Jon Venables back in prison

I dont agree with the death penalty because essentially you are punishing someone for taking another persons life.....by taking thier life......hypocrisy much?.

I think the issue in the UK is the fact that murderers can be out of jail in as little as 7.5 years with good behavior. A 15 year sentence for murder is hardly a deterrant.

Whilst the USA still has plenty of murderers, 25 to life would be much more of a scary aspect to anybody thinking of commiting a murder, im sure.

These boys were 10 years old when they did this, I really dont think the fear of 15 years or life in prison...or even the death penalty would have stopped them. I have no idea what possessed them to do it and I dont believe anyone will ever find out.

Can you really blame the parents?. How could an upbringing cause a child to do something like that....im not sure

In my opinion, they should both be in prison until the day they die
Life should mean life
 
arclight said:
Daily Mirror has published more today and it appears that the Ministry of Justice (oxymoron) has released info to the Press Association (possibly to thwart the Mirror's exclusive).
Click to expand...

Ministry of Justice - sounds like it came straight out of a Batman comic :shake:

Kev M said:
It was interesting on question time last night to find out that there have only been four people in the UK who have been given a new identity. These two scrotes, that harriden Maxine Carr and some other woman I've never heard of.
Click to expand...

The other woman was Mary Bell who killed two boys, aged three and four, when she herself was just ten years old.

SarahLee said:
I've stayed out of this thread until now because I've had nothing to add that hasn't already been said - however, you do raise an interesting point Peter.

What exactly do we want the purpose of justice to be?
If you say it's purely to protect law abiding citizens, then why bother locking up anyone who is unlikely to re-offend or pose any threat to the rest of the population?
I'm thinking of the drunk drivers who lose control and kill an innocent bystander, or even those who have been locked up, but are deemed to be "rehabilitated".

Most people would agree that there are two other aspects to justice - both as a punishment and as a deterrent to others.

Then you have the question of rehabilitation.
More controversial and almost at odds with it being a punishment or deterrent.
Is it preferable to let somebody serve their time and then return as a useful member of society, or should the focus be so much on punishment that actually that person will probably never re-adapt to normal life?


To get back onto the original topic, IMO the justice system has failed on all the above counts in the case of Jon Venables.
But I just think that it's an interesting question to consider :shrug:
Click to expand...

I wonder how long it will be until Venables' "Human Rights" are cited as a valid reason to protect his identity? As far as I'm concerned if you take away another person's life then you forfeit any "right" you had to be treated as a human being.
 
CT said:
The 'angry mob' Gary, probably all remember the video footage of that poor little kid being led away by the hand from that shopping mall to be tortured at length and murdered by those two evil little monsters. It's simply not possible to do what they did if they had any vestige of human decency between them. If they'd have been one year younger it wouildn't have been possible to charge them with anything either.

What you're seeing in this thread is righteouis indignation from people who wonder when the judicial system is ever going to effectively protect people from the activities of worthless dross like these two.

Sorry mate but every time you post -and you are pretty predictable, you just sound like the looney liberals who have got us to where we are today.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
As far as I'm concerned if you take away another person's life then you forfeit any "right" you had to be treated as a human being.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a list of caveats.
 
SarahLee said:
I've stayed out of this thread until now because I've had nothing to add that hasn't already been said - however, you do raise an interesting point Peter.

What exactly do we want the purpose of justice to be?
If you say it's purely to protect law abiding citizens, then why bother locking up anyone who is unlikely to re-offend or pose any threat to the rest of the population?
I'm thinking of the drunk drivers who lose control and kill an innocent bystander, or even those who have been locked up, but are deemed to be "rehabilitated".

Most people would agree that there are two other aspects to justice - both as a punishment and as a deterrent to others.

Then you have the question of rehabilitation.
More controversial and almost at odds with it being a punishment or deterrent.
Is it preferable to let somebody serve their time and then return as a useful member of society, or should the focus be so much on punishment that actually that person will probably never re-adapt to normal life?


To get back onto the original topic, IMO the justice system has failed on all the above counts in the case of Jon Venables.
But I just think that it's an interesting question to consider :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think in this case, from what we are led to believe, he has commited some type of additonal crime (although we may never know for sure, as Gordon Brown says it is '' not in the public interest ''). Given the severity of the initial crime, it comes as no surpirse that he can't be trusted. Statistics suggest that many criminals re-offend, therefore it is aparent, that the justice system is failing in this country. In this particular case, he should at a minimum,have been locked away for a very long time, and not free to roam the streets with an new identity. In addition to a justice system, that supposedly rehabilitates the offender, there has to be a deterent. What message is this case sending out to the youngsters in this country.
 
