Protect the Innocent?

[Embattle]

With the courts decision to protect the anonymity of the James Bulger killers it seems to give new meaning to protecting the guilty.

I do see why they need protection, after all it enraged the public even more knowing that they would only serve less than 10 years, wow cost of a life seems to be falling

 

[*Kornholio*]

The ban is only for the English and Welsh press.... everyone else can identify the little fuckers... they'll get what's coming to them...

m00

 

[Guest]

This is exactly the sort of thread we DON'T need here.

 

[old.Quorthon]

Why not SoWat? Its general isnt it?

Anyway, I dont think they can ever be fully protected, someone somewhere will always know who they are, Im sure that rag the NOTW will get them and print their addresses for every vigilante in the country to read (if they can of course).

Q

 

[Guest]

Why not SoWat? Its general isnt it?

It's more the topic than where it's posted. There are few issues that are so emotive that they do absolutely no good. The Bulger case is one of them. People are just so polarised in their views that any 'debate' soon turns into something a lot uglier.

...and because this is a gaming site!

 

[*Kornholio*]

Live by the sword......

 

[old.Quorthon]

Originally posted by SoWat

Why not SoWat? Its general isnt it?

It's more the topic than where it's posted. There are few issues that are so emotive that they do absolutely no good. The Bulger case is one of them. People are just so polarised in their views that any 'debate' soon turns into something a lot uglier.

...and because this is a gaming site!

I agree with you to some extent Sowat, however, the "General" board has always (since Ive been ere anyway) had a diverse range of topics, from motors, to films, footie, current affairs, telecoms, whatever might be on their mind at all....Anything goes, if people step out of line, fair enough, clamp down on it, but until then I think you have to suck it and see.


Q

Q

 

[Guest]

We'll see how it goes then

The SUN readers must be getting to the last page by now (1:30pm), so we'll see if the mob instinct sniffs its way online!

 

[*Kornholio*]

The sun readers are still probably wanking off over page 3 m8 ;-)

 

[old.Quorthon]

Undoubtedly. Actually, having read various newspaper articles about the case recently, I think the debate should focus more on the validity of the release, rather than the issue of protection of identity. If you think the release is justified, then the protection issue is a no-brainer, they must be protected.

The debate should focus on the age at which criminal intent can be established, and the point at which ADult sentencing should be introduced for "children"


Q

 

[Guest]

Quorthorn!

A well reasoned, and debated, viewpoint...you sure you didn't post it here by mistake

 

[old.Anatoly]

But how long can an adult be imprisoned for murder?
I know the sentence is life, but what does that relate to in real terms?
Assuming they are well behaved when in jail can they not be out in like 10 years?
If so then the 8 for this pair is almost equal, although I have no idea how they have behaved while inprisoned.
Someone has started a petition for them to not be released here :
http://www.nomorelies.co.uk/petition.html

However it is hardly a reasonable argument when you have people who think the folowing:

"If they are released I feel that their right to protection from violence and intimidation should not be granted and their location and assumed identities should be released to the public."

Also is the released not just decided ultimately by the Home Secretary? In which case it can become a political decison rather than a moral/legal decision as it should be. ie Not in the best inteersts of the two people involved or the public, but of the people making the decision.

 

[Mr B]

Read "The Jigsaw Man" by Paul Britton.

He was the forensic psychologist assigned to help track down the killer(s), and also help construct the interview strategy used on the 2 children.

He describes the case in some detail, together with why he thinks they did what they did...

It's just more information for people to base their views on, rather than just what the press managed to get hold of at the time...including some aspects of the case that the press constantly overlook...

...anyway...

Read the book for more information...

Mr^B

(hope this doesn't offend anyone btw...I just hate to see ill-informed comments - of which I have no doubt there will be at some point...not yet though...thankfully...)

 

[old.Quorthon]

Mr B,

Could you please summarise Mr Brittons views concerning why he thinks they did what they did and what their "consciousness" of what they were doing was, for those of us unable to get it?

