinely breached his probation terms, visiting Liverpool to watch Everton, get pissed & drugged & have the odd brawl.
He's rumoured to have been banged up due to a sexual offence.
Overall, a quick bullet in the back of the head would've been cheaper.
For those who blame his parents, I agree too, so put another couple of rounds into the magazine for them.

fast as fupp

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The delightful bloke appears to have routinely breached his probation terms, visiting Liverpool to watch Everton, get pissed & drugged & have the odd brawl.
He's rumoured to have been banged up due to a sexual offence.
Overall, a quick bullet in the back of the head would've been cheaper.
For those who blame his parents, I agree too, so put another couple of rounds into the magazine for them.

'kinell another John Wayne rides his posse into town :shock:

'kin trumpet

Smokin Joe

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The delightful bloke appears to have routinely breached his probation terms, visiting Liverpool to watch Everton, get pissed & drugged & have the odd brawl.
He's rumoured to have been banged up due to a sexual offence.
Overall, a quick bullet in the back of the head would've been cheaper.
For those who blame his parents, I agree too, so put another couple of rounds into the magazine for them.

Are you deducing those "Facts" from what you have read in the Sun and the Mirror?

verylonglegs

The story about him committing a serious sexual offence is now being widely reported.
Call me cynical but I don't think this is anything to do with justice or cost of a new identity for him. With a general election now weeks away the only reason they are trying to keep a lid on this is because they wouldnt want a story about a convicted killer being released (one of the most notorious murders in recent times in fact) and going on to commit further offences being aired daily. The press will hammer them for it and it will sway the votes of the tabloid reading masses.

South Bound

Interesting the number of people willing to form a lynch mob (even acknowledging the hideous nature of the crime and pain of the victim and his family)...

IMO, the guy deserves to be tried for his new alleged offence and punished accordingly for that offence if found guilty. The fact he has breached the terms of his parole (or whatever the correct term is) will impact on him, but no way should he be thrown to the wolves. Just my liberal wishy washy view, clearly!

For those of you advocating the death penalty for 10 year olds, what a very sad world we live in...

hopper1

As has been said already, at ten years old, they still knew what they were doing, there's no getting away from that.
They were locked up, and received councelling, etc, until release.
They were given new ID's (at great expense) and set free...
Now Venables has resurfaced as a result of his behavior. He should now be dealt with for his recent actions, as charged. But, IMHO, he should not receive another ID, he wasted the first one, now, as an adult, he can't blame anyone else for his fcuking it all up!
Thompson, should also be very aware that Venables could cock it right up for him, too...

Frank the tank

I always believed that if you are serving a life sentence you can only ever be released on license and can be recalled at any time to prison.

Pross

simonaspinall wrote:

I still find it amazing that the tabloid hysteria of this country doesn't recognise that the Bulger killers came from a horrifically deprived background and had a disturbing upbringing, committed a horrendous offence and then were tried and convicted and judged by society like adults.

These boys should've been taken into care, not prison - How can two boys that were so young be tried for criminal intent of that magnitude?
It's their parents who should be doing the stretch.

Imagine if they had all this time in rehabilitation, counselling, training and education - Then they could've been brought up and guided where their parents failed to do so.

But of course, the Daily Mail always knows best and they can be left to be set upon by a vigilante mob.

Sad.

I'm pretty sure they were put into a secure children's home not a prison. I don't think either killer spent a day in a proper prison. I agree that the parent's should have some culpability though.

BigJimmyB

fast as fupp wrote:

BigJimmyB wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

In a word, cobblers.

Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.

so you admit you dont understand criminal law?

Yes I admit it.

I was giving an opinion - that's OK with you, right?

spen666

BigJimmyB wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

BigJimmyB wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

In a word, cobblers.

Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.

so you admit you dont understand criminal law?

Yes I admit it.

I was giving an opinion - that's OK with you, right?

Expressing an opinion on something you admit to knowing nothing about seems to me to be the actions of a rather foolish person