12 year old kids beat zoo kangaroo to death

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:53 pm

spot;1034591 wrote: Quite definitely. The interests of the child are paramount, isn't that basis of all child law?

All I see in sentencing them to twenty years hard labour is punishment, not fixing. Do you seriously think they'd come out of twenty years hard labour improved in any way?

Yes, i do. They certainly would not do it again.

Fining the parents tells the kid it's o.k. because the next time, they themselve's don't pay the price for anything... The parents will. This is giving them permission to carry on as they like knowing they will not be personally held accountable.

This is the whole problem with constantly blaming the parents.

Do you say Spot, that if you had the shock of your life one day with the police turning up to tell you your offspring had commited a henious crime, you would simply hand your child over to some-one who thought they could change them or bring them up better?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:59 pm

I differ from spot in that I prefer to not make the state responsible for matters of human compassion. I believe that as long as we make compassion a matter of law, people will feel they don't need to develop it beyond what the law requires.

I think that the corrective institutes should collect money from the parents to pay for counseling that incorporates the parents and that the counseling should be centered around resolving the children's sense of powerlessness. We can learn from them and they will see that they are not powerless within the community. If the parent's are not deemed capable of reforming the environment that the child is being raised in then appropriate guardians can be located.

There is a reason the children did what they did and we need to treat the cause, not the symptom.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:31 pm

oscar;1034603 wrote: Yes, i do. They certainly would not do it again.

Fining the parents tells the kid it's o.k. because the next time, they themselve's don't pay the price for anything... The parents will. This is giving them permission to carry on as they like knowing they will not be personally held accountable.

This is the whole problem with constantly blaming the parents.
Either what I say's factual or it isn't. Aim at my facts if you want to undermine my position.

I agree with you entirely that the current laws are inadequate, fining the parents has no effect, the children get the wrong message from it. The law's an ass as it stands. Have I said any different so far? I thought that had been clear enough. You're attacking me for views I don't hold.

oscar wrote: Do you say Spot, that if you had the shock of your life one day with the police turning up to tell you your offspring had commited a henious crime, you would simply hand your child over to some-one who thought they could change them or bring them up better?
If those were the rules then obviously I would, yes. The rules being as they are now, I did the best I could. My best was evidently more effective than the best available from the parents you're describing. My best might well be less competent than the best an upbringing company could achieve - I'd hope that was the case.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:00 pm

spot;1034666 wrote: Either what I say's factual or it isn't. Aim at my facts if you want to undermine my position.

I agree with you entirely that the current laws are inadequate, fining the parents has no effect, the children get the wrong message from it. The law's an ass as it stands. Have I said any different so far? I thought that had been clear enough. You're attacking me for views I don't hold.

If those were the rules then obviously I would, yes. The rules being as they are now, I did the best I could. My best was evidently more effective than the best available from the parents you're describing. My best might well be less competent than the best an upbringing company could achieve - I'd hope that was the case.

We agree then that the fining of parents is indequete.

I just don't believe that there is any-one, despite what training they have or how many kids they have reared, that is in a position to say they know better than others in bringing up a child. While they succeed in one area, they could fail the child in another.

The parents in these children could have failed in one area of child rearing, but succeeded in others. The children could be hard working, good students with a caring nature for human life.

Any-one raising a child can only instill what they believe to be right. Just as an example, the new influence may educate the children regarding repecting all life including animals, but they could come away with feelings of abandonment.

I actually believing in seperating a child from his mother, father and siblings, is more likely to instill resentment in the child than if he had a custodial sentence or some hard community work.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:08 pm

oscar;1034718 wrote: I just don't believe that there is any-one, despite what training they have or how many kids they have reared, that is in a position to say they know better than others in bringing up a child. While they succeed in one area, they could fail the child in another.

It's measurable. There are things you disapprove of in those children you consider to be badly behaved. You could, in theory, list those areas, as could others. Similarly there are things you approve of in those children you consider to be well behaved and properly adjusted. You could, in theory, list those areas too. The combined lists could be brought together into socially agreeable detailed objectives and the private company paid only on achieving acceptable. results. You could even get to define acceptable.

What seems undoubtable to me is that such a company could do a lot better than the average parent. My own opinion is that it could do better than all, given the right objectives and the right staff and the right techniques.

Given that it's measurable and scorable and gives a positive feedback system in which only good practice can survive, what reason have you to say what you said? I'm hearing more opinion and no reasoning based on logic or facts again. You need the logic to work and your facts to be true for your opinion to be justifiable.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:14 pm

spot;1034735 wrote: It's measurable. There are things you disapprove of in those children you consider to be badly behaved. You could, in theory, list those areas, as could others. Similarly there are things you approve of in those children you consider to be well behaved and properly adjusted. You could, in theory, list those areas too. The combined lists could be brought together into socially agreeable detailed objectives and the private company paid only on achieving acceptable. results. You could even get to define acceptable.

What seems undoubtable to me is that such a company could do a lot better than the average parent. My own opinion is that it could do better than all, given the right objectives and the right staff and the right techniques.

Given that it's measurable and scorable and gives a positive feedback system in which only good practice can survive, what reason have you to say what you said? I'm hearing more opinion and no reasoning based on logic or facts again. You need the logic to work and your facts to be true for your opinion to be justifiable.

True, but any institution would have to be governed. Who would have the final say in the running of things and the child's course, other than Government.

To not have them governed would leave these homes wide open to abuse as we have seen in the past.

Who employs the carers? If only good paractice was rewarded by finance, the government would have to sustain them in the early years of setting up, so we are back to government controlled institutions or the homes go broke.

We all have idea's of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. The carers raising these children in place of the parents are just as open to different levels of acceptablity, there-fore i don't see how they should be classed as the solution.

I think Koan had a better idea of involving the parents in re-educating as well as the children, not to just make the kids bereft of their family.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:17 pm

So much for extreme idealism.

You may be entirely correct.

Except about the private finance, it needn't take any government money. I'd see it start out as provate companies to which parents wanted to hand their recalcitrant offspring. All that takes is courts prepared to make the children wards and to assign responsibility for them to the company.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:37 pm

spot;1034755 wrote: So much for extreme idealism.

You may be entirely correct.

Except about the private finance, it needn't take any government money. I'd see it start out as provate companies to which parents wanted to hand their recalcitrant offspring. All that takes is courts prepared to make the children wards and to assign responsibility for them to the company.

Who does the running of the home and it's carers answer to?

If it is a private company, it is open to abuse by carers. We know it's happened. We know people with a histrory of sex offences against children apply for this kind of job and in the past, the odd few have slipped through the net.

Who is there to govern it all?

What happens if through bad investment or mis-handling, the private home goes broke?

If the child were to spend some time in youth institution, the child would under-stand that they have done some-thing unacceptable in society's eyes. The child will remember a custodial sentence and it will punish them.

To take them away from maybe the only people they know and love, i.e. Mother, Father and siblings, would surely create enormous resentment that they could carry for life. It would also inject fear of loss, isolation, and abandoment. Things i personally believe would damage a young child far more than any-thing else.

They could go on to commit other crimes that they may not have commited usually due to resentment and abandonment.

If i went to a youth instituation at the age of 12, i think i would understand that i had done some-thing wrong and i was being punished. I would know that i'd see my parents and siblings in visits and provided i behaved myself, i'd be going home to the people i loved. I dread to think how i'd act if some-one just removed me from the home.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:29 pm

Without first assessing the child, nothing can possibly be decided. The assessment should look at the child's circumstances, the upbringing, environment, the parents and family, et cetera.

Some children view ASBOs as a kind of merit among their peers apparently according to a documentary I saw a few years ago making that kind of punishment ccompletely redundant.

Any kind of corrective institution would need to be very flexible so as to administer a procedure that can be tailored according to the individual. There are likely to be different views as to the structure underlying the choice of procedure. The social science disciplines have three basic perspectives for studying every situation - individualistic, pluralistic, and structuralistic. Each comes up with a different solution and they are not always compatible. Nonetheless, the person assigned the task will invariably favour one approach or another in the same way as different psychologists apply whatever perspective their respective studies taught them.

A profit-driven institution has much to merit it but the award system as well as the administration will have to be regulated. It would be just as easy for such an institution to develop an intelligent, crafty child into a monster. Everything is well if the possibility of this outcome is recognised. Unfortunately, politics will become involved and that's where inherent problems inevitably develop.

There is no perfect solution and whatever method is used, tragic mistakes will still occur. The institutions then are blamed instead of the parents.

There is a tendency for institutions to categorise and label. I think that the children will feel more like categories than humans. For some, this may be effective whereas for others, it may simply harden them against the system.

There is some merit to the idea of setting up a corrective institution for children. Whether it should be a profit-making institution or not is open to debate. If the costs are too great, for instance, or the profit margins too low, the quality of the product could be eroded. Likewise, those institutions that begin with a capital advantage over other institutions may win through the competitive field race irrespective of the quality of their product.

For me, the obvious starting place would be the schools where the children attend every day. The teachers will know the their pupils quite well and they would be well placed to add input concerning the offending child. Separation from the normal daily environment should only be applied where it is meritorious, e.g. where the offending pupils are a source of influence over their peers, or the reverse where they are influenced by certain numbers of their peers.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:41 pm

RedGlitter;1033673 wrote: And you are so rude.
HA! :yh_rotfl Are you the pot or the kettle in this little convo?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:46 pm

RedGlitter;1033367 wrote: I'm telling you, eliminate kids like that and we'll have better adults and a better world. Instead we mollycoddle them and blame their parents. They're just born evil and have no place in the world. Some of you wont like that and you don't have to. So their parents were fined, big deal. That does nothing. Unless the parents are so mad they beat the kids senseless in which case "maybe" they feel some of that kangaroo's pain but I doubt it.I haven't read all of this because my ADD kicks in quick around snipe attacks, BUT:

As I've said before, you're generally consistent in your beliefs of humans and other animals parallelling each other. Do you believe some animals are "just born evil"?

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:36 pm

oscar;1034779 wrote: Who does the running of the home and it's carers answer to?

If it is a private company, it is open to abuse by carers. We know it's happened. We know people with a histrory of sex offences against children apply for this kind of job and in the past, the odd few have slipped through the net.

Who is there to govern it all?

What happens if through bad investment or mis-handling, the private home goes broke?

If the child were to spend some time in youth institution, the child would under-stand that they have done some-thing unacceptable in society's eyes. The child will remember a custodial sentence and it will punish them.

To take them away from maybe the only people they know and love, i.e. Mother, Father and siblings, would surely create enormous resentment that they could carry for life. It would also inject fear of loss, isolation, and abandoment. Things i personally believe would damage a young child far more than any-thing else.

They could go on to commit other crimes that they may not have commited usually due to resentment and abandonment.

If i went to a youth instituation at the age of 12, i think i would understand that i had done some-thing wrong and i was being punished. I would know that i'd see my parents and siblings in visits and provided i behaved myself, i'd be going home to the people i loved. I dread to think how i'd act if some-one just removed me from the home.

Good lord, where do I start?

Everyone answers to the law of the land. The company might have more restrictive requirements in addition.

The law of the land is that nobody works with children these days without a police records check.

Abuse in childrens' homes was endemic into the seventies. Just like abusers say don't tell, the whole of society up until the seventies said don't tell. If an abuse victim went into a police station they'd find it impossible to get a case started. The first thing the authorities did was to clamp down on the complainant with threats of prosecution. Would you like my guess? I doubt whether even half of children growing up in England before the seventies avoided sexual abuse before they reached sixteen. It was well known to the children at my school, for example, and that was a state secondary school. Anyone who was there at the time would tell you how unthinkable it would have been to try to lay a charge and have a teacher outed. Every single adult that a child knew back then would have said say nothing, we'll move you elsewhere.

That mentality stayed in church institutions right into the nineties when at least children were generally told they had to speak out if they were coerced or abused. You just can't carry that history into what I'm suggesting. A private company whose job is to safely raise children can today absolutely guarantee no abuse if it sets its corporate policy to do that.

The children are the industry's assets, they have value, they'd be sold on by the receiver if a company folded. It's far more likely that companies would merge before they reached that point. What I offered is a profitable industry, not a loss-maker.

You have the gall to call this corrective rehabilitation "punishment" after all you've said about wanting to punish these kids? Make your mind up.

Ideally I'd take the children in as near birth as possible. For those sent by court order, of course they're screwed up. I guarantee they can be persuaded to see what's happened to them as a rescue.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:32 am

spot;1033812 wrote: Well, no, not unless you rewrite the dictionary. Beating an animal to death for the pleasure of seeing it suffer is beating an animal to death for the pleasure of seeing it suffer. Murder is killing people unlawfully and with intention. I do wish people could all agree on a vocabulary, preferably one that can be substantiated with authority.

You are getting hung up on semantics. Killing for pleasure is murder.

You must have only read the first definition. Either that or you don't have a very good dictionary.

Definition 2: to slaughter wantonly: slay. Definition 3a: to put an end to. 3b: to tease or torment. 3c: to mutilate or mangle. Syn: to kill

Killing or torturing an animal to death is in fact murder. And the type of mind that enjoys killing is a dangerous mind.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:36 am

wildhorses;1034979 wrote: You are getting hung up on semantics. Killing for pleasure is murder.

You must have only read the first definition. Either that or you don't have a very good dictionary.

Definition 2: to slaughter wantonly: slay. Definition 3a: to put an end to. 3b: to tease or torment. 3c: to mutilate or mangle. Syn: to kill

Killing or torturing an animal to death is in fact murder. And the type of mind that enjoys killing is a dangerous mind.

Where are you looking? Murder is killing people unlawfully and with intention. It's a legal concept. You can't get convicted of murder without those elements all being present. That's why we have the word as distinct to other words like, for example, kill - it's so we can distinguish what we mean to convey.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:56 am

spot;1034980 wrote: Where are you looking? Murder is killing people unlawfully and with intention. It's a legal concept. You can't get convicted of murder without those elements all being present. That's why we have the word as distinct to other words like, for example, kill - it's so we can distinguish what we mean to convey.

Look in the dictionary. Murder is not only the killing of people....although that is the most common usage of the word. And certainly it is the legal term.

What I mean to convey is that the type of mind that enjoys killing an animal would enjoy killing a person. The psychology of the killer is the same whether they are murdering an animal or a person. I use the word murder to separate this type of killing from killing in anger. The killing in this case was done for the pleasure. I am not using the word murder to refer to the legal aspect, but to refer to the psychological aspect of the act.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:04 am

I had the Oxford English Dictionary open on my desktop. I always do, it's a place I go to when I need to be sure I'm using a word in a reasonable way. Obviously there are extended uses, it's just rather strange to see sentences structured "A = B" in which B has an extended metaphoric sense. It seems rather pointless, it doesn't particularly advance the discussion.

"the type of mind that enjoys killing an animal would enjoy killing a person" seems entirely unjustifiable to me. Obviously if you have some support for that view then I'd be interested to read it. As I said earlier, "a serial killer often started by killing animals" is reasonable, "people who kill animals can go on to become serial killers" isn't. So can lots of other categories of people who didn't kill animals. You're in that area of an implied "every" when you use "would". If you just used "might" it would be a very weak statement but, I expect, a lot more accurate.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:52 am

spot;1034982 wrote: I had the Oxford English Dictionary open on my desktop. I always do, it's a place I go to when I need to be sure I'm using a word in a reasonable way. Obviously there are extended uses, it's just rather strange to see sentences structured "A = B" in which B has an extended metaphoric sense. It seems rather pointless, it doesn't particularly advance the discussion.

"the type of mind that enjoys killing an animal would enjoy killing a person" seems entirely unjustifiable to me. Obviously if you have some support for that view then I'd be interested to read it. As I said earlier, "a serial killer often started by killing animals" is reasonable, "people who kill animals can go on to become serial killers" isn't. So can lots of other categories of people who didn't kill animals. You're in that area of an implied "every" when you use "would". If you just used "might" it would be a very weak statement but, I expect, a lot more accurate.

LOL spot...you are too funny. Stop grasping at straws. How can you agree "a serial killer often started by killing animals" but "people who kill animals can go on to become serial killers" is not reasonable for you. How then would serial killlers often start with animals, if people who kill animals cannot become serial killers?

Yes other people who never killed animals can also become serial killers....what does that have to do with the conversation? We are not talking about people who did not kill animals as children...but people who did. Stop trying to convolute the debate.

Killing animals is murder. Read your dictionary. And people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers. The psychology in killing for pleasure is the same when killing an animal as in killing a person.

LOL...but nice try with the smoke screen.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:56 am

wildhorses;1034987 wrote: LOL spot...you are too funny. Stop grasping at straws. How can you agree "a serial killer often started by killing animals" but "people who kill animals can go on to become serial killers" is not reasonable for you. How then would serial killlers often start with animals, if people who kill animals cannot become serial killers?We have quite different approaches, obviously. What I see in your post is emotional noise with no meaning. It has no sense of reality to it. This all stems from "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers", if I remember right, leading to your "people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers".

How many people enjoy torturing animals to death? We'd need to go and find out from someone who's been and looked - the RSPCA perhaps - but just applying common sense we can form limits. Oscar gave an estimate of 30 in a school of 1750, one in fifty. I think that sounds way too low but we're only talking about boys, probably we're only talking about boys in years 8 and 9. Maybe it's as many as one in five of the population. That sounds too high, one in ten sounds high, one in twenty sounds likely, one in fifty sounds low. One in twenty means that out of every class of year 8 or year 9 children, one or two have stood around a bonfire after dark with their mates kicking a cat to death or throwing rocks at it. I can believe that.

How many people are serial killers in England? One in three million? It's about that. Fewer than one in a million, more than one in ten million.

So, of every "enjoys torturing animals to death" person, one in 150,000 becomes a serial killer. That's a fair order of magnitude assessment. That's "often"? "People who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers"? "Some animal abusers go on to become serial killers"? It could well be the case that, say, at least half of all serial killers started by killing animals first but that has nothing like the same implication and could well have a number of alternative reasons. I suggest, though, that common sense shows "people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers" or "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers" to be emotional meaningless noise with no possible foundation. It's as meaningful as saying "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to be struck by lightning" or "often go on to die of MRSA after a hospital visit".

Killing animals is murder. Christ on a bicycle. Killing animals is farming, let's get our orders of magnitude into perspective again. The animals going to slaughter (not, you'll notice, murder!) are tens of millions of big wooly lovable mammals a year just in England and most of them are terrified by it. Slaughter houses are fairly obviously death camps to an animal arriving there, the smell alone alerts them. Death's scarcely sprung on them as a surprise.

As a related point, something like a third of all songbirds in England are killed by domestic cats. I'd very happily see all fertile domestic cats made illegal here and all feral domestic cats killed.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:20 am

spot;1034990 wrote: We have quite different approaches, obviously. What I see in your post is emotional noise with no meaning. It has no sense of reality to it. This all stems from "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers", if I remember right, leading to your "people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers".

How many people enjoy torturing animals to death? We'd need to go and find out from someone who's been and looked - the RSPCA perhaps - but just applying common sense we can form limits. Oscar gave an estimate of 30 in a school of 1750, one in fifty. I think that sounds way too low but we're only talking about boys, probably we're only talking about boys in years 8 and 9. Maybe it's as many as one in five of the population. That sounds too high, one in ten sounds high, one in twenty sounds likely, one in fifty sounds low. One in twenty means that out of every class of year 8 or year 9 children, one or two have stood around a bonfire after dark with their mates kicking a cat to death or throwing rocks at it. I can believe that.

How many people are serial killers in England? One in three million? It's about that. Fewer than one in a million, more than one in ten million.

So, of every "enjoys torturing animals to death" person, one in 150,000 becomes a serial killer. That's a fair order of magnitude assessment. That's "often"? "People who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers"? "Some animal abusers go on to become serial killers"? It could well be the case that, say, at least half of all serial killers started by killing animals first but that has nothing like the same implication and could well have a number of alternative reasons. I suggest, though, that common sense shows "people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers" or "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers" to be emotional meaningless noise with no possible foundation. It's as meaningful as saying "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to be struck by lightning" or "often go on to die of MRSA after a hospital visit".

Christ on a bicycle. Killing animals is farming, let's get our orders of magnitude into perspective again. The animals going to slaughter (not, you'll notice, murder!) are tens of millions of big wooly lovable mammals a year just in England and most of them are terrified by it. Slaughter houses are fairly obviously death camps to an animal arriving there, the smell alone alerts them. Death's scarcely sprung on them as a surprise.

What I get from your post is that you think it is perfectly normal for children to torture animals and it is nothing to worry about. Children enjoying murdering animals and getting pleasure from it is the same as killing for food? You defend it so agressively. You think this is normal behavior? And I also get from your post that you think these kids are in no danger whatsoever of killing humans....even though they derive pleasure from murdering animals? Even though, as you said, it is well documented that serial killers often started by killing animals? Do you dispute this documentation? Furthermore, they might not become serial killers, but school shooters, or snipers. I don't see how you can call this "emotional noise" .....LOL.....this is laughable...really. Ok....would you let your daughter date these boys? I think not.

And if you really think that my post is "emotional noise with no meaning"....then why do you respond so fervently? If you really saw it that way you would not waste so much time with it...now would you?

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:32 am

spot wrote:

Christ on a bicycle. Killing animals is farming, let's get our orders of magnitude into perspective again. The animals going to slaughter (not, you'll notice, murder!) are tens of millions of big wooly lovable mammals a year just in England and most of them are terrified by it. Slaughter houses are fairly obviously death camps to an animal arriving there, the smell alone alerts them. Death's scarcely sprung on them as a surprise.

But the difference is the psychology. You don't seem to get my point at all. The people doing the slaughtering are not doing it because they enjoy the slaughtering and enjoy watching animals suffer. The psychology is entirely different. I am not speaking from the animal's perspective...but the killer's perspective. Someone who enjoys killing, whether animal or human, is a murderer.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:37 am

wildhorses;1035005 wrote: What I get from your post is that you think it is perfectly normal for children to torture animals and it is nothing to worry about. Children enjoying murdering animals and getting pleasure from it is the same as killing for food? You defend it so agressively. You think this is normal behavior? And I also get from your post that you think these kids are in no danger whatsoever of killing humans....even though they derive pleasure from murdering animals?I've gone nowhere near "no danger whatsoever", neither have I gone anywhere near "killing humans", we've been discussing whether there's any meaning in "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers" or "people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers". I offered you a 1 in 150,000 association which presumably you accept. I suggested a lack of any meaningful basis to "often" or "well documented". I'd have no problem at all, as I said, with "serial killers often start by killing animals" but I see no link, real or implied, between that and what you and oscar are claiming to be true.

And if you really think that my post is "emotional noise with no meaning"....then why do you respond so fervently?Because I hate meaningless emotional claptrap, I thought I'd said that earlier. My argument is with primarily your logic, exacerbated to a smaller extent by what I (perhaps idiosyncratically) see as slack use of language regarding "murder". Murder's a charge in a court of law, none of these children could be charged with it but your emotive language stems from you using it in that legal sense as a comparison for the sort of penal sentences posters here might find acceptable.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:43 am

wildhorses;1035015 wrote: Someone who enjoys killing, whether animal or human, is a murderer.Don't you see that you're left in a very strange position here? You're left saying that a person can be a murderer and yet commit no crime in the eyes of English law. It jars, don't you think? A person could satisfy his craving and enjoyment of killing an animal weekly for the next ten years and still not have committed a crime assuming he stayed within certain boundaries defined by law, and yet you'd call him a murderer. It's an odd and exceptional use of language. I don't think it helps the discussion to use the word here in that sense.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:54 am

spot;1035021 wrote: I've gone nowhere near "no danger whatsoever", neither have I gone anywhere near "killing humans", we've been discussing whether there's any meaning in "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers" or "people who kill animals as children often go on to become serial killers". I offered you a 1 in 150,000 association which presumably you accept. I suggested a lack of any meaningful basis to "often" or "well documented". I'd have no problem at all, as I said, with "serial killers often start by killing animals" but I see no link, real or implied, between that and what you and oscar are claiming to be true.

Because I hate meaningless emotional claptrap, I thought I'd said that earlier. My argument is with primarily your logic, exacerbated to a smaller extent by what I (perhaps idiosyncratically) see as slack use of language regarding "murder". Murder's a charge in a court of law, none of these children could be charged with it but your emotive language stems from you using it in that legal sense as a comparison for the sort of penal sentences posters here might find acceptable.

Well if you choose not to accept the documentation put forth by experts then I guess that is your perogative. But it is very well documented that murdering or torturing animals is a precursor to violence or murdering humans.

And my use of the word murder was not at all slack. I meant it with any intensity that could possibly be attributed to it. Murder is a word, not just a legal charge. And we are not talking about the legal aspect...now are we? And I don't understand how you think I was using the word murder in it's legal context.

LOL....you or any other poster on any board NEVER answer posts they think are meaningless. They don't bother.

Your turn.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:03 am

wildhorses;1035034 wrote: Well if you choose not to accept the documentation put forth by experts then I guess that is your perogative. But it is very well documented that murdering or torturing animals is a precursor to violence or murdering humans. That's not the same as "murdering or torturing animals" leading to violence or murdering humans! They're two completely unassociated statements! Precursor is looking back from murdering people to precursor actions - and may I again say there's a world of difference between killing and serial killing, which was where we started - while "leading to" is looking at the animal killer and predicting he'll murder people.

We were discussing serial killers - do you notice you've watered this down by way of murdering (humans, since I now have to qualify that word when talking with you) to simple all-embracing "violence" at this point to try to become more believable? We got a ballpark estimate of one animal killer in 150,000 going on to becoming a serial killer, even assuming that every serial killer had killed animals first. One of you said this was "often", which is ludicrous. The other said it was an association, "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers", which I don't see demonstrated at all, even though there may well be an association the other way.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:35 am

spot;1035026 wrote: Don't you see that you're left in a very strange position here? You're left saying that a person can be a murderer and yet commit no crime in the eyes of English law. It jars, don't you think? A person could satisfy his craving and enjoyment of killing an animal weekly for the next ten years and still not have committed a crime assuming he stayed within certain boundaries defined by law, and yet you'd call him a murderer. It's an odd and exceptional use of language. I don't think it helps the discussion to use the word here in that sense.

I am sorry you are so annoyed by my usage of the word murder. And I don't see why you so agressively defend the murdering and torture of animals. And I will only say this one more time....I am not speaking from a LEGAL aspect...but from a PSYCHOLOGICAL aspect. The usage of the word does not have to conform to English law. I am not speaking legally at all. We are talking about a psychological sickness....not a legal proceeding. Using the word murder to refer to the torture and killing of animals for pleasure is a correct usage. If this usage bothers you so much then maybe you should opt out of the debate altogether. You are never going to convince me that torturing and murdering an animal for the pleasure of seeing it suffer is not a sickness. And certainly any person who is capable of this is very dangerous ...and is in fact dangerous to people as well.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:45 am

spot;1035037 wrote: That's not the same as "murdering or torturing animals" leading to violence or murdering humans! They're two completely unassociated statements! Precursor is looking back from murdering people to precursor actions - and may I again say there's a world of difference between killing and serial killing, which was where we started - while "leading to" is looking at the animal killer and predicting he'll murder people.

We were discussing serial killers - do you notice you've watered this down by way of murdering (humans, since I now have to qualify that word when talking with you) to simple all-embracing "violence" at this point to try to become more believable? We got a ballpark estimate of one animal killer in 150,000 going on to becoming a serial killer, even assuming that every serial killer had killed animals first. One of you said this was "often", which is ludicrous. The other said it was an association, "it is well documented that some animal abusers go on to become serial killers", which I don't see demonstrated at all, even though there may well be an association the other way.

Actually you were the one who originally brought up the subject of serial killers...not I. My original statement was that some children who murder animals go on to murder people. You were the one who took it to serial killers. But some children who kill animals do in fact become serial killers. However, that was not my original statement....you took it there. I am sorry ....but it IS well documented that SOME animal murderers go on to be serial killers. Or are you saying that there have never been ANY animal murderers who go on to murder humans? And I can't imagine where you got the "ballpark" figure of on animal killer in 150K. OK and "one of you said"....please....now you don't even know who said what. And "the other one said"....LOL....You don't have any idea what I said and didn't say.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:58 am

spot;1034927 wrote:

You have the gall to call this corrective rehabilitation "punishment" after all you've said about wanting to punish these kids? Make your mind up.

Ideally I'd take the children in as near birth as possible. For those sent by court order, of course they're screwed up. I guarantee they can be persuaded to see what's happened to them as a rescue.

It's not having 'the gall' Spot, it's having an opinion from what i have read before the days when we had google.

I was merely debating, not having the 'gall'.

We have a youth correctional unit in the village here with some of the worst offenders. We know the wardens well as if the lads have scored enough points during the week, they earn a take-away as a treat. I am told, it is particually tough in there from the wardens. I once asked what the figures were like for re-offending. We went on to have a lengthy chat about how ASBO's etc just do not work and the figures from youths re-offending after leaving this institusion were very low. Now, that is word of mouth from a seasoned warden, not google.

I also said that 'i believed' removing a young child from maybe the only people they knew and loved, i.e. the mother, father and siblings, could have a far wider, damaging effect on that child than a spell in youth custoday. I said that i believed that feelings of resentment, abandonment and now i will say, maybe inadequecy to bond, could enable the child to go on to commit further crimes in the future.

I also said that i agreed with Koan, that a programme working with the parents and the child would be more benificial than simply removing the child from the parents.

You have not come back on any of these suggestions.

You also talk about animals going to slaughter. Slaughter houses are regulated. They are slaughtered in the most humane way as possible. These lads did not do that, they clubbed this baby kangaroo until it was dead. There is a heck of a difference. One is the need to slaughter food humanely, the other is wantent violence against a creature that could not defend it'self. If we go on to slaughter houses, you are digressing from the subject.

As for privately run homes, i am amzed that when i put the question 'what happens if the home goes broke', you say they would be able to see it coming and the home 'sold on'. Are we now saying that in those circumstances, the child becomes a 'product' to be sold on??

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:15 am

It is also ironic that we are debating on another thread, what should be done with the monster who tortured his baby for months, finally going on to kill her by snapping her spine.

As wildhorses correctly pointed out, teachers of this man told press that the warning signs were there very early on and he was infact 'one of the most disturbed children she had ever encountered'.

To be fair, we don't know if this included torturing or beating animals to death but it does back up what has been said the children showing violent signs early on in life, do go on to commit abhorant crimes against humans.

Or was the teacher lying to the court???

Without googling every murder case in history and reading up weather it started with animals, would take too long. However, we have a classic case being discussed on another thread where this man showed alarming signals at a young age. It is there-fore not ridiculous for any of us to say that this is the case. Here we have it, in present day, in our courts this week.

It must sit very un-comfortably with any parent to have to accept that a child is cabable of this kind of violence towards another creature.

To suggest that a child can do this, to some, is to suggest that their own child is capable of such an act and it is that, which does not sit well with some people.

We all know that 'our' children would not do such a thing but i do believe many get very defensive when we start talking about this being a barbaric act that needs to be punished.

You brought up the case of Mary Bell, which was over 40 years ago and as i said earlier, society changes after 40 years. There is a far nmore recent case here of "Jamie Bulger" the baby who was snatched from outside a shop and battered to death by two 12 year olds. (Without googling). Again, if my memory serves me correct from evidence in their trial, teachers said that one "John Venebles" was without doubt extremely disturbed and had shown signs of violence in school at a very young age. He went on to kill a baby when he got to 12 years old.

Where is the difference?????

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:11 am

As i mentioned Jon venebles, who i have to correct myself, he murdered the baby at the age of 10...... i found this for you Spot.

My postings as always are only my opinion. Here is another view of Child Prisons and Jon Venebles,

While it does say that to put them in a prison at 18 would possibly make them far worse, it does say that they have benifited from the 8 years they have spent in a Juvenile correction Facility.

These boys have since been released and the last i heard in the press was that they had both gone on to lead normal lives.

As in this case, if the youth correction Institution dedicated it's time to re-habilitation, what is the difference between that and a private run childrens home Spot?????

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive ... 01405.html

Can you back up your claims that a private run childrens home payed on results would be any better????

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:56 am

wildhorses;1035066 wrote: I am sorry you are so annoyed by my usage of the word murder. And I don't see why you so agressively defend the murdering and torture of animals. And I will only say this one more time....I am not speaking from a LEGAL aspect...but from a PSYCHOLOGICAL aspect. The usage of the word does not have to conform to English law. I am not speaking legally at all. We are talking about a psychological sickness....not a legal proceeding. Using the word murder to refer to the torture and killing of animals for pleasure is a correct usage. If this usage bothers you so much then maybe you should opt out of the debate altogether. You are never going to convince me that torturing and murdering an animal for the pleasure of seeing it suffer is not a sickness. And certainly any person who is capable of this is very dangerous ...and is in fact dangerous to people as well.

You walked completely past my point as though it didn't exist at all, and you'll have seen that I've had to modify my language to refer to "murder of humans" in order to restrict my meaning to what I intend, ever since you changed the meaning of the word. Do you think, as a kindness, that you could read through the paragraph again and try to answer its very specific point? Just to humour me? Here it is again:Don't you see that you're left in a very strange position here? You're left saying that a person can be a murderer and yet commit no crime in the eyes of English law. It jars, don't you think? A person could satisfy his craving and enjoyment of killing an animal weekly for the next ten years and still not have committed a crime assuming he stayed within certain boundaries defined by law, and yet you'd call him a murderer. It's an odd and exceptional use of language. I don't think it helps the discussion to use the word here in that sense.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:58 am

wildhorses;1035074 wrote: Actually you were the one who originally brought up the subject of serial killers...not I. Go back and check, it was oscar.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:03 am

wildhorses;1035074 wrote: OK and "one of you said"....please....now you don't even know who said what. And "the other one said"....LOL....You don't have any idea what I said and didn't say.
Now you're just arguing in order to argue which is rather pointless in terms of taking the topic forward. I know perfectly well who said what and when. More to the point, the record's here in the thread.

The advantage of a thread is that at least we've put our respective thoughts in front of an unbiased audience. Over a period, people will read what we've written and come to their own conclusions. I hope you think you've given them something useful to chew over.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:13 am

How do you debate the link i put on claiming that Youth detention had greatly benifited Jon venebles during his 8 years in custody?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 am

oscar;1035326 wrote: How do you debate the link i put on claiming that Youth detention had greatly benifited Jon venebles during his 8 years in custody?

Who? Me?

It's identical to what I've been suggesting, taking the child from the parents to stop further damage and then spending years repairing the child. Youth detention did it and would appear to have done a superlative job. I'd quite like to see the same thing available in competitive companies, I think they'd be better able to fund more research and improvement in technique, but that's a minor point.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:40 am

spot;1035420 wrote: Who? Me?

It's identical to what I've been suggesting, taking the child from the parents to stop further damage and then spending years repairing the child. Youth detention did it and would appear to have done a superlative job. I'd quite like to see the same thing available in competitive companies, I think they'd be better able to fund more research and improvement in technique, but that's a minor point.

The youth detention centre we have in the village is a youth prison. I know that a team of qualified experts put in a lot of work to re-habilitate as well as keeping them from possibly harming others for a while.

We seem to have met some common ground as i was in favour of a spell in custody for these kids. It would have meant the same as you were saying in that they would be removed from the parents, but youth prisons today have a wealth of experts to turn these kids around, whilst they also understand that they are being held because they are being punished for a crime.

If you were to have private facilitie's for these children, would they be able to realistically meet the cost of such experts in child physcology for example?

If they couldn't, then you are simply back to one individual believing that they can do a better job than any-one else. That can be more damaging i believe than the kind of youth custodial sentance that 'Venables' recieved.

Who would ever have believed that after killing a baby at the age of 10, they could do enough with him to release him at 18 trs old. They would be mad to release him if not absolutely sure that he was no danger to any-one else.

I have tried finding a link and failed but i can remember something from his trial that he apparently killed the family cat and neighbours.

How would 'Venebles' have turned out, if he had simply been taken away from his parents and family??

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:45 am

oscar;1035444 wrote: If you were to have private facilitie's for these children, would they be able to realistically meet the cost of such experts in child physcology for example?

Why would they not? All it takes is setting the charge per child to the right amount. The company charges what it needs to charge in order to get the job done to the level promised. You remember we said we'd set the required goals before we put the child out to tender?

How would 'Venebles' have turned out, if he had simply been taken away from his parents and family??Permanently stuck in a state where he couldn't ever be released because he was so dangerous to the community.

they also understand that they are being held because they are being punished for a crime.If that helps the rehabilitation process then by all means include that as part of their treatment. I have no opinion on whether it would help.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:12 am

spot;1035450 wrote: Why would they not? All it takes is setting the charge per child to the right amount. The company charges what it needs to charge in order to get the job done to the level promised. You remember we said we'd set the required goals before we put the child out to tender?

Permanently stuck in a state where he couldn't ever be released because he was so dangerous to the community.

If that helps the rehabilitation process then by all means include that as part of their treatment. I have no opinion on whether it would help.

My only other question to you Spot would be, what if the parents or extended family were in no position to pay anything to the cost of the privately run home?

Government would have to step in and subside's surely? Then it goes back down the same route.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:19 am

oscar;1035493 wrote: My only other question to you Spot would be, what if the parents or extended family were in no position to pay anything to the cost of the privately run home?

Government would have to step in and subside's surely? Then it goes back down the same route.

If it's being done on the order of a court then who else would you expect to pay for it? Who pays for youth custody now? This isn't a matter of subsidy, it's a matter of government.

What happens now if parents take their child to the welfare and say here, we can't cope, get him sorted? Would you expect them to pay in that circumstance at the moment? It's social welfare for the well-being of the community. It's a community expense.

I could offer a costing model which involves no money from the public purse but I'd prefer not to, it's not really central to what we're discussing.

What we're doing is getting our vocabulary arranged so that we can both say something the other agrees with. It doesn't take a big jump to find common ground.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:05 pm

Chezzie;1033374 wrote: Thats not what was said at all. We said he didnt deserve to be put to death at 7 years of age. We all said the lad needed help, we said he should be punished.

These kids in this story are 10 and 12 years old, and definitely understand right from wrong. They killed the Kangaroo and seagulls, they should be punished for it.

I have a 10 and a 9 year old, they know at this age that killing of any animals is cruel.

I don't think that anyone seriously meant put a 7 year old to death..

however, we have now established that 7 is to young to punish, but 12 is OK.

As there are only 5 years in the difference, when does this change happen? Isn't the 12 year old just the 7 year old 5 years older?

How about if he was 9? What then?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:34 pm

mikeinie;1035591 wrote: I don't think that anyone seriously meant put a 7 year old to death..

however, we have now established that 7 is to young to punish, but 12 is OK.

As there are only 5 years in the difference, when does this change happen? Isn't the 12 year old just the 7 year old 5 years older?

How about if he was 9? What then?

Good point.

Any offers????

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:34 pm

mikeinie;1035591 wrote: I don't think that anyone seriously meant put a 7 year old to death..

however, we have now established that 7 is to young to punish, but 12 is OK.

As there are only 5 years in the difference, when does this change happen? Isn't the 12 year old just the 7 year old 5 years older?

How about if he was 9? What then?

Sorry Mike but your wrong as someone did seriously mean to put a 7 year old to death, that's why people got so upset.

Anyway's my way of looking at it was once you have left primary school and made the leap to high school. You know for definite what is wrong or right. You will have more immature 12 year old than others but as a benchmark, personally id hold a 12 year old and above responsible for their actions. 5 years difference is alot when your talking about kids Mike, you have a couple yourself, like me and I see a huge difference in my 10 and 9 year old, their 2 school years apart.

I believe they should bring back borstal youth prisons. That and compulsary army/navy/marines for all offenders once they reach of age. That would sort them out.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:40 pm

mikeinie;1035591 wrote: I don't think that anyone seriously meant put a 7 year old to death..

however, we have now established that 7 is to young to punish, but 12 is OK.

As there are only 5 years in the difference, when does this change happen? Isn't the 12 year old just the 7 year old 5 years older?

How about if he was 9? What then?

The criminal justice system incarcerates people for four possible reasons: punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the public and deterrence. Oscar and I get on perfectly well so long as we don't discuss which is involved.

I see no evidence of deterrence, myself. What would be deterrent is an overwhelming likelihood of rapid detection and prosecution. If a potential criminal thinks they're not likely to be detected for one crime they'll do the crimes, one at a time, undeterred.

As far as protection of the public is concerned, I'd be more than happy not to release anyone at all until they're less likely to commit another crime than any average current member of society. The trouble is that courts impose sentences as well as determining guilt. I wouldn't let that happen, I'd leave sentence length to an ongoing assessment of the danger an inmate continues to present to the public, irrespective of what they were sent down for.

Oscar sees incarceration as punishment, I see it as an opportunity for rehabilitation. We're avoiding the words while discussing the extent to which the prisoner can be improved and how to most effectively achieve it.

Having said all that I can now comment on your post. "we have now established that 7 is to young to punish, but 12 is OK"? Not at all. Ignoring this distinction between punishing and rehabilitating, I've said throughout the thread that I'd incarcerate children at any age whatever. One, five, seven, twelve, it makes no odds at all to me. I'm putting them into a controlled environment in which they can be mended. Whether they were capable of distinguishing good behaviour from bad when they displayed their antisocial behaviour doesn't interest me in the slightest. It's only if "punishment" becomes an objective that you'll find reference to a criminal age of responsibility.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:47 pm

Chezzie;1035610 wrote: compulsary army/navy/marines for all offenders once they reach of age. That would sort them out.This is a long-standing slur that really gets up the noses of some one-time boy entrants into the services. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... orial.html discusses it. The National Memorial Arboretum guidebook has been changed to remove the offending paragraph but it'll still get spread around. You can't really see the current Armed Forces as dumping grounds for teenage criminals, surely?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:52 pm

spot;1035627 wrote:

Having said all that I can now comment on your post. "we have now established that 7 is to young to punish, but 12 is OK"? Not at all. Ignoring this distinction between punishing and rehabilitating.

We've already established that in one recent case, Jon Venebles that killed a baby at the age of 10, a custodial youth Institution served it's purpose by successfully re-habilitating him for release 8 yrs later.

He was not there just as re-habilitation but also punishment.

If there was no punishment involved, how could he ever learn that he had commited a very serious crime?

The Institution in which he was placed had the excellent staff in place in order to bring about this re-habilitation.

If my memory serves me correctly, as i said, i remember at his trial, teachers saying he was seriously disturbed and i'm sure there was something to do with killing the family cat and neighbours. I apologise that i have not been able to find a link for it.

If my memory is correct, then it shows that children who do abuse animals CAN sometimes go on to commit far more serious crime to human lifeas well as other animals.

Surely, it would be for the best to be safe than sorry with these boys and place them in a youth prison for a short term and offer the re-habilitation that they need?

You yourself said Spot, if Venerables, had been taken away from his family completely, he would likely have come out of prison far worse.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:54 pm

spot;1035637 wrote: This is a long-standing slur that really gets up the noses of some one-time boy entrants into the services. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... orial.html discusses it. The National Memorial Arboretum guidebook has been changed to remove the offending paragraph but it'll still get spread around. You can't really see the current Armed Forces as dumping grounds for teenage criminals, surely?

Well the hope is that they wont be teenage criminals for much longer:D

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:55 pm

oscar;1035649 wrote: Surely, it would be for the best to be safe than sorry with these boys and place them in a youth prison for a short term and offer the re-habilitation that they need?Who here do you think is disagreeing with that?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:55 pm

Chezzie;1035652 wrote: Well the hope is that they wont be teenage criminals for much longer:D

But you can't really see the current Armed Forces as dumping grounds for teenage criminals, surely?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:06 pm

spot;1035657 wrote: Who here do you think is disagreeing with that?

I don't think we are in disagreement here Spot. However, i see punishment as in the youth prison in my village. No luxery's, loss of liberty, rationed food, physical work daily etc etc. If they do their work rota and treat officers and other in-mates decently, they are awarded points for a take-away or a family visit.

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:08 pm

oscar;1035674 wrote: I don't think we are in disagreement here Spot. However, i see punishment as in the youth prison in my village. No luxery's, loss of liberty, rationed food, physical work daily etc etc. If they do their work rota and treat officers and other in-mates decently, they are awarded points for a take-away or a family visit.

Perhaps in time that sort of establishment will be measured against the performance of the sort I've described. What I think we're both agreed is that the system whose graduates commit fewest future crimes wins. It would take a head-to-head experiment to see which does. Until then we're back in the realm of opinion again, unless you can come up with any studies that have a bearing.

What I think is swimming invisibly below the surface is that perhaps you think there's a moral duty to punish what you see as personal sin, while that doesn't necessarily have a place at all in what I'm looking toward. From my point of view, if it works in improving behaviour then by all means include it but if it doesn't, don't hang onto it just because it makes the virtuous feel better.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:09 pm

Chezzie;1035610 wrote: I believe they should bring back borstal youth prisons. That and compulsary army/navy/marines for all offenders once they reach of age. That would sort them out.

I totally agree.