Flash in the Pan wrote:-
I wonder how long it will be until Venables' "Human Rights" are cited as a valid reason to protect his identity? As far as I'm concerned if you take away another person's life then you forfeit any "right" you had to be treated as a human being.

Damned odd how the scumbag get's his identity protected when the overwhelming bulk of people who give evidence in court against some murdering gangster get no protection.
 
It seems Venables was returned to prison following 'serious child pornography allegations'.

CLICKY

This has to make him a continuing threat to society however you look at it.
 
Last edited:
And to be honest, the papers printing it have done a stupid bloody thing.

A very stupid bloody thing. If he was arrested for CP allegations...this has to go through the proper legal process which might now be thrown out due to unfair pressure because of the media reporting.

Well done Scum, well done. All for a few more papers eh?

No doubt you'll be baying for answers when it gets thrown out of court though, and saying how disgusting it is.
 
Flashman said:
Thompson & Venable's parents should also have been locked up for a long, long time. Parents of low life juveniles like these two might take a bit more responsibility for their offspring if the law punished them equally heavily for their children's crimes.
Click to expand...

Good point parents should be held equally responsible for their childrens actions
Pete
 
Marcel said:
And to be honest, the papers printing it have done a stupid bloody thing.

A very stupid bloody thing. If he was arrested for CP allegations...this has to go through the proper legal process which might now be thrown out due to unfair pressure because of the media reporting.

Well done Scum, well done. All for a few more papers eh?

No doubt you'll be baying for answers when it gets thrown out of court though, and saying how disgusting it is.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure any attempt will be made to put him through the court process.
He has to go in front of the parole board and they may just revoke his parole and imprison him.
 
arclight said:
I am not so sure any attempt will be made to put him through the court process.
He has to go in front of the parole board and they may just revoke his parole and imprison him.
Click to expand...

It depends on a number of risk factors. If he were to be convicted of further serious offences, then there are grounds to keep him inside under his Life Licence for a lot longer, as it could be demonstrably shown that he remains a risk to society. If no case is ever brought, and the National Offender Management Service cannot find any other evidenced risks of serious harm to the public, then the most he can be recalled to prison for is only 28 days, thanks to the Criminal Justice Act 2008.

That being said, I find it unlikely that they will not be able to find evidence that he poses an ongoing risk - most recalled prisoners, in my experience, end up going back for the duration of their prison term. How that will apply to Venables remains to be seen, but it will be far more effective if he is convicted of further offences.
 
Photo Plod said:
It depends on a number of risk factors. If he were to be convicted of further serious offences, then there are grounds to keep him inside under his Life Licence for a lot longer, as it could be demonstrably shown that he remains a risk to society. If no case is ever brought, and the National Offender Management Service cannot find any other evidenced risks of serious harm to the public, then the most he can be recalled to prison for is only 28 days, thanks to the Criminal Justice Act 2008.

That being said, I find it unlikely that they will not be able to find evidence that he poses an ongoing risk - most recalled prisoners, in my experience, end up going back for the duration of their prison term. How that will apply to Venables remains to be seen, but it will be far more effective if he is convicted of further offences.
Click to expand...

My thinking is that the gov appears to want to keep as much under wraps as possible (election soon and evidence that Venables has not been properly supervised or brought to account sooner is further indication of being soft on crime and is a vote loser) and that would be hard to do if he is processed through a public trial.
 
arclight said:
My thinking is that the gov appears to want to keep as much under wraps as possible (election soon and evidence that Venables has not been properly supervised or brought to account sooner is further indication of being soft on crime and is a vote loser) and that would be hard to do if he is processed through a public trial.
Click to expand...

I think you believe far too much in the power of the government. I work in the criminal justice system day in, day out, and this is the sort of process that goes on all the time. The only difference this time is that the suspect was previously involved in a case of national significance. That aside, the process will remain the same; premature disclosure of allegations and evidence will prejudice a fair trial, and that would see a guilty suspect walk free after an impassioned speech from his (legal aided) defence.
 
While not trying to sound like a liberal or a do-gooder, I agree about not releasing any information for the following reasons

1, It could hinder any prosecution of the said charges,

2, Is it in the public interest when he is now behind bars anyway and not in free society,

3, We are protecting perviously innocent people from possible prosecution from harming/committing a criminal offence against JV. This in itself could stop other families suffering torture because a loved one is in prison.

The problem we have is with our attitude/thirst to/for scandal.

We are all adults who can base a judgement on what we read in the press but are any of us more qualified than those whose job it is to tackle this horrendous predicament.

My best wishes go to the family of James B.
 
Nice post Tom:thumbs:

Following my initial disgust I've come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest to know what offence he has been recalled and will potentially be prosecuted for but not until after a trial has been conducted. To find out now would hinder any trial and I don't want any excuse for letting scumbags off on technicalities but I think it is in the public interest to know what, why and how he has committed any serious offence in order that we can judge on this governments ability to re-habilitate offenders. If they're letting people out without doing a good job then it's off with their heads in my book.
 
Photo Plod said:
I think you believe far too much in the power of the government. I work in the criminal justice system day in, day out, and this is the sort of process that goes on all the time. The only difference this time is that the suspect was previously involved in a case of national significance. That aside, the process will remain the same; premature disclosure of allegations and evidence will prejudice a fair trial, and that would see a guilty suspect walk free after an impassioned speech from his (legal aided) defence.
Click to expand...

If that is the case then why do we, almost daily, hear of people being arrested on suspicion of a particular offence, e.g. Ray Gosling arrested on suspicion of murder after televised revelations

Why cannot similar detail be given on Venables. That is all that needs to be said prior to trial.
I think the main public interest here is what has he been doing whilst out on licence and, if contrary to his conditions of release, why has it not been dealt with and who is responsible for not keeping control of the situation.
 
Ok stayed out of this so far but one comment on the news this morning made me realise what a sick society I live in.
It was a reference to the fact that if released John Venables would probably end up murdered by vigilantes. !!!
This is the only reason we are paying a fortune to keep his identity etc. a secret, he is behind bars, at present he is no risk to society, with any luck he will stay there if he has committed a serious offence, but are the papers making these various allegations in the hope that they will be denied by those in know, if they make enough eventually they will get to the right one
 
lock the little **** up and throw away the key and strip him from his identity. Ther eare too many doo gooders in this country that seem to live in safe fluffy clouds that have never been victims of crime and do not understand hurt of any kind that believe these worthless walking abortions deserve rights. I think he threw his rights away when he snubbed his conditions of bail. This country spends more time protecting the guilty and leaving the victims to suffer. People get longer prison sentences for not paying council tax than those who scar people for life in bottle attacks. Because you cant deny the precious government its tax money to squander in expenses. The justice system is all wrong here andi do believe we should bring back the death sentence for some serious crimes but i know it wont be allowed because too many beard growing, sandle wearing, recycled bycicle riding, doo gooders will kick up a fuss and the government always seem to listen to these people all the time.

My opinion is "if you think that murdering rapist deserves rights, lets see if you still think he deserves rights after one hour locked away with your daughter... oh and you have to watch." See how they feel afterwards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
whiteflyer said:
Should he have been let out in the first place, well I personally don't think so.

Now he is back in, but we don't know why. On the TV this morning it was explained there could be several reasons, one was he has not to be deemed a danger to the public, and that this could be due to mental illness. He may not have committed another crime as such.

If he has committed a crime, then he's had his (undeserved) chance, and should be locked up for good.


We should not have the death penalty for two reasons.

1) There are too many case where we have locked up innocent people by mistake.

2) If you look at people like Ian Braidy who wanted to go on hunger strike and die, or Harold Shipman who committed suicide, the reason they do that is because the can't face the prospect of never being let out.

How about giving them a good flogging and making them do some hard labour instead? I have a friend who is a police inspector, and he says that most of these thugs and murderers have quite a good time in prison nowadays. He reckons they have a better life than many pensioners who are still paying tax!
Click to expand...
 
bobsbabes said:
ok so my son just turned 11 Last year (when he was 10) he knew the difference between death on the telly and death in real life .He did not go out and kill someone cos he thought they would get up and walk again and be fine infact almost all 10yearolds understand the difference and that death is final .
If it was down to tv etc then there would be an awful lot more of this going on
Click to expand...

Of course he does! Let's not start putting the blame on tv. These two boys are sick little ********. They didn't need tv to put murder in their sick little heads. It's a disgrace that they were ever released from prison.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think people get ready to punish all to quickly.

Take a rapist for example. If he could be hypothetically treated to be a caring gentle man with no chance of carrying out violent behaviour, should he be set free ?

If yes, then you agree with me that rehabilitation is the aim of a civilised society.

If no, then what you want is revenge/punishment which is not - to me - anyway a helpful aim.

A very close family member of mine was sexually assaulted about 20 years ago so I have been through this in my head a lot.
 
Hodders said:
I think people get ready to punish all to quickly.

Take a rapist for example. If he could be hypothetically treated to be a caring gentle man with no chance of carrying out violent behaviour, should he be set free ?

If yes, then you agree with me that rehabilitation is the aim of a civilised society.

If no, then what you want is revenge/punishment which is not - to me - anyway a helpful aim.

A very close family member of mine was sexually assaulted about 20 years ago so I have been through this in my head a lot.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting, we are not living in a civilised society anymore. We are living in a society where an old man falls over on a train platform (true story) and hundreds of rushing commuters all step over him or round him because they are all too busy in a rush to help and not one person stopped to help.

A society in which people are terrorised in their homes by chavs and hood rats, yet no end of calls to the police will get them to do anything, yet when locals finally have enough and sort the problem out themselves are then treated as the guilty party.

A society where a lone farmer who was constantly burgled by pikeys and after police always seemed to shrug their sholders when they are called out, he finally had enough and shot one. Spent a few years in prison for defending his own property and having the other burglar constantly trying to sue the farmer for being shot in the leg by him even though the burglar was the one at fault in the first place.

A society where asylum seekers are put on top of the housing list over thousands of tax payers who have been waiting years for a bigger house and then after getting more handouts and treated like royalty then claim that everything in britain offends them, yet we have to accept it and not argue back otherwise we are being racist.

a society where a raped female tried desperatly to get a police officers help only to get a fine for public nudity (due to the rape) and forced into a minicab assuming she was just some drunk.

A society where old frail pensioners are too scared to leave their house because the local yobs have control of the neighborhood and police do nothing to sort the problem.

This is the society we live in and things just seem to get even more shocking every day
 
archamedes said:
lock the little **** up and throw away the key and strip him from his identity. Ther eare too many doo gooders in this country that seem to live in safe fluffy clouds that have never been victims of crime and do not understand hurt of any kind that believe these worthless walking abortions deserve rights. I think he threw his rights away when he snubbed his conditions of bail. This country spends more time protecting the guilty and leaving the victims to suffer. People get longer prison sentences for not paying council tax than those who scar people for life in bottle attacks. Because you cant deny the precious government its tax money to squander in expenses. The justice system is all wrong here andi do believe we should bring back the death sentence for some serious crimes but i know it wont be allowed because too many beard growing, sandle wearing, recycled bycicle riding, doo gooders will kick up a fuss and the government always seem to listen to these people all the time.

My opinion is "if you think that murdering rapist deserves rights, lets see if you still think he deserves rights after one hour locked away with your daughter... oh and you have to watch." See how they feel afterwards.
Click to expand...

archamedes said:
You are forgetting, we are not living in a civilised society anymore. We are living in a society where an old man falls over on a train platform (true story) and hundreds of rushing commuters all step over him or round him because they are all too busy in a rush to help and not one person stopped to help.

A society in which people are terrorised in their homes by chavs and hood rats, yet no end of calls to the police will get them to do anything, yet when locals finally have enough and sort the problem out themselves are then treated as the guilty party.

A society where a lone farmer who was constantly burgled by pikeys and after police always seemed to shrug their sholders when they are called out, he finally had enough and shot one. Spent a few years in prison for defending his own property and having the other burglar constantly trying to sue the farmer for being shot in the leg by him even though the burglar was the one at fault in the first place.

A society where asylum seekers are put on top of the housing list over thousands of tax payers who have been waiting years for a bigger house and then after getting more handouts and treated like royalty then claim that everything in britain offends them, yet we have to accept it and not argue back otherwise we are being racist.

a society where a raped female tried desperatly to get a police officers help only to get a fine for public nudity (due to the rape) and forced into a minicab assuming she was just some drunk.

A society where old frail pensioners are too scared to leave their house because the local yobs have control of the neighborhood and police do nothing to sort the problem.

This is the society we live in and things just seem to get even more shocking every day
Click to expand...

Well said. If you want to stand in the next election you have my vote!
 
Peter10d said:
Well said. If you want to stand in the next election you have my vote!
Click to expand...


All well and good but where or what offence do you draw the line at for severe punishment..........

This why we have so called experts, I know they are not always correct but 90% of the time they are and don't forget we only ever hear about high profile cases.

JV is where he belongs now and hopefully if the law can do it's job for the new offences, he will remain there for a very long time.
 
tiler65 said:
JV is where he belongs now and hopefully if the law can do it's job for the new offences, he will remain there for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Not if a baying mob headed by the Scum carry on, they won't be able to :(
 
tiler65 said:
All well and good but where or what offence do you draw the line at for severe punishment..........

This why we have so called experts, I know they are not always correct but 90% of the time they are and don't forget we only ever hear about high profile cases.

JV is where he belongs now and hopefully if the law can do it's job for the new offences, he will remain there for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Pre-meditated murder of a two year old child calls for severe punishment as far as I am concerned.
 
Peter10d said:
Pre-meditated murder of a two year old child calls for severe punishment as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree but the question was where do you draw the line, a punch in the gob by two kids fighting in a playground?
 
you can't let people know what he has been detained for, say for example it's for fighting and he gets charged with assault and the whole country knows he is up on an assault charge...everyone who is up on an assault charge is at risk at being treated as if they are John Venables, which means a whole load of unfair trails.

That said I think JV should be locked up for life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top