The Bulger killers: was justice done?

[WannaBeWonderWoman]

Following on from previous thread which was filled.

What would have been the correct way to deal with these little boys who subjected a tiny two year old to protracted agony and unimaginable suffering then?

Interested to know what all the bleeding hearts on here believe should have happened? Whether they attended an adult court and were convicted of murder which they confessed to anyway, was this crueller to them than what they put that child through? They were well treated and even when they were serving their 'sentence' they were protected and given all they wanted (more than they would have got if they'd been in their own homes probably) and had all the help and therapy it was possible to give them. Did they suffer? You could actually argue that they benefitted from killing. They have to live with what they've done, yes, but if they did I find it hard to comprehend that Thompson especially (who came across as the leader in the interviews) can.

The Norwegian case which is often compared to this is nowhere similar IMO. The perpetrators were a similar age to their victim. They were 6 which is almost half the age V&T were and they wouldn't have been tried here anyway. Most importantly that crime was not premeditated or drawn out for hours like the many horrors inflicted on James.

He was the only victim here.

The death penalty is a sickening thing.

Even when set against what some people - Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting, Mark Bridget for example - have done; even though keeping them fed and warm and away from other inmates costs a fortune that they'll never repay - there is still something very disturbing about the state taking life.

Berry - not meaning to be goady, honestly, but then why would you read/post on the thread?

I think a discussion on what justice should look like in this case is an interesting one. But rehashing the day, the witnesses, the details, I just don't see what people are getting out of that.

I don't think true justice will ever be done. Whatever the eventual outcome, James will still be dead, his parents still robbed of their son. I do however think that, in light of Venable's paedophilia, his identity privileges should be revoked or he should spend the rest of his life in a secure unit. Revoking his identity may cause him to be in danger but it would be incredibly difficult for me to have sympathy for him. There are no words for the hell they put that poor baby through. The people assessing them believed they both knew right from wrong

bakedbeans I would without a doubt murder someone who did that to a child of mine.

Stringvegetables and sleepingbunniee

It's really offensive to Denise Fergus when you say you would murder someone who did that to your child, because you're saying you are better mothers than Denise.

She did see RT and she didn't kill him, because she is a decent person thinking about and living for her existing sons.

No one is impressed by your maternal bravado so just stop it.

@berryferry agree the posts along the lines of "think about how she felt when she let go of his hand / think about what they did to him" just reeks of emotional vampiresm. People getting a thrill from being shocked and upset.

T's home life was very violent and that will have played a part in making him capable of horrendous violence. It obviously isn't an excuse, it's something to be taken into account. Separated from the violent home life, he's proved himself capable of being rehabilitated

But you dont know this. if he has a psychopathic personality disorder for example he is incapable of being rehabilitated. Psychopaths dont feel guilt, remorse or empathy so are more than capable of living with killing a fellow human being.

We are heading into the realms of speculation on RT though. Reality is that to the best of our knowledge RT has not re-offended. In accordance with the justice system in this country he has served the part of his sentence which required that he be incarcerated and has undergone whatever programmes he needed to undergo to ensure rehabilitation. He is now on life licence, but it is not for people on the internet to presume that he “clearly hasn’t been rehabilitated” when we know nothing of the sort.

True, @LagunaBubbles I should say, as far as we know