This essentially is the crux of the matter. If they were unaware of what they were doing at the time and are not now considered to be a threat to society then possibly their release is justified. If on the other hand they were calculating murderers fully aware of the implications of their actions, then no amount of good behaviour should be allowed to reduce their sentence. This, IMHO should apply to all prisoners, not just this special case.


Q

 

[*Kornholio*]

Excellent point Q !!! My, my, you're on top form today m8 !!! I think you're right though... if they knew what they were doing - hang the bastards... if it was just some sort of child's play gone horribly wrong - leave 'em alone (but then they wouldn't have been convicted if it was child's play would they ??) Presumably, the court decided that they are an evil pair of buggers and should be locked up... have they been reformed ?? Is the m00n really made of green cheese ?? Whatever... I won't be hunting them down personally, but i'm sure someone (just as sick ??) will be...

 

[old.Quorthon]

Originally posted by Kornholio[UC_UK]
(but then they wouldn't have been convicted if it was child's play would they ??)

I dont know the facts of the case in detail K, but can you imagine ANYONE getting a fair trial in this case given the public outcry/shock/horror/disgust at the time?

The fact is that most of the people out there who are clamouring for blood are stupid, as evidenced recently when certain paediatricians got burnt out of their homes following the NOTW's revelations concerning paedophiles. There is no accounting for what an angry mob might do.

Q

 

[Guest]

The fact is that most of the people out there who are clamouring for blood are stupid, as evidenced recently when certain paediatricians got burnt out of their homes following the NOTW's revelations concerning paedophiles. There is no accounting for what an angry mob might do.

That's the worrying part for me. I remember at the time of the trial, there was a sense of hysterical outrage (similar to the hysteria after Princess Dianas' death). I can remember, watching on TV, some guy leaping across a cordon of police to try and get at the two kids. What would he have done if he'd actually managed to get hold of them..killed them? Two kids?

The mentality of a mob is beyond reasoning and, that alone, is a good reason for secrecy.

 

[Mr B]

OK, I'll try and summarise as best I can.

A KEY point for me is that after leaving the shopping center with the child, the 2 boys had a number of opportunities to stop what they were doing - because they were stopped by a number of people on their way to the railway track...

The most important event was when they were stopped by a woman (who saw a small child crying being accompanied by two older children). When asked "what's going on?" they replied that the child was lost and that they were taking him to the police station.

The nearest police station actually overlooked the spot on the railway track where the body was found...and so is a quite plausable explanation...

This points to:

a) the intelligence to lie convincingly.
b) they fact that knew they were doing something wrong.

There are a number of witnesses who were probably thinking "If only...." - but when you see 3 young boys out, the youngest is crying you will tend to think "oh, those 2 boys have been landed with looking after their baby brother for the afternoon - or something...".

The basic upshot is that they:

a) lured away a toddler from his mother.
b) managed to evade detection whilst in the shopping center and outside it
c) lied to people to cover their tracks (although if they were more mature they would have probably picked another less well-used route).
d) as horrible as it may sounds (and again, my apologies to anyone who finds this offensive) - they tried to cover their tracks by leaving the body on the railway line - probably (but not definately) hoping that the massive damage inflicted by a passing train would cover the fact that he had been abused prior to death.
e) They had items on them that they used to torture the child - all of which were bought previously - which again points to pre-meditation.

I'm sure there's more - I'll OCR the relevant bits from the book if anyone's interested.

Mr^B

 

[Wij]

The main concern I have is that this seems to set a new legal precedent. Now all criminals can say "Thompson/Venebles got anonymity. I should be allowed it too."

Seems a bit suss imo.

 

[Guest]

Now all criminals can say "Thompson/Venebles got anonymity. I should be allowed it too."

Apparently the two young men are regarded as being 'uniquely notorious', and so this ruling shouldn't apply to every con who fancies his/her chances.

 

[*Kornholio*]

As far as i've heard, the main reason these two are getting anonymity is because of the change in their physical appearances in the past 8 years... makes it easier to hide 'em, whereas adult criminals don't change much... hopefully it's not setting a precedent... just imagine all the peadophiles getting new identities !!!!! Insane !!!! The whole legal system seems to be going from one extreme to the other... name and shame, then hide and seek...

 

[old.Quorthon]

It would never happen with Paedophiles K because they are considered to be a danger to the community, nor do I think it would be considered a precedent for other criminals. BTW, this happens all the time, with Witness Protection schemes etc where total scumbags get immunity in return for grassing up on bigger fish - its just the particular nature of this one that warrants special treatment. You see, in this case, the 2 boys are probably no longer considered by law to be criminals, ie have shown remorse, good character, no longer a danger to society etc (whether you believe this or not), which is distinctly different from some geezer who robs a bank and just serves his time.


Q

 

[Wij]

I see your point but many people will see it as the thin end of the wedge. Once the principal is allowed by such a ruling the actual application on a case-by-case basis is only a matter of degree and is therefore open to interpretation.

 

[*Kornholio*]

People will agree, people will disagree... it's the nature of the beast... As for the peadophiles Q, i was just taking it to the opposite extreme... i know they wouldn't do it, but then again, they don't really do what they should with those sick bastards....

 

[Ono]

Barrysworld is a Gaming service and its forums should lean towards gaming and the gaming community.

The two kids that killed Jamie Bulger are not in either catergory IMHO.

I am sure that there are forums to discuss the legal rights (wrongs) that these two individuals have (shouldn't have) but I agree with SoWat on this.

Embattle please close and delete this thread or point them in the direction of the forum on your own web-site where you can carry the discussion on.

 

[old.Quorthon]

Erm Ono

I agree with you and Sowat that there is possibly a danger that on these boards a thread such as this might degenerate into summat that is downright dangerous. However, it hasnt done so yet, and given the general nature of the board, I dont think anyone has the right to decide what is or isnt appropriate for discussion. In the short time (6-8 mths) I have been around, there have been far worse things discussed. Now that you know what the thread is about, it is your choice whether you want to read it or not, no?

However, as soon as someone from Barrysworld puts up a notice stating the content nature expected in each Board I will abide by it, have no fear.


Q

 

[old.frankie]

I agree Q

Ive been here for a long while and i think i know what is ok and not. Respect ya elders...

anyway, bout this thing, i dont know anything about this case, nor do i want to that much. All i see is the media being stupid as usual, the public doing the same, and the truth being distorted by beurocratic idiots. The way i see it is that these kids made a big time mistake, but its not really their fault, its the place where they were brought up in, how old were they, 10 ?

ffs at 10 i didnt know anything, and TBH if i wanted to go and kill someone, and was determined to do it, at 10 you dont have any second thoughts. Its like i want it and i want it now sorta thing.

but i dont know anything so take no notice of what ive just said.

 

[Embattle]

Sowat....you're not a mod, and the same applies to you ono. At the end of the day I'm a gamer, one who has been around some time, and although not a gaming issue I don't see a problem with it. What the hell does half the threads in this board have to gaming, of course the Moo thread is very relevant to games

At the end of the day I'm getting sick and tired of seeing people get life and walking out of prison 15 years later. As far as I'm concerned its not only about being a danager to the public or being reformed. They go to prison also as a punishment for what they did and because of this they should not of been out in less than 10 years.

Even I knew what I would get in trouble for as a youngster and find that kids, while meant to be getting more mature, seem to be able to get away with doing things over and over without any real punishment.

 

[Embattle]

As for judges, they're ven more of a joke....in fact the whole legal system in this country stinks and needs some major fixing.

 

[nothing]

A serious thread at last. There aint enough of these.
The price of a human life is always and only ever equal to a human life. There is nothing else that will pay sufficiently. But before we condemn others, do we have the right to decide whether someone dies? Only justice can decide, and only with a completely objective decision can we be sure that justice has been done. Therefore there will always be doubt; as there can be no person who could ever make a decision that is completely objective, there must always be doubt as to justice.
You may conclude from this that I think there is a higher morality, i.e. a set of laws that exist without any kind of person deciding they are there; that these laws are seated in the consciousness; and that reason is what allows us to percieve these laws. Thankyou for paying attention in my lecutre; you may now leave.