Justice is served?!?!!

[Ch3tan]

Teeds?

It's a good guess, but it's not right.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So your correlating the desire not to mass murder with an individual's economic stability with some of those points?

Ngh...well, i hate to do this but, second changes eh?;

Simply because a job helps with rehabilitation, doesn't mean that it's the only measure for rehabilitation and/or it's success and it's a lot more complex then "Mr X can hold a hammer, let him go!"

EDIT; after reading the edit, not sure i should've.

 

[Bugz]

I just don't consider the fact 'something could help' a resounding argument.

Most serial killers are characterized by an inability to keep a job. But they are also characterized by a long list of emotional and psychological occurrences. Most would attribute the second as the cause of the first.

Thus, teaching them about work etc isn't going to solve the problem without sorting out the emotional and pyshcological occurrences. IF you can sort them, then hopefully their ability to keep a job would flow with it.

But then Corran suggested from his mum in laws' experience, they can't be fixed. So if we can't fix the cause of one issue, trying to tackle that issue independently is a bit void.

 

[noblok]

So your correlating the desire not to mass murder with an individual's economic stability with some of those points?

Any hypothesis etc. to back this up? Or are we plucking 'maybe this could happen, maybe that could happen.'

I'll reiterate: the point wasn't about "mr. X who murdered countless of children", but about prisoners in general. Psychopaths are probably just as likely to be born in families with a low economic status as in families with a high economic status.

However, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that there's a correlation between crime and lower socio-economic status.

 

[Bugz]

I'll reiterate: the point wasn't about "mr. X who murdered countless of children", but about prisoners in general. Psychopaths are probably just as likely to be born in families with a low economic status as in families with a high economic status.

Can you back that up with any data? I personally don't know the answer so it'll be intriguing to hear where you base this 'probably' from? (Not a dig - I merely want to see the intuition behind it).

P.S - Ofcourse prisoners in general it would apply but this thread has ran into the subject of mass murders etc.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I just don't consider the fact 'something could help' a resounding argument.

Most serial killers are characterized by an inability to keep a job. But they are also characterized by a long list of emotional and psychological occurrences. Most would attribute the second as the cause of the first.

Thus, teaching them about work etc isn't going to solve the problem without sorting out the emotional and pyshcological occurrences. IF you can sort them, then hopefully their ability to keep a job would flow with it.

But then Corran suggested from his mum in laws' experience, they can't be fixed. So if we can't fix the cause of one issue, trying to tackle that issue independently is a bit void.

Everything -can- help, nothing is certain. You -can- teach a kid maths like they taught you, but nothing quarantees they'll learn it. All you -can- do is try. So 'something could help' is the only logical and likely way to put it.

The main problem here is that you took my answer to someone elses post(off the topic mind you) about jobs in prison helping with rehabilitation(as they partly do) as me saying "working prisoners = cured prisoners" which i never did. Also you're basing too much of the discussion on your view of how the discussion is, which leads to you believing people aren't talking about the subject, while they very well might be.

Even if one area might fail, independent tackling of several issues is the only way to fix things, if you count out bullets, nukes and orbital cannons.

 

[Bugz]

I didn't take it to mean "working prisoners = cured prisoners" at all.

I said 'encouraged.'

I gave my argument in the post you just quoted as to why I don't think having a job in jail will encourage them to rehabilitate (or it'll be a 'maybe for him,' 'not so for her' occurence which is just meh). Of course anything could help but the question becomes is it substantial enough.

Of course, if you meant that in general criminals who work in jail are more likely to rehabilitate then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But because Corran's post opened with pedophilia and that was the course of the topic previously, I merely assumed you were refering to mass murderers etc.

End!

 

[Thorwyn]

I think you guys are mixing up people with criminal energy and people with mental dysfunctions. While having a job would certainly be a positive impulse for the first group, I think it´s close to useless for the latter group, because their actions are not a result of their social background.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I didn't take it to mean "working prisoners = cured prisoners" at all.

I said 'encouraged.'

I gave my argument in the post you just quoted as to why I don't think having a job in jail will encourage them to rehabilitate (or it'll be a 'maybe for him,' 'not so for her' occurence which is just meh). Of course anything could help but the question becomes is it substantial enough.

Of course, if you meant that in general criminals who work in jail are more likely to rehabilitate then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But because Corran's post opened with pedophilia and that was the course of the topic previously, I merely assumed you were refering to mass murderers etc.

End!

Fair enough and i did mean criminals in general, meaning that working in prisons helps with rehabilitation, in other words, are more likely to.

Though we do disagree on even the most hardcore cases, as if working in jail works even for one mass murdering person, it's still improvement in my opinion.

Oh and; "which leads to you believing" was meant to say "could lead you to believe" in my previous post, didn't mean to imply that you do.

 

[kiliarien]

It has been interesting reading this thread, but it seems to have come down to another old.Tohtori day at the FH office:



Rehab for mental conditions (and I hope we all agree that Sutcliffe has some mental issues) is both semantic and subjective. Society dictates the laws. 'We' don't want him in mainstream society. I hope it stays that way.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Killarien, it might be funny if it was at all true.

 

[Golena]

The funny thing is Toht is actually right here.

If you assume that there's no way any of these people can be rehabilitated then you should just kill them. The only way to tell if they have been rehabilitated is to let them apply for parole and let someone with far more sense and knowledge than most people arguing in this thread make that descision.

I know i'd believe the opinion of a trained professional who has actually observed the individual in question over people who have never met him and gained all their facts from the news of the world.

Now it's highly unlikely that he'll get out, but if you take away his ability to try, then where do you draw the magic line that means you lose that right?
Does someone who stole a car at the age of 15 have a chance to apply for parole when they are 70? Or should we keep them locked up because they might do it again? Ofc not!

Where in the big large grey area in the middle of these 2 cases does that hard right losing line appear, an who decides which side of it you get to fall on? Maybe a FH poll attached to a news article?

 

[kiliarien]

The funny thing is Toht is actually right here.

If you assume that there's no way any of these people can be rehabilitated then you should just kill them. The only way to tell if they have been rehabilitated is to let them apply for parole and let someone with far more sense and knowledge than most people arguing in this thread make that descision.

I know i'd believe the opinion of a trained professional who has actually observed the individual in question over people who have never met him and gained all their facts from the news of the world.

Now it's highly unlikely that he'll get out, but if you take away his ability to try, then where do you draw the magic line that means you lose that right?
Does someone who stole a car at the age of 15 have a chance to apply for parole when they are 70? Or should we keep them locked up because they might do it again? Ofc not!

Where in the big large grey area in the middle of these 2 cases does that hard right losing line appear, an who decides which side of it you get to fall on? Maybe a FH poll attached to a news article?

This is over-generalisation in that we are talking about Sutcliffe (well, at least I am).

There is a relation between a crime and its severity of punishment - if I stole a car and was let out within 3 months on parole would I feel as if I had had a chance of rehabilitation or just 'done time' for being naughty? Also, include the level of subjectivity - would you trust a trained professional to carry out what is right in terms of parole if one of the victims was your sister/auntie etc? Hard call that one.

Personally, to say someone who isn't able to be rehabilitated should just be put down isn't right either - I for one believe if I were to ever pass such a judgement on someone and have them killed, then my soul (if indeed it exists as a cobweb of morals and ethics) would be eroded. I hope it is a decision I would never have to make, whether in self defence or any other way.

Your large grey area is indeed a fitting analogy Golena - the moral compass strikes differently for everyone I suspect.

 

[Thorwyn]

Also, include the level of subjectivity - would you trust a trained professional to carry out what is right in terms of parole if one of the victims was your sister/auntie etc? Hard call that one.

That´s where law conflicts with personal revenge. If someone would kill one of my family, I would feel the urge of taking revenge. But it´s not the business of the society to be a tool of my personal feelings.
The law has to be free of such emotions, otherwise it´s not souvereign.

 

[Hawkwind]

I thought Sutcliff was in Broadmoore which is not technically a prison at all. It is a secure hospital. Their moto is that the prisoners are mad and not bad!

 

[georgie]

... it´s not the business of the society to be a tool ...

hur hur hur

You said tool.

hur hur

:worthy:

 

[kiliarien]

That´s where law conflicts with personal revenge. If someone would kill one of my family, I would feel the urge of taking revenge. But it´s not the business of the society to be a tool of my personal feelings.
The law has to be free of such emotions, otherwise it´s not souvereign.

Indeed I agree - but that's what I'm intonating at. Law is made so by the consensus of the heinous nature of the crime. I would not want to take revenge, but I would damn well find it hard to think they could be rehabilitated and be back out on the streets.

The sovereignty of law isn't under question (even though it's not sovereign law anyway at this juncture and never will be again) it's whether you would TRUST that trained professional. You have suggested that you would want to take revenge, intrinsically does that mean you don't trust their professional opinion, law or not?

Just wondering - it's nice to see people discussing both emotive and unemotional points, even though frankly through a forum one is easier than the other!

 

[georgie]

I suppose this is kinda related to what we're talking about:

BBC News - James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Hard to believe it was 17 years ago.

 

[BloodOmen]

everyone can change however it doesnt excuse what he did, I mean would you want to see someone that killed 13 children walk the streets again? no different from what he did to the 13 birds he killed... can't say I would, people like him that commit such crimes should be perma locked in the loony bin regardless of human rights... its human rights bollocks that get half of these sick fucks off.

 

[Thorwyn]

You have suggested that you would want to take revenge, intrinsically does that mean you don't trust their professional opinion, law or not?

Maybe the word revenge was too strong or misleading. Maybe there´s a more appropriate word out there but I can´t seem to find it. What I mean is, that if you´re directly affected, you have a different approach to the case and how it should be handled.

No, I don´t trust their professional opinions. Not because I know better, but simply because it has been proven many times that their opinion can be wrong.

 

[Calaen]

I suppose this is kinda related to what we're talking about:

BBC News - James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Hard to believe it was 17 years ago.

This still makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, even trying to imagine what that poor child was going through makes me well up.

I would like to hear opinions of people that are not parents, I mean personally this stuff does concern me, and the thought of anyone intentionally hurting Eden, actually scares me, because of how I feelI would respond to that.

 

[fettoken]

So, they got sentenced to life at the age of 10?! Unbelivable.

 

[dub]

either you have the same judicial system for all citizens or you have no system....

i know what i would choose.

 

[soze]

So, they got sentenced to life at the age of 10?! Unbelivable.

It was a massive deal all based on proving they knew what they did was wrong. When it was proved they did they were taken to a detention centre.

 

[Calaen]

So, they got sentenced to life at the age of 10?! Unbelivable.

They kidnapped a two year old boy, took him to a railway track and beat him to death using iron bars, and dropping large rocks onto him.

They should have been excecuted. Anyone that disturbed should not be given a second chance at anything.

Evil is Evil no matter how old it's in their heads.

 

[fettoken]

Evil is Evil no matter how old it's in their heads.

Evil is evil huh. Yeah it is actually.

 

[Gray]

They kidnapped a two year old boy, took him to a railway track and beat him to death using iron bars, and dropping large rocks onto him.

They should have been excecuted. Anyone that disturbed should not be given a second chance at anything.

Evil is Evil no matter how old it's in their heads.

Wasn't just that, i believe because the body was left on the railway tracks a train actually hit him.

Wasn't pretty.

There was rumour that one of the boys moved to my town a few years ago under a new identity, obviously it was never confirmed due to the nature of the change of identity.

One of the worst crimes i've ever heard of anyway.

 

[fettoken]

Venables has an evil look in his eyes im sure everyone noticed.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Venables has an evil look in his eyes im sure everyone noticed.

Media at work *two thumbs up*

Not particulary aimed at you, but this is a funny reaction every time. Finding evil where evil needs to found really. People love if there's something to blame and panic if there's not, yet evil is as vague as a concept as god

So, the case(short answer last line);

Two kids, age 10, know f*ck all(as is this forums census), kill a 2 year old.

Life seems harsh as they are just kids, but i'd like to think they were given really thorough examinations by top dogs, who then decided that putting them in "Murderer kindergarden" or "Killer Highschool" would be the appropriate action. Note the tone, it's intentional. They knew, in any case, that this would turn them into bad individuals. Imagine if you had lived in prison for your pre-/teenage years.

Other options should've been there, but most likely a pressure of public hasted he things, which is often the case.

Also parenting should've taken a front seat in this case, not the kids alone. (don't know case, might have been)

If the event was; "10 year old finds dads gun, shoots 2 year old little brother." it wouldn't be as shocking, yet the result and action were same.

Or perhaps; "Little league kid swings bat, hits kid, 2 year old dead.", easily could've been seen as an accident even if it wasn't, same with the gun.

So a short answer; murder is murder, death is death, circumstances are irrelevant, yet do these kids -really- know it was murder?

 

[fettoken]

So a short answer; murder is murder, death is death, circumstances are irrelevant, yet do these kids -really- know it was murder?

I remember clearly when i was 6 or 7 years old. I knew that it was not a good idéa to beat someone to death / shoot them or what not. I shot a few birds at that age too, and felt it was not the nicest thing to do.

Some peoples brains are just wired the wrong way. And circumstances are not irrelevant.