MikeyT Posted 5 July 2013 Author Posted 5 July 2013 Denise Fergus (James's mum) has actually said on her Twitter that she wants people to just leave him alone. I can't see that happening though if his cover is blown.
Feed The Yak!! Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 I can't say I believe someone should have to live with the consequences of something they did when they were younger for their whole life. I do believe in rehabilitation and that any kid who does something like that clearly has a psychological problem. However, what's worrying is that the guy has been downloading child porn in the last 3 years. Clearly any attempt at making him suitable for society has been unsuccessful.
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 According to the Times they have a recording of him saying "the biggest thrill you can get in life is to sexuall abuse a child" - This was the reason he was denied parale six months ago. He's obviously changed his mind since for the new hearing. Well done lads, champagne all round.
Alf Bentley Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Imprisonment is supposed to serve various purposes: punishment, deterrence, protection of the public and rehabilitation, mainly. One purpose may be more important than another, depending on the case. Given the horrendous nature of the original crime, protection of the public is particularly important here - but, particularly given the age of the offenders when they committed the crime, some effort had to be made at rehabilitation. The other lad (Thompson) has been out for about 12 years now, without committing any further offence. So, rehabilitation may have worked in his case - and I'd assume he's still subject to rigorous monitoring. Have those giving Venables parole given enough priority to protecting the public? I'd really question that. When someone has committed such a terrible crime - and then been re-arrested for child porn offences - you'd want to have a very high degree of confidence before you released him again. What gives them such confidence that Venables' mentality has changed so much in 3 years that he presents no significant risk to the public? Because it is well established that trading child porn (a serious offence in itself) often leads on to direct abuse....so he did present a serious risk 3 years ago...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Can anyone remember if there was any comeback on the parents of Venables and Thompson? They were both only ten at the time and most ten year olds are 90% copies of their parents without any real individual identity. It's not until your teens you start "doing your own thing". I guess the original argument of realeasing either of them is that you change a hell of a lot between 10 and adulthood - for starters, you become your own person - but it would seem that Venables at least is too fundamentally screwed up and if that was already the case at 10, then his parents have got a hell of a lot to answer for!
Mike Oxlong Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 This Be the Verse This Be the Verse By Philip Larkin 1922–1985 Philip Larkin They **** you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had And add some extra, just for you. But they were ****ed up in their turn By fools in old-style hats and coats, Who half the time were soppy-stern And half at one another’s throats. Man hands on misery to man. It deepens like a coastal shelf. Get out as early as you can, And don’t have any kids yourself.
Fox92 Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 I'm not one for all this 'other crazy people about'. Yeah there is, but what this person did was sick, he then got convicted of downloading child porn or whatever it was. The taxpayer have paid £250,000 to give him a new identity. He's vile. Shoot him in the head, a child abuser is gone and innocent people arn't paying for him. Same with Ian Brady.
Adster Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Bring back the death penalty. I was just about to say this. I'm sure no one would give a toss if a bullet was put in the fvcking cvnts head. Would end it there straight away, for him at least.
Webbo Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Even if we still had the death penalty we wouldn't have used it on someone who committed that crime at that age.
leicsmac Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Even if we still had the death penalty we wouldn't have used it on someone who committed that crime at that age. This. The death penalty wouldn't have been relevant in this case. And that's a whole 'nother debate.
Guest ttfn Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 This is an absolutely freak case so making sweeping statements like "bring back the death penalty" doesn't sit right with me. Ultimately this guy served his time, was released, committed another crime and served his time again. Our justice system is founded on giving people a second chance, so long as they are not a danger to the public. Whether or not he is a danger to the public I don't think any of us really know.
Fox92 Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 He did something. He served time. He did something. He served time. He gets released. But don't worry everyone; "Because he'll never, never, never, never, never, never do it again Well, not until the next time" - The Smiths. Then he'll be back inside again. Doesn't sit right with me letting someone like this back into the public.
Guest ttfn Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 He did something. He served time. He did something. He served time. He gets released. But don't worry everyone; "Because he'll never, never, never, never, never, never do it again Well, not until the next time" - The Smiths. Then he'll be back inside again. Doesn't sit right with me letting someone like this back into the public. But you don't KNOW he'll re-offend. The parole board have taken the view that he won't and I'm sure they have access to far greater amounts and detail of information on this guy's state of mind and psychological profile than you've got. I'm not saying he should definitely be let out, just that the details are necessarily vague.
leicesterisme Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 This is an absolutely freak case so making sweeping statements like "bring back the death penalty" doesn't sit right with me. Ultimately this guy served his time, was released, committed another crime and served his time again. Our justice system is founded on giving people a second chance, so long as they are not a danger to the public. Whether or not he is a danger to the public I don't think any of us really know. I think the fact that he has been in prison, released and then commited another crime would suggest he is a danger to the public. He clearly didn't learn anything.
Guest ttfn Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 I think the fact that he has been in prison, released and then commited another crime would suggest he is a danger to the public. He clearly didn't learn anything. Not that time. Who's to say he didn't learn this time? If you fail your driving test twice should you not be able to take it a third time? None of us are close to the detail here, questioning the decision is understandable but I don't get the absolute conviction people have got that this must be the wrong thing to do.
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Not that time. Who's to say he didn't learn this time? If you fail your driving test twice should you not be able to take it a third time? None of us are close to the detail here, questioning the decision is understandable but I don't get the absolute conviction people have got that this must be the wrong thing to do. He's been in jail twice before thirty, once for sexually torturing a child before murdering him, then for trading and downloading pornographic pictures of a child. He was denied parole six months ago because he said 'sexually abusing a child is the most fantastic feeling in the World'. I'm 100% convinced releasing him into the public is not the right thing to do. But unfortunately, as we are 'tolerant' we'll have to ruin another person's life before we are allowed to get him back where he belongs.
Guest ttfn Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 He's been in jail twice before thirty, once for sexually torturing a child before murdering him, then for trading and downloading pornographic pictures of a child. He was denied parole six months ago because he said 'sexually abusing a child is the most fantastic feeling in the World'. I'm 100% convinced releasing him into the public is not the right thing to do. But unfortunately, as we are 'tolerant' we'll have to ruin another person's life before we are allowed to get him back where he belongs. Once was when he was 12. Nobody is the same person at 30 as at 12. Look, I must stress I'm not saying he should be let out. I read your previous post and a six-month turnaround on a parole opinion does seem mental. BUT the parole board aren't a bunch of malicious people out to deliberately put children at risk. They have far more information at their disposal than you and are far more experienced in getting these decisions right. They might be wrong in this instance, sadly only time will tell.
Parafox Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 He's been in jail twice before thirty, once for sexually torturing a child before murdering him, then for trading and downloading pornographic pictures of a child. He was denied parole six months ago because he said 'sexually abusing a child is the most fantastic feeling in the World'. I'm 100% convinced releasing him into the public is not the right thing to do. But unfortunately, as we are 'tolerant' we'll have to ruin another person's life before we are allowed to get him back where he belongs. Whilst I agree that, on the face of it, peoples gut reaction is to say he should never be let out. What he and Thompson did was utterly abhorrent. As ttfn has said, though, is that we as a society must exercise some degree of faith in the mechanisms involved in assessing whether a person is fit for release. In all cases that are considered for release, there must be strict criteria before it's given the go-ahead. We, the general public, have opinions based on what has gone before and even that is based on what is reported in the press. What we do not have are the full facts of the criteria that had to be met before release would be considered. It would not be a 2 hour meeting to decide this. It would be over several weeks if not longer and with all the professional bodies involved. I'm absolutely certain that the professional bodies that make up parole boards don't just think "well, he's done his time, we can let him go now".
Rincewind Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 I know someone that works with ex-offenders and he has said sentences are not long enough. He is talking about the short terms. He has said there is over a 12 month waiting list inside prison for rehabilitation and training programmes which is no use to a prisoner that does only six months at a time. No employer is going to take on a prisoner with no qualifications over a candidate with experience and qualifications. Even being on remand then being found not guilty can damage your prospects. One of my fears is being identified for a crime I did not do. It is still with you and people will say 'No smoke without fire.' Would an employer keep the job open if you have one? I have mixed feelings over this case though the part of me wants 'Justice' and the rational part of me is saaying that is revenge not justice. As in many similar cases I believe thjey should be treated fairly in accordance to the human rights charter, but if they topped themselves I would not shed a tear.
Guest MattP Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 I realise how parole boards work guys It's a very strange turnaround to get such a decision reversed in six months. I appreciate I don't have the facts, but I would really like to know what change has beene exerted in six months that he now doesn't see the sexual abuse of a child as the most fantastic thing in the world. Just can't help but feel sorry for the next poor fcuker who out there now who is going to end up suffering at the hands of this animal.
Tielemans63 Posted 5 July 2013 Posted 5 July 2013 Releasing him and giving him a new Honda? This is taking rehabilitation too far!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.