1 edit
Venables, who murdered the 2-year James Bulgar in 1997 and who was released from custody prematurely in 2001, has been recalled to prison for having breached the terms of his release license but details have been witheld despite public concern.
Why is it that the welfare of criminals of all descriptions from child murderers to muzzie terrorists takes precedence over all else in Britain today?
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoThe murder was committed in 1993 not 1997. The 10 year old killers were sentenced - somewhat bizarrely - to life in prison. They were not released "prematurely" - that is not a technical or legal term I have ever come across before - but were released on parole after 9 years in prison. Venables is now 27 years old and is not considered a danger to society. His parole violation was picked up on and he has been taken back into custody. The system seems to be working as it should. Stating - or extrapolating - that this case shows that "the welfare of criminals [...] takes precedence over all else in Britain today" sounds a bit silly, frankly.
Venables, who murdered the 2-year James Bulgar in 1997 and who was released from custody prematurely in 2001, has been recalled to prison for having breached the terms of his release license but details have been witheld despite public concern.
Why is it that the welfare of criminals of all descriptions from child murderers to muzzie terrorists takes precedence over all else in Britain today?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra...but things can seem ok for common men like Sartor if only they can successfully lurch from Daily Mail headline to Daily Mail headline.
Because prisons are just like five star hotels and ivory tower politicians only fill their pockets and don't listen to the common man.
Originally posted by FMFIt's rather bizarre indeed that the treatment of something as exceptional as a 10 year old murderer would be characteristic of anything.
The murder was committed in 1993 not 1997. The 10 year old killers were sentenced - somewhat bizarrely - to life in prison. They were not released "prematurely" - that is not a technical or legal term I have ever come across before - but were released on parole after 9 years in prison. Venables is now 27 years old and is not considered a danger to society. His p ...[text shortened]... riminals [...] takes precedence over all else in Britain today" sounds a bit silly, frankly.
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoMichael Howard, Tory Home Secretary at the time and seldom regarded as 'soft' on crime or criminal ordered that the pair serve at least 15 years. David Blunkett, Home Secretary at the time of their release some eight years after their conviction (around half-way through Howard's arbitrary recommendation when they had turned 18), was persuaded by psychotherapists and others that they no longer posed a danger to society (they were, apparently, by that point quite capable of understanding the enormity of what they had done and equally capable of expressing the remorse that will, without shadow of a doubt, be with them every single day for as long as they live) and accepted the parole board's recommendation that they be released.
Venables, who murdered the 2-year James Bulgar in 1997 and who was released from custody prematurely in 2001, has been recalled to prison for having breached the terms of his release license but details have been witheld despite public concern.
Why is it that the welfare of criminals of all descriptions from child murderers to muzzie terrorists takes precedence over all else in Britain today?
The lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, had this to say as he ordered Venables and Thompson to be held outwith the prison system, instead to undergo extensive psychotherapy in a controlled environment:
"We ought not to forget that, although they committed those very serious crimes, they were first of all human beings, and secondly they were children. Children can do things when they are children that they would never do in later life when they had matured and appreciated."
It would, to my mind, have been only to match barbarism with barbarism to throw away the key after what Venables and Thompson had done as children, and to say that those ten year old boys ought to spend the next seven or eight decades in near-isolation within the prison estate. We don't yet know why Venables has been recalled to prison, although we probably will find out in time. Then we will be able to discuss the lessons for rehabilitation programmes that might need to be learned, but the ugly, populist and hateful Daily Heil nonsense of the OP makes my stomach turn.
Originally posted by FMFThe 10 year old killers were sentenced - somewhat bizarrely - to life in prison
The murder was committed in 1993 not 1997. The 10 year old killers were sentenced - somewhat bizarrely - to life in prison. They were not released "prematurely" - that is not a technical or legal term I have ever come across before - but were released on parole after 9 years in prison. Venables is now 27 years old and is not considered a danger to society. His p ...[text shortened]... riminals [...] takes precedence over all else in Britain today" sounds a bit silly, frankly.
indeed, a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient.
Venables is now 27 years old and is not considered a danger to society.
in what way is he "not a danger to society"?
The system seems to be working as it should. Stating - or extrapolating - that this case shows that "the welfare of criminals [...] takes precedence over all else in Britain today" sounds a bit silly, frankly.
well, the facts suggest the system is clearly not working considering criminals often get a mild punishment for hideous crimes, but if FMF says it is then it must be true.
Originally posted by generalissimoSo the goal of the system, in your view, is to severely punish crimes?
[b]The 10 year old killers were sentenced - somewhat bizarrely - to life in prison
indeed, a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient.
Venables is now 27 years old and is not considered a danger to society.
in what way is he "not a danger to society"?
The system seems to be working as it should. Stating - or extrapolatin ...[text shortened]... often get a mild punishment for hideous crimes, but if FMF says it is then it must be true.
Not to actually prevent crimes and make sure those who did commit them are able to function in society after serving their sentences?