The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Home Sec has made moves to impose minimum sentencing for, amongst others, child murderers. Whilst I think that in the main this a good idea, and whilst it is a fantastic idea to force judges to give reasons in open court for giving a sentence lower than the standard minimum, I'm not entirely convinced that one can apply these reforms across the board and still adhere to the spirit of justice. The reason? Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. I wrote this just before their release, but I think it has a certain relevance to David Blunkett's announcement this week...
The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate to say that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
The subject that does have a certain amount of mileage in it on this gray day that holds the promise of rain is the imminent release, and subsequent protection by the state, of 2 murderers. John Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who will forever be reviled by history, will be released as early as next week and it is proving to be a thoroughly divisive topic.
In case you're a little hazy on the details of this horrid little tragedy, 2 year old Jamie Bulger was abducted from a Liverpool shopping centre (he had left his mothers side for less than 30 seconds) by Venables and Thompson who were then aged 10. They took him to a derelict area of land, tortured him by pouring paint in his eyes, beat him and eventually killed him. They left his body lying over a rail track in order to make it look like he had wandered there and been hit by a train. His body was cleaved in two by a train before he was found. This all happened 8 years ago.
I've actually had to stop writing for a few minutes as it rather took it out of me to describe the actual circumstances of his death. I would imagine it made for reasonably difficult reading as well. In doing that, I now have a better idea of the reasoning behind the arguments for keeping V & T behind bars for a lot longer than the 8 years they have served. That said, it has not altered my opinion (although it has tempered the force of my belief) that their release is the right thing to do.
I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons. Not least (and perhaps most surprising) of these is that I am willing to trust the experts on this. The judge involved in the appeal against their release has stated that according to all of the assessments and reports available, both boys were fit for release. Presumably, this means that they have shown remorse for their actions, and are no longer of the same mindset that they were upon committing the murder. They have changed, and are no longer the disturbed boys they were.
Normally, I among the first to condemn social workers and their ilk for being either overstretched (if I'm to give them the benefit of the doubt) or inept (if I don't). But in this case, I accept their findings unreservedly not because this is a unique case, rather because something like this has happened before and the social workers et al got it right. I refer to the case of Mary Bell.
27 years ago, 11 year old Mary murdered 2 boys aged 3 and 4 years old. She was imprisoned, and released in 1980. She has lived a perfectly normal life since, the only blip being the publication of a book about her crimes, childhood, and imprisonment. With all due respect to the feelings of Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger (Jamie's parents) I can't see any reason why V & T can't do exactly the same thing.
Well to be more accurate, I can see a number of reasons why not but none of them are to do with V & T. They are all to do with the media, and in particular The Sun. They are doing their best to whip the public up into a frenzy of hatred and have actually had to be injuncted to prevent them publishing recent photos of the pair. Taking into consideration the (rightly) strong feelings that Jamie’s family and their friends have about the 2 boys, this is tantamount to incitement to murder.
Do you really think that The Sun give a damn about the feelings of the Bulgers, or would it be more accurate to say that nothing sells papers better than public outrage, be it totally genuine or given a helping hand by the papers themselves? I know what I think, especially given the history of the Tabloids concerning the Bulger case. When V & T were first arrested, the overwhelming question was simply "Why?" What had caused 2 young boys to commit such an horrific act? Well, after giving due consideration to factors such as poverty, social depravation, lack of parental supervision, poor relationships in their homes, and society's general failure to notice any of these factors and attempt to remedy them, The Sun gave the public the answer to their question.
The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V & T murdering Jamie Bulger. They'd watched it and got the idea from that film. So rather than acknowledging that perhaps when we live in a time where this sort of thing happens then perhaps there is a deep rooted problem in that society, a handy scapegoat was provided, and the public duly responded by rushing to condemn the film and demanding tighter controls on video's and films, conveniently ignoring the fact that the film was cert. 18 anyway and so shouldn't have ever been seen by V & T. And they wouldn't have seen it were it not for the fact that the father of one of the boys left it lying around in the house and allowed them to watch it.
