The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
> The film "Child’s Play 3" was directly responsible for V
> & T murdering Jamie Bulger.
Directly responisble?
Highly unlikely. Its possible that it may have been a contributing factor, but it was only ever touted as the main factor by a media storm intended to whip up hatred against so called video nastys.
Incidedntally for a really good essay on both the child killer cases you have mentioned above you might try www.crimelibrary.com
> & T murdering Jamie Bulger.
Directly responisble?
Highly unlikely. Its possible that it may have been a contributing factor, but it was only ever touted as the main factor by a media storm intended to whip up hatred against so called video nastys.
Incidedntally for a really good essay on both the child killer cases you have mentioned above you might try www.crimelibrary.com
Personally I don't care whether the killer is 8, 18 or 80. Murder is murder. The defence council for the accused murderer can try push the blame onto whatever they want - TV, movies, music, games, drugs, abuse - but the fact is that they in themselves do not give any reason for murder.
Take the Child's Play 3 excuse of the 2 who killed James, rubbish. If it were true that the film was incitement to murder for underage kids then we'd have a small army of preteen killers. Strangely, we do not.
Should they be excused on the basis of some unknown past event ? Again, to my mind, no. If everyone who was abused, or in some way scarred socially by something was given to think that murder of toddlers is acceptable then we would, again, have a small army of killers prowling the nation. And strangely, we do not.
They killed, in cold blood, a toddler, who they just chose at random from the shopping centre. They saw the chance and took it. Now, after the passage of a few years we are to believe that, hey presto, all is well.
Apparently a child's life was only worth 8 years in England, but then again we always do privilege the perpetrator over the victims.
Blunkett's reforms that he is proposing are long overdue, if someone kills, no matter who, why or age, they deserve to spend a long long time removed from society, life should mean life no matter what.
Take the Child's Play 3 excuse of the 2 who killed James, rubbish. If it were true that the film was incitement to murder for underage kids then we'd have a small army of preteen killers. Strangely, we do not.
Should they be excused on the basis of some unknown past event ? Again, to my mind, no. If everyone who was abused, or in some way scarred socially by something was given to think that murder of toddlers is acceptable then we would, again, have a small army of killers prowling the nation. And strangely, we do not.
They killed, in cold blood, a toddler, who they just chose at random from the shopping centre. They saw the chance and took it. Now, after the passage of a few years we are to believe that, hey presto, all is well.
Apparently a child's life was only worth 8 years in England, but then again we always do privilege the perpetrator over the victims.
Blunkett's reforms that he is proposing are long overdue, if someone kills, no matter who, why or age, they deserve to spend a long long time removed from society, life should mean life no matter what.
What is it with Bank Holidays and kids being snatched? Is it a national past-time now?
I'm sick of it, every summer, every bank holiday another one goes missing.
It makes me angry. And I can't contribute to this thread without red-faced fury and that doesn't help anything.
I'm sick of it, every summer, every bank holiday another one goes missing.
It makes me angry. And I can't contribute to this thread without red-faced fury and that doesn't help anything.
It really annoys me when really young kids get snatched. When I'm out with my kids they're never out of my sight for a second. If they choose to wak, they hold my hand.
"But I only took my eyes off them for a second." Yeah, and that's all it takes.
Hell, my children aren't even allowed to play in the front garden (which isn't even on the main road) simply because you don't know who could walk by. The back garden is completely fenced off, and also overlooked by the house next door, which, conveniently belongs to my nan.
Then again, when they get to a certain age, they need a bit of freedom to do their own thing. That's when it gets really difficult.
So on to prison terms for murderers. If someone did anything to anyone of my kids, I'd want them put away for life. As in forever, not 10 years.
On the flip-side, isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation? If they're going to spend the rest of their days locked up, then you might as well bring back the death penalty.
So back to rehabilitation then, exactly how long does it take to rehabilitate someone? Surely everyone is difficult, and you can't put a date on it? Perhaps a minimum term, plus several other factors should be taken into account, rather than "You've served 20 years, and haven't changed a bit, but it's time to let you out."
On a side note, how many murderers have been freed from prison then gone on to kill again? I haven't got a clue.
But you do hear about paedophiles reoffending. Murder isn't often because of a mental problem, it's rage, happens on the spur of the moment. Most paedophiles have something wrong upstairs, and locking them up then letting them out won't fix it.
The answer? Keep them locked up? Well, you got any better ideas?
"But I only took my eyes off them for a second." Yeah, and that's all it takes.
Hell, my children aren't even allowed to play in the front garden (which isn't even on the main road) simply because you don't know who could walk by. The back garden is completely fenced off, and also overlooked by the house next door, which, conveniently belongs to my nan.
Then again, when they get to a certain age, they need a bit of freedom to do their own thing. That's when it gets really difficult.
So on to prison terms for murderers. If someone did anything to anyone of my kids, I'd want them put away for life. As in forever, not 10 years.
On the flip-side, isn't prison supposed to be about rehabilitation? If they're going to spend the rest of their days locked up, then you might as well bring back the death penalty.
So back to rehabilitation then, exactly how long does it take to rehabilitate someone? Surely everyone is difficult, and you can't put a date on it? Perhaps a minimum term, plus several other factors should be taken into account, rather than "You've served 20 years, and haven't changed a bit, but it's time to let you out."
On a side note, how many murderers have been freed from prison then gone on to kill again? I haven't got a clue.
But you do hear about paedophiles reoffending. Murder isn't often because of a mental problem, it's rage, happens on the spur of the moment. Most paedophiles have something wrong upstairs, and locking them up then letting them out won't fix it.
The answer? Keep them locked up? Well, you got any better ideas?
The problem with punishment is that perpetrators of crime never believe that they will be caught. Someone smuggling drugs into a country where there is a death penalty will not be preturbed if they are certain that they will not be caught; the penalty is not applicable to them.
You could make the punishment for child killing a lifetime's torture shown on TV every night for all to see( though the stupid human rights liberals, who only ever seem to stick up for those people who have no morals, would object). A poignant message to all would-be killers perhaps but it would not stop some sicko from killing a kid.
Greater social responsibilty and vigilance is needed, a more alert police force etc, as increased proactive prevention of such acts is surely the best scenario we could all hope for, rather than the reactive punishment which is never going to make things right again, however severe.
You could make the punishment for child killing a lifetime's torture shown on TV every night for all to see( though the stupid human rights liberals, who only ever seem to stick up for those people who have no morals, would object). A poignant message to all would-be killers perhaps but it would not stop some sicko from killing a kid.
Greater social responsibilty and vigilance is needed, a more alert police force etc, as increased proactive prevention of such acts is surely the best scenario we could all hope for, rather than the reactive punishment which is never going to make things right again, however severe.
So don't you think that, good though these proposed reforms are, there is a danger that we will have even more draconian laws passed?
For example, Bell is quite determined that child killers should be locked away and the key destroyed. He's by no means alone in that assertion. So what about Stefan Kischkow? Jailed for life for the murder of a child, yet it was later proved (and, had there not been a hugely prejudicial trial, would have been proved at the time) that he could not have been the murderer. If he had simply been abandoned to his fate, he would still be in prison. As is, his life was ruined and he died a broken man.
What I'm trying to say is this: You can have laws as extreme as you like, but it won't solve or alleviate the problem. You have to look at society itself and figure out just why we have the problem in the first place, and at which stage we should amend the way we do things in order to stop it happening at all. Look at the howls of outrage over paedophilia; police are now under pressure to produce instant results. Will they always be the correct results, or will it be the mindless knee-jerk reaction so brilliantly pulled apart by Brass Eye? I agree that this is an important topic, so shouldn't it be discussed fully by the powers that be?
For example, Bell is quite determined that child killers should be locked away and the key destroyed. He's by no means alone in that assertion. So what about Stefan Kischkow? Jailed for life for the murder of a child, yet it was later proved (and, had there not been a hugely prejudicial trial, would have been proved at the time) that he could not have been the murderer. If he had simply been abandoned to his fate, he would still be in prison. As is, his life was ruined and he died a broken man.
What I'm trying to say is this: You can have laws as extreme as you like, but it won't solve or alleviate the problem. You have to look at society itself and figure out just why we have the problem in the first place, and at which stage we should amend the way we do things in order to stop it happening at all. Look at the howls of outrage over paedophilia; police are now under pressure to produce instant results. Will they always be the correct results, or will it be the mindless knee-jerk reaction so brilliantly pulled apart by Brass Eye? I agree that this is an important topic, so shouldn't it be discussed fully by the powers that be?
It's hard to make laws that take into account the possibility that they, may in fact, be levelled against innocent people.
True, but the guiding principle of our legal system is that it is better that 10 guilty men walk free, so long as 1 innocent one is not jailed in error.
It's not easy to create a legal system that is as fair as possible, but is it right to change it from unfair in favour of the accused to being unfair in favour of the prosecution?
It's not easy to create a legal system that is as fair as possible, but is it right to change it from unfair in favour of the accused to being unfair in favour of the prosecution?
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: