Few years ago, i wasn't sure where i stood on this issue.
Where they old enough to truly realise, was the punishment sufficient, was the pure hatred towards them justified? I was completely on the fence as i weighed things up. The fact is i didn't know what the justice system knew about them or their team of shrinks so just took for granted they knew best.
I think giving them new identities was the correct thing to do unfortunately because of the lesser class societies thirst for vengeance. I also think that given their second chance that Venables should now be locked up until deemed fit for release and that Thompson should be left alone to live his life, a punishment was given and whether we agree or not it was served.
An interesting aside, has anyone seen a film called 'Boy A', it's very loosely based on this case in that two boys commit murder and it deals with the reintroduction of one of the boys back in to mainstream society. It made me think long and hard on the Bulger case and probably changed my outlook on it.
Two photos appeared on my facebook last night. I don't know if they were legitimate or not (the alleged one of Robert Thomson bore the most similarity to that of the photograph of when he was 10). What if these two pictures were NOT of the adult Thomson and Venebals, if anybody sees the pictures and know who they are there could be serious trouble.
Should people really be spreading these pictures without any thought or is there just no reasoning with some people? There would probably be some who say 'it's their own fault for looking like them'.
Recently pictures have appeared on my Facebook feed of these two as they are now. Problem is I've seen two completely different people in photographs of venables.
Maybe these two didn't know or weren't fully aware of their acts all those years ago and maybe they deserve another chance but conversely I don't want them having that opportunity of a new life near me or anyone I know.
At what point do you draw the line where do they become culpable, the abuse they suffered as children is not an explanation.
I have had a couple of cases recently which illustrate the pointlessness of your argument.
3 children growing up in a house full of Domestic violence. The best example is the dad who poured petrol on the the family cat and then set it on fire in front of the kids to scare and intimidate the family. The eldest is 4 . When in foster care he tried to drown his sister aged 3 in the bath. Should he have been prosecuted for attempted murder . Is his abuse not an explanation
3 children aged 7, 4 and 3. Living with a nutter ( my term rather than the PC version) who is mad on the military, martial arts etc. Brought his kids up to be tough. wants to go and live in America so he can get guns and live in a log cabin waiting for armageddon.
Kids in foster care now BUT are so violent towards each other they can NEVER live together or with other children, they have big problems at school fighting etc. The 3 year old has been assessed by child psychologist as having NO internal controls on his behaviour and an inability to respond to external controls. Are they to be prosecuted for what they have done is there abuse an explanation.
Not sure the poster's argument is pointless. You're taking a bit of an arrogant stand there DG, aren't you? You can cite examples. Good. That has shown some of us how terrible life can be and how behaviour can be nurtured.
But. You can give as many examples as you like and there are always other examples. We can only share our own experiences. And as you seem to be from a social science background, you probably know in psychology nothing is ever really black and white. There can be three sides and not two to a story.
I'll self-disclose something for the sake of this very interesting thread. I grew up in a DV environment. I have two older siblings. We grew up in an abusive environment. Myself and sister have been affected by it. I have responses that are nurtured. (Thankfully I'm not violent.) BUT. My brother hasn't. And there in one fell swoop shows that your examples are different to my own personal experience. Who's right? We both are.
As a result of my childhood, I have PTSD. This is why I have such a fascination with psychology.
Durham Giant wrote:
n response to your comment about not every child who is abused goes on to abuse you are right. BUt reserach does show that of adults who have gone on to abuse children ( sexually) 50% were abused as children and 50% were not. It does however raise the issue of what else went on in their childhoods. It is not a justification but it is an explanaition of why things go wrong with kids.:
As he is right, why didn't you just stop it at "you are right". You've then just CORRECTLY pointed out using stats, that the people who are found to abuse, were abused. But we don't know how many DON"T go on to abuse do we? Because that figure is not collected.
Again this is the fascinating debate of Nature v Nurture. Some people have it in them, some have learnt how to do it.
I do have to say though once again, that people do seem to have an understanding of how nurturing can produce murderers and people on here seem to understand how it "might" be a reason as to why a child kills another, but can't see that nurturing argument and have no compassion, when it involves people who have grown up having a different political opinion to theirs. Be they left or right wing.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
enjoying the fresh air,moors and beaches of devon and cornwall
Signature
"He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion" – -- Unknown
Fergus is a Scouser, their idea of justice is 'get what I want, screw everybody else'
here he is again, school holidays and his social workers let this manc twaaaat loose on the internet yet again.when will they ever learn about giving idiots like him access to computers.
enjoying the fresh air,moors and beaches of devon and cornwall
Signature
"He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion" – -- Unknown
In amongst this lake of crocodile tears, it is surprising to read that not one of our easily offended and concerned posters has stepped up, and boldly proclaimed that they would be happy to see either Venables, or Thomson standing on their doorsteps alongside one of their daughters.
And I'm sure that it is concern for future property values, nothing else, which prompts others to wave the NIMBY flag. No Really.
Ironic is it not, that it is only the much maligned Kirkstaller, who I suspect has the courage of his convictions (no pun intended), who would actually have no problem with having a neighbour like the child killer Venables, whose CV includes an arrest for affray after a drunken street fight ; was cautioned over possession of cocaine; convicted of distributing indecent 42 images in February 2008; convicted of distributing indecent photographs in February 2010; convicted of loading 57 pornographic pictures of children oto his computer between February 2009 and February 2010; Was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years as a convicted paedophile, and is subject to a sexual offences prevention order for five years. have been barred from working with children for life. (Thanks to FA for info)
As an agnostic myself, whilst I think he is wrong, I have to give credit to him for the strength of his Christian compassion, which contrasts sharply with the rank hypocricity displayed by the other Talking Heads.
In amongst this lake of crocodile tears, it is surprising to read that not one of our easily offended and concerned posters has stepped up, and boldly proclaimed that they would be happy to see either Venables, or Thomson standing on their doorsteps alongside one of their daughters...
Which means that vigilantism is fine, does it?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 169 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...