UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer

[koan]

TheBlackWhisper;900672 wrote: I think this thread has gone a long way off track from the original subject, Spot. Taking into account the possibilty that some people can be eventually reformed (and even then I do not believe for a second they are completely rehabilitated), a fundamental question is: Why the hell should the likes of Venables and Thompson be given a second chance?!

What have they ever done to counteract their actions on the day of Bulger's murder? Spent a few no-doubt-easy-years in a cosy cell with an Xbox? Take it as a large set of weighing scales. In one dish you have the torture of Bulger; what have they done to fill the other dish to balance the scales of justice?

Just because they were young at the time doesn't excuse them. Maybe it's possible that they're sitting in their homes right now thinking of cute bunnies and baking cakes for the church fair but why should they be given any chance to better themselves?

I take it you don't believe in the old eye for an eye philosophy, which is strange considering you like to keep wheeling out that bible every now and again.

To put it bluntly, they should have been executed after a fair trial, not because they may re-offend but simply because they don't deserve to have a chance at enetering what we like to call a civilized society.


ok, DarklyColouredPersonWhoDoesn'tSpeakLoudly, I happen to know spot extremely well and you have indicated a complete ignorance of the man's character so just drop it before you make yourself completely unreadable.



As to the rest of the thread, I despise vigilante justice and happen to agree with spot that people can be reformed to a level of compliance with the law that equals or surpasses the average person who speeds to work and occasionally drives home even though they know the last beer put them over the limit.

[mrsK]

http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... obert.html

[Kathy Ellen]

mrsK;901247 wrote: http://circleof13.blogspot.com/2008/05/ ... obert.html


Truly awful MrsK...I'm so sorry that they are in oz now:mad:

[Ally]

Yes I always was under the impression they where sent here to Australia.Nothing much seems to have changed send all ur trash to the coloney's.

[Ally]

Thank god I dont have any daughters for them to marry.

[K.Snyder]

I'm interested to know what, those of you who feel all murderers can be rehabilitated, the time frame in which those being rehabilitated you feel is adequate, at the same time does this simple fact mean that you feel that their sentence should be to the extent in which just happens to coincide with that of the supposed betterment...

I know that there are parole hearings so my next question is isn't it quite coincidental that practically every person incarcerated pleads to their transformation to acceptable behavior (I call it pure coincidence in the form of happening) from the time in which they are incarcerated leading up to their first parole hearing?

We all know that Jesus apparently hitchhikes down death row...

[Ally]

If a murder is premeditated the murderer dosnt deserve a second chance.

[spot]

May I post a couple of paragraphs of background? It might help people who read this thread in the future or who read it now but don't live in England.A moral panic of gargantuan proportions has swept the land. Last summer in the English coastal town of Portsmouth, egged on by English tabloids running a "name and shame" campaign, mobs of vigilantes roamed the streets like medieval peasants. But instead of pitchforks they carried knuckle dusters and baseball bats, and rather than hunchbacks they were seeking "kiddie fiddlers," who existed only in the minds of the mob.

Dozens of people were wrongly accused, and one man, a pediatrician, had to leave the area after some of the protesters were confused by the term and torched his house. The pediatrician managed to keep his name out of the press, for fear that more crime might follow him. Another pediatrician, 30-year-old Yvette Cloete, had to leave her home in Gwent, South Wales after it was vandalized: Cloete arrived home from work to see the word "paedo" daubed all over her walls. Police say "the astonishing ignorance" of local anti-pedophile protestors forced her out.

http://archive.salon.com/people/feature ... index.html

[Kathy Ellen]

Fortunately, not all the Irish that were sent to Oz were trash Ally...Many, many Irish were very decent and good men and women who helped to make Australia what it is today....

Far Away In Australia

Traditional

Sweetheart I'm bidding you fond farewell

Murmured a youth one day

I'm off to a new land my fortune to try

And I'm ready to sail away

Far away in Australia

Soon will fate be kind

And I will be ready to welcome the lass

The girl I left behind



Must we be parted?! his fairer one cried

I cannot let you go

Still I must leave you, the young man replied

But for only a while you know

Far away in Australia

Soon will fate be kind

And I will be ready to welcome the lass

The girl I left behind

Whether in success or failure

I will always be true

Proudly each day in that land far away

I'll be building a home for you

Far away in Australia

Soon will fate be kind

And I will be ready to welcome the lass

The girl I left behind

Daily she waits at the old cottage gate

Watching the whole day through

Till that sweet message comes over the wave

And in the new world they're joined as two

Far away in Australia

Soon will fate be kind

And I will be ready to welcome the lass

[spot]

K.Snyder;901277 wrote: I'm interested to know what, those of you who feel all murderers can be rehabilitated, the time frame in which those being rehabilitated you feel is adequate, at the same time does this simple fact mean that you feel that their sentence should be to the extent in which just happens to coincide with that of the supposed betterment...

I know that there are parole hearings so my next question is isn't it quite coincidental that practically every person incarcerated pleads to their transformation to acceptable behavior (I call it pure coincidence in the form of happening) from the time in which they are incarcerated leading up to their first parole hearing?

We all know that Jesus apparently hitchhikes down death row...


I've never felt that all murderers can be rehabilitated.

I've also written in FG threads, very consistently, that I don't think any criminal sentence should have a maximum term. Everyone who breaks the law should go to jail, and nobody in jail should return to the community if they're a greater risk to the public than the average free citizen. The whole notion of minimum and maximum sentences is tied up with retribution. I don't believe a day or a thousand years can balance the price of the crime or repay for the harm caused. There is no possible repayment that could be made for a criminal act. Retribution is repayment, that's where the word comes from. Repayment isn't possible.

For every criminal who can't be rehabilitated, life should mean life. I'm sick of seeing people released from jail who are more likely to break the law than people currently at liberty. It's ramshackle, it's a disgrace, it ought not be allowed. The authorities concerned should either get their shambolic act together or resign and let other people do what's needed.

[Ally]

Dont think I said anything about the irish.

[K.Snyder]

spot;901281 wrote: I've never felt that all murderers can be rehabilitated.

I've also written in FG threads, very consistently, that I don't think any criminal sentence should have a maximum term. Everyone who breaks the law should go to jail, and nobody in jail should return to the community if they're a greater risk to the public than the average free citizen. The whole notion of minimum and maximum sentences is tied up with retribution. I don't believe a day or a thousand years can balance the price of the crime or repay for the harm caused. There is no possible repayment that could be made for a criminal act. Retribution is repayment, that's where the word comes from. Repayment isn't possible.

For every criminal who can't be rehabilitated, life should mean life. I'm sick of seeing people released from jail who are more likely to break the law than people currently at liberty. It's ramshackle, it's a disgrace, it ought not be allowed. The authorities concerned should either get their shambolic act together or resign and let other people do what's needed.


So then you agree that all murderers should spend the rest of their life in prison?...

Which means there should be no exceptions that blatantly sympathize with the murderer...

I think with todays technology it's not far from being an accomplishable piece of legislature...

[Kathy Ellen]

Ally;901275 wrote: Yes I always was under the impression they where sent here to Australia.Nothing much seems to have changed send all ur trash to the coloney's.


Hi Ally:-6

I'm just noting that many Irish people were sent to Oz and many weren't convicts or trash...

[mrsK]

Kathy Ellen;901284 wrote: Hi Ally:-6

I'm just noting that many Irish people were sent to Oz and many weren't convicts or trash...


To be sure to, be sure Kathy:-4



Above decks for us,so we paid our own way:-4:-6

[Ally]

Kathy,

Was purley refering to bad people whatever nationality they where.:-6

[mrsK]

Ally;901287 wrote: Kathy,

Was purley refering to bad people whatever nationality they where.:-6


It's OK Ally I know what you meant:-6

[spot]

K.Snyder;901283 wrote: So then you agree that all murderers should spend the rest of their life in prison?...What I wrote was my opinion that everyone who breaks the law should go to jail, and nobody in jail should return to the community if they're a greater risk to the public than the average free citizen. How do you get from that to "all murderers should spend the rest of their life in prison"? It depends entirely on whether they can be rehabilitated or not. I'm quite certain that a proportion of them can be.

[K.Snyder]

spot;901458 wrote: What I wrote was my opinion that everyone who breaks the law should go to jail, and nobody in jail should return to the community if they're a greater risk to the public than the average free citizen. How do you get from that to "all murderers should spend the rest of their life in prison"? It depends entirely on whether they can be rehabilitated or not. I'm quite certain that a proportion of them can be.


Well...Then it's safe to assume that you're willing to weigh the risks of releasing a known murderer based on the pure testimony on their behalf that they won't murder again or commit any other crime with that of taking the chance on making sure that they never murder again by locking them up for the rest of their lives after they've already proven that they're more than capable of murder...After all they have rights right?...Well they shouldn't and that my friend is my opinion...

[spot]

K.Snyder;901531 wrote: Well...Then it's safe to assume that you're willing to weigh the risks of releasing a known murderer based on the pure testimony on their behalf that they won't murder again or commit any other crime with that of taking the chance on making sure that they never murder again by locking them up for the rest of their lives after they've already proven that they're more than capable of murder...After all they have rights right?...Well they shouldn't and that my friend is my opinion...


It's why we have experts in psychiatry, psychology and policing. And, one hopes, in parole, the more the merrier. I mistrust amateur guesswork.

[K.Snyder]

spot;901981 wrote: It's why we have experts in psychiatry, psychology and policing. And, one hopes, in parole, the more the merrier. I mistrust amateur guesswork.


What do you feel is the biggest problem with parole boards...

I think it's perfectly adjacent to that of the thread...

(Edited) As far as the "experts in psychiatry, psychology and policing I'm not as quick to trust their "expertise"...

[spot]

K.Snyder;901985 wrote: What do you feel is the biggest problem with parole boards...

I think it's perfectly adjacent to that of the thread...

(Edited) As far as the "experts in psychiatry, psychology and policing I'm not as quick to trust their "expertise"...


What I feel is the biggest problem with parole boards is their willingness to release prisoners on licence prior to successful rehabilitation.

As far as trusting expertise is concerned, I'm sure they could be more effective in that I'm sure the science of rehabilitation could become greatly more developed and I'd press for that to happen as a priority. Within that qualification, there's nobody else to trust. I'd like to see regular transparent published results of parole release, every parolee listed (under anonymous blind labelling) with all details of subsequent re-arrests and convictions. I'd like to see the parole authorities held responsible for their decisions. I'd like to see the financial incentives to jails tied to their successful rehabilitation rates, not to the number of prisoners they hold, as measured by those genuine parole results.

[K.Snyder]

spot;902001 wrote: What I feel is the biggest problem with parole boards is their willingness to release prisoners on licence prior to successful rehabilitation.




And do you feel that the reason for this is or is not the direct result from pressures they face from the fact that prisons are excessively overcrowded ultimately leading to many more unsuitable prisoners being released back into the public where they not only commit more crimes but commit more crimes successfully after practically taking a course in "Criminology and how to not get caught" prison style?...

I don't know how it is in Britain but I'm willing to bet it's all the more common in the US...

[spot]

K.Snyder;902004 wrote: And do you feel that the reason for this is or is not the direct result from pressures they face from the fact that prisons are excessively overcrowded ultimately leading to many more unsuitable prisoners being released back into the public where they not only commit more crimes but commit more crimes successfully after practically taking a course in "Criminology and how to not get caught" prison style?...Entirely correct. The solution is implementing successful well-monitored rehabilitation programs. The solution is not to hold a quarter of the world's prison population and still complain that prisoners are being released to commit more crime, which is the US position. The US went in for exponentially locking people up and that policy has come home to roost. No country in the world should follow it after the example they've set.

[K.Snyder]

spot;902008 wrote: Entirely correct. The solution is implementing successful well-monitored rehabilitation programs. The solution is not to hold a quarter of the world's prison population and still complain that prisoners are being released to commit more crime, which is the US position. The US went in for exponentially locking people up and that policy has come home to roost. No country in the world should follow it after the example they've set.


Do you feel that locking murderers up without the possibility of parole would be an ulterior solution in that rehabilitation programs could be more focused upon people to whom have not committed the grotesque act of murder ultimately creating a much safer society at the same time ridding the prison overpopulation of it's burden to be at least a plausible solution?...

Obviously I've already expressed that I feel marijuana among other possible solutions could be exercised but that's a whole another topic...

[spot]

K.Snyder;902013 wrote: Do you feel that locking murderers up without the possibility of parole would be an ulterior solution in that rehabilitation programs could be more focused upon people to whom have not committed the grotesque act of murder ultimately creating a much safer society at the same time ridding the prison overpopulation of it's burden to be at least a plausible solution?...


No.

Because you're including people like the children this thread's discussed, who are so blatantly victims of their environments and so evidently successfully rehabilitated that I'm not prepared to close the door on them just to find agreement with you.

[K.Snyder]

spot;902015 wrote: Because you're including people like the children this thread's discussed, who are so blatantly victims of their environments and so evidently successfully rehabilitated that I'm not prepared to close the door on them just to find agreement with you.


But you've already said that there are incompetent psychiatrists, psychologists and police officers...How am I to know these children weren't released by these people you so describe...Are there any real proven psychiatrists and psychologists?...How am I to trust them?...Because they have a degree in the fields that feel comparing other criminals with other criminals is the right assessment?...Everyone has their own motives like everyone has their own personality(s)...Who says they're rehabilitated?...

Two "people" that tortured, tormented, and beat a child to whom they knew full well was vulnerable yet they couldn't but help themselves to murdering this child...And I'm supposed to believe that they now after spending years confined and being subject to rhythmic lecture that they're supposed to know what the value of life is?...

I'm sorry no I do not feel these "people" are rehabilitated...And nor will I ever feel that anyone who has been capable of murdering in cold blood will ever be rehabilitated from that mindset...

[spot]

Go and read Lord Woolfe, he explains it quite well. The entire rehabilitation system of the country threw itself into getting the two of them right - and Mary Bell before them. They're showcase models of rehabilitation. They're the best we can do. What's more, there's no other killers in England I'd have chosen ahead of them for the prospect of being mended even on the grounds of blame and responsibility. These two are the least responsible killers I've ever heard of in my life, nobody else is more deserving of the effort to undo the damage they'd undergone at the hands of their families.

[TheBlackWhisper]

Put bluntly, none of these people who you use as examples should get the chance to better themselves and prove to the world they can change and become a better person. Who gives a *****? You kill, you give up your own chance of life. Simple.

Think about this. What if we had a system where if you killed and were found guilty you were in turn killed? No more strain on the tax payers pockets (the money could finally go to better use), a message would be put out that for most would make them think twice and we get rid of the scum from our world.

This world's never going to be perfect but if we allow these dogooders and the left wing PC crowd to keep applying ridicules and moronic rules and legislations (such as banning baa baa black sheep because its offensive to black people) and standing up for the criminals, having to dig deep to explain their actions, then the world is just heading for disaster.

[spot]

The underlying essential which you seem to wilfully ignore is that these two boys were ten years old. Only a grossly abused child is capable of killing, and only some of those who are grossly abused will kill. To put a young child who would have remained law-abiding, but for the abuse they suffered, into the same category as a deliberate adult murderer, is mere ideological claptrap. Given treatment they can be reformed, and you'd refuse them treatment? Being reformed you'd refuse them a parole license? You seem something of an extremist.

[G#Gill]

I have been following this thread, and read all the posts. I am amazed, horrified even, and disturbed that some people still advocate that the two boys who perpetrated this dreadful crime have been successfully rehabilitated.

How the hell does anybody know this ??

These two boys have proved that they knew right from wrong, in the way they tried to disguise their terrible deed.

These two boys proved that they were cunning enough and deep-seated ruthless enough to drag that poor little toddler, unconscious, onto the rail track so that a train would run over it, cut it in half and cause added injury to disguise the brutal torture that the two boys administered over a period of time, to that poor little toddler.

These two boys had such deep-rooted evil in them, that I personally find it difficult to believe that, even after 8 years of concentrated counselling, guidance and education, they are 'cured' sufficiently to rejoin our society as free men. Being protected by a change of identity and being moved to an entirely different location (paid for by the tax-paying public).

These two boys, in my opinion, should be having nightmares about what they did, even now as adults.

If they are not having these nightmares, then I'm afraid they have not been rehabilitated, and their evil, deep-rooted streak will rear it's ugly head again.

I cannot accept that their abusive and inhuman treatment as children, caused them to behave like they did.

How do we know that they had such a traumatic start to their lives? Sufficient to scar their young minds, to develop into such viscious, unfeeling savages?

There are numerous youngsters who have had terribly traumatic starts to their lives - they haven't gone out and committed devastating crimes!!

These two boys are cunning enough to make out that they have benefitted from the counselling, guidance and education and have been 'cured'. As has been said already, there are numerous instances of evil murderers who have 'pulled the wool over the eyes' of the authority, sufficient to gain their freedom (albeit under iffy supervision), and then, at a later date, perform similar evil acts that they were originally incarserated for.

Can anybody, in all honesty, guarantee that these two boys (now adult males) will not re-offend in a similar manner at some time in the future? And would anybody, in all honesty, really want to take that risk?

I certainly wouldn't, however 'expert' these so-called experts may be, they are dealing with a human brain, of which we know very little.

This is my opinion, and this is my first and last post on this subject.

[spot]

So, what of Mary Bell then, Gill? How does she differ from these two lads? How much is she in the same boat as far as an inbuilt incapacity to rehabilitate's concerned? She's over fifty now.

[TheBlackWhisper]

Maybe it's best to stop mentioning Mary Bell as you have no evidence she's reformed. What goes on in her head to this day is for her to know; we will never, so she cannot be used as a reliable source.

As for the extremist remark, yes, I suppose if you call somebody who wants to protect the innocent and punish the guilty then yes Spot, I'm as extreme as they come.

Doesn't matter if they're ten, five or one hundred years old, their actions would have made a veteran serial killer sick so how about you cease with the excuses. They did something so bad and unforgivable they deserve nothing from society.

[spot]

TheBlackWhisper;902398 wrote: Maybe it's best to stop mentioning Mary Bell as you have no evidence she's reformed. What goes on in her head to this day is for her to know; we will never, so she cannot be used as a reliable source.On the contrary, I maintain that if she had broken a law - most especially if she'd killed - she'd have had her parole license revoked. I maintain that her continued freedom past fifty means she's not behaved criminally since her release.

If, as you suggest, her mind has been a fermenting morass of murderous thoughts, then that's even more kudos to the rehabilitation process than if she'd not had even a single fleeting desire to hurt someone.

Whether you count the state of her mind as relevant or not - and I'd argue that it's not - there's good evidence that she's killed nobody since she was declared reformed.

[TheBlackWhisper]

But you keep sidestepping the point I'm trying to make and others too have tried to make. Doesn't matter if your a 1957 killer who hasn't reoffended since, a child soldier who has grown up in harsh conditions or a couple of kids who grew up around domestic violence, you are the driver of your own destiny. People who kill do it out of choice, they are not forced.

I'm gonna dismiss the soldiers and Bell because this subject started with Bulger and should focus on his case but loads of kids grow up under the same circumstances as his killers - some in far worse conditions - and they didn't kill a toddler.

My questions to you:

1) What makes these two kids different? Why did they go 100 steps further than everybody else?

2) Why should they be allowed another go at life after what they did?

[mrsK]

There are lots of kids who are abused that do not turn into killers.

They knew exactly what they were doing when they killed that poor little baby.



Just as an example of being rehabilitated I am an ex smoker I have not had a cigarette for 8 years..............this time.

The time before I went 10 years without a cigarette.

I know smoking & killing are not the same but what I am trying to get across is that the temptation is always there & I have given into it once.I thought I was a rehabilitated smoker but I was wrong. I still would love a cigarette at times.

[spot]

You're both going in circles. I dealt with this seven posts ago.

"There are lots of kids who are abused that do not turn into killers", MrsK. Those are practically the same words I used. You ignore the rest of my paragraph.

Then we have "1) What makes these two kids different? Why did they go 100 steps further than everybody else?" and "2) Why should they be allowed another go at life after what they did?" I answered both of those points exactly as well, ending my paragraph with two direct questions of my own, neither of which you've answered. They matter.

What I wrote was:Only a grossly abused child is capable of killing, and only some of those who are grossly abused will kill. To put a young child who would have remained law-abiding, but for the abuse they suffered, into the same category as a deliberate adult murderer, is mere ideological claptrap. Given treatment they can be reformed, and you'd refuse them treatment? Being reformed you'd refuse them a parole license? You seem something of an extremist.

[TheBlackWhisper]

MrsK is absolutley correct. Impulses are for life. And before you say killing isn't an impluse, how else do you describe their actions?

They weren't just acting on a few years of bad childhood (and we should put this excuse to bed now. Just how bad was their upbringing in comparison to others?) but impulse and a desire to harm somebody who wouldn't put up a fight as they applied their twisted little ideas to him.

[mrsK]

spot;902626 wrote: You're both going in circles. I dealt with this ten posts ago.

"There are lots of kids who are abused that do not turn into killers", MrsK. Those are practically the same words I used. You ignore the rest of my paragraph.

Then we have "1) What makes these two kids different? Why did they go 100 steps further than everybody else?" and "2) Why should they be allowed another go at life after what they did?" I answered both of those points exactly as well, ending my paragraph with two direct questions of my own, neither of which you've answered. They matter.

What I wrote was:Only a grossly abused child is capable of killing, and only some of those who are grossly abused will kill. To put a young child who would have remained law-abiding, but for the abuse they suffered, into the same category as a deliberate adult murderer, is mere ideological claptrap. Given treatment they can be reformed, and you'd refuse them treatment? Being reformed you'd refuse them a parole license? You seem something of an extremist.


I don't think I am going in circles.I am just trying to get my opinions across.

Just as you are trying to put yours across,it is much harder typing how you feel & being restricted as to what you want to say & actually can say.

I just don't think they or any killer are reformed & never will be.

[spot]

Fortunately the policy makers in England, backed by the legislature and the judiciary, disagree with you both. It's not me you need to fight, it's them. Go to it, good luck to you. In my opinion you don't stand an earthly.

[Carolly]

Good God...........fgs a baby has been tortured and then murdered.........his family could be reading this........just pray that this dosent happen to YOUR child and you read a thread like this.

[mrsK]

spot;902634 wrote: Fortunately the policy makers in England, backed by the legislature and the judiciary, disagree with you both. It's not me you need to fight, it's them. Go to it, good luck to you. In my opinion you don't stand an earthly.


I wasn't fighting you ,not fighting anyone come to that.

Just stating my opinions & feelings.



I know we will never change the policy makers etc ideas,but at least we are all free to have our say.

I hope that is one thing that never changes.

[spot]

Has it not occurred to you even once that from start to finish in this thread I've been giving the middle-of-the-road exact position of Her Majesty's Government? And, if it come to that, her Loyal Opposition's too?

[TheBlackWhisper]

Yeah Spot, aren't the law makers of this country great? They and people like yourself are the reason why this country - and planet - is on a slippery slope.

You've defended killer after killer on this thread. Why?

[spot]

TheBlackWhisper;902641 wrote: Yeah Spot, aren't the law makers of this country great? They and people like yourself are the reason why this country - and planet - is on a slippery slope.

You've defended killer after killer on this thread. Why?
Because they were all victims in their own right.

[RedGlitter]

There is something very wrong when people give more thought and consideration for a damned murderer than they do the person who did nothing to deserve his wrath. Who the heck even cares if one sorry, rueful life can be rehabbed? The fact is that it should NOT. They should never be awarded that consideration.

[TheBlackWhisper]

That's the best thing you've posted so far!!!!!!! Killers are now victims!

[RedGlitter]

spot;902642 wrote: Because they were all victims in their own right.


Poppycock!

[spot]

Carolly;902637 wrote: Good God...........fgs a baby has been tortured and then murdered.........his family could be reading this........just pray that this dosent happen to YOUR child and you read a thread like this.


That's very general Carolly, it would help if you select something I wrote if you want me to explain it in better detail. If I remember, you'd love to meet me one day and you'll not be the one on the receiving end when it happens that's for sure? The difficulty in discussing things reasonably is that one never quite knows how far posters are prepared to go once they start making threats like that.

[TheBlackWhisper]

What threat? When has there been a threat made?

[RedGlitter]

And where is the reason in this thread? Once again it's a soundstage setup for you, Spot to vent your irritance about child soldiers and America at war. It's ridiculous. If you want to be a bleeding heart for baby murderers that is your right but you should not expect to convince most normal people of such hogwash.