I don't wish to seem harsh or overly critical when I mention that (almost everyone can tell I tale of how they watched an unsuitable film in their youth; mine were The Evil Dead and Threads and the only effect that had on me was to guarantee that I had nightmares involving zombies and nuclear war for the rest of my life). However, what was the point of imposing tighter controls if they are going to be disregarded anyway? And as to the film being responsible, whilst it gave the boys the methodology for the torture of James, I cannot accept it gave them the idea to do it in the first place. Murderous intent is not something that is switched on and off by a film, it is something that is built up over time and then released by a trigger. In this case, the trigger was the film.
But to return to the point, V & T have had 8 years to have these issues addressed and the experts say that they have been. To say that V & T are also victims in this scenario is to devalue the suffering of James, so I shall stop short of that. But there is no doubt that they did not become killers overnight and something awful must have been happening in their lives to lead to the murder. With the murder of James, society failed 3 young boys. With the release of V & T, it has a chance to redeem itself regarding 2 of them. The tragedy is that the initial failure means that society has no way to redeem itself for James.
Page:
As to the sentencing powers?
Somehow however many times I hear about killers getting out just a few years into a life sentence, I'm always shocked by the leniency of their sentence.
However, I think there have to be times when an individual is truely reformed, or there's no risk of a repeat offence, when it's in nobody's interests to keep someone locked up (possibly vengeful relatives of victims withstanding).
Yes, I believe too many serious offenders get away with light punishment, but demanding ALL those convicted to serve minimum sentences is not the best way to deal with the problem.
Somehow however many times I hear about killers getting out just a few years into a life sentence, I'm always shocked by the leniency of their sentence.
However, I think there have to be times when an individual is truely reformed, or there's no risk of a repeat offence, when it's in nobody's interests to keep someone locked up (possibly vengeful relatives of victims withstanding).
Yes, I believe too many serious offenders get away with light punishment, but demanding ALL those convicted to serve minimum sentences is not the best way to deal with the problem.
i agree with you in the way that people who kill chlidren in cold blood and without a distorted view of reality should recieve a very very harsh punishment. However people who do take drugs and kill someone, even though they have taken the drug intentionally are from then on not under full control of themselves, it is irresponsible of them to take drugs in the first place but that can not accuse them of murder, manslaughter fines and sometimes rehab are given in those cases.
You can't just excuse people on drugs though. No one forces them to take them, and they are mostly illegal.
Psychotics almost certainly end up in psychiatric care anyway so it has no effect on them.
Even things like a girl putting her brother in the washing machine wouldn't impact on a new system because it is up to the courts to judge that, the point of the new system is that those who are convicted of murder would be facing true life imprisonment, I think the minimum is 30 years...
Psychotics almost certainly end up in psychiatric care anyway so it has no effect on them.
Even things like a girl putting her brother in the washing machine wouldn't impact on a new system because it is up to the courts to judge that, the point of the new system is that those who are convicted of murder would be facing true life imprisonment, I think the minimum is 30 years...
There are some anomalies though to any example... for instance, psychotics or Schizophrenics, and people on Drugs as they are thought to have a
"distorted view of reality"
i.e.the realtiy the see in their heads make them do things they would not normally do. can this be applied to other instances as well, maybe not just distorted view of reality but a lack of moral understanding, even though it is against normal nature to kill a fellow human, a lack of morla understanding makes it seem less of a big deal than it normally would be to the agressor, also a child does not yet understand the cause and reaction to something as well as someone more grown up would...
an example the girl who killed her baby brother because she thought he was dirty and put him in the washing machine... done with good intentions, but with no knowledge of the reaction or effect...
something to ponder
"distorted view of reality"
i.e.the realtiy the see in their heads make them do things they would not normally do. can this be applied to other instances as well, maybe not just distorted view of reality but a lack of moral understanding, even though it is against normal nature to kill a fellow human, a lack of morla understanding makes it seem less of a big deal than it normally would be to the agressor, also a child does not yet understand the cause and reaction to something as well as someone more grown up would...
an example the girl who killed her baby brother because she thought he was dirty and put him in the washing machine... done with good intentions, but with no knowledge of the reaction or effect...
something to ponder
8 years for torture and murder of a child is ridiculous. They knew what they were doing, it doesn't matter what their age was. For a 10 year old not to understand the significance of what they did is laughable, and their imminent release even more so.
Why release someone who's taken a human life? a young human life? and not in self-defense, but as an act! those sort of people are sick, attacking the innocent. To prison with them where they should be some big blokes for the rest of their lives.
Oh yay, the howling mob approach....
hell yea peadophiles shud b strung up my there balls and stripped of everything
If a peson abducts and murders a child they should be locked away PERMINANLY, end of.
Surely the false imprisonment of this Stefan Kischkow (who I admit I know nothing about) is a failure of the legal system and the police team involved, and nothing to actually do with the prison system ?
Prison's the end result, people end up there as a consequence of the decisions of others, hence if the wrong person ends up there it's a failure of those making the decisions, not the prison system.
I don't honestly believe that any law we can pass, no matter how draconian, can completely prevent murderers, paedophiles and so on, from doing what they do because they obviously don't follow the same line of thought as the majority of people. Laws are made by 'normal' people and 'normal' people generally abide by them.
What can be done is to improve the response to certain events like missing children. I don't know much about the Amber Alert System in America but what little I have heard is good. This latest child who has gone missing barely made the new until Sunday night, nearly one day after his dissapearance. It's a cliched saying but in any crime "the first 24 hours is the only 24 hours". Here's a good one, when was the last time any Police Force successfully rescued a child who had been taken, alive ? Not while I can remember, yet the system, recently nationalised by President Bush (seee, he's not all bad) has led to Police in America being able to do just that. Sure, it may be down to greater resources and not the alert system, but in that case let's get our guys the resources !
I think that in many respects we need to modernise our Police and associated agencies like National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Agency e.t.c. It's all centralised on London and the criminals are rather uncooperatively not comitting every major crime in London and the area.
Whatever the agruments, I still believe that a life is the most precious thing we value in our society, and that those who illegally take it should not be afforded the same rights as those who do not. But, the problem with that is how far do we extend that kind of thinking ? Going off topic somewhat, but a fair few off our intelligence services have undoubtedly stretched the boundary of legal killing within and outside the UK.
Still, not to worry, with David Blunkett at the helm what can go wrong....
Prison's the end result, people end up there as a consequence of the decisions of others, hence if the wrong person ends up there it's a failure of those making the decisions, not the prison system.
I don't honestly believe that any law we can pass, no matter how draconian, can completely prevent murderers, paedophiles and so on, from doing what they do because they obviously don't follow the same line of thought as the majority of people. Laws are made by 'normal' people and 'normal' people generally abide by them.
What can be done is to improve the response to certain events like missing children. I don't know much about the Amber Alert System in America but what little I have heard is good. This latest child who has gone missing barely made the new until Sunday night, nearly one day after his dissapearance. It's a cliched saying but in any crime "the first 24 hours is the only 24 hours". Here's a good one, when was the last time any Police Force successfully rescued a child who had been taken, alive ? Not while I can remember, yet the system, recently nationalised by President Bush (seee, he's not all bad) has led to Police in America being able to do just that. Sure, it may be down to greater resources and not the alert system, but in that case let's get our guys the resources !
I think that in many respects we need to modernise our Police and associated agencies like National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Agency e.t.c. It's all centralised on London and the criminals are rather uncooperatively not comitting every major crime in London and the area.
Whatever the agruments, I still believe that a life is the most precious thing we value in our society, and that those who illegally take it should not be afforded the same rights as those who do not. But, the problem with that is how far do we extend that kind of thinking ? Going off topic somewhat, but a fair few off our intelligence services have undoubtedly stretched the boundary of legal killing within and outside the UK.
Still, not to worry, with David Blunkett at the helm what can go wrong....
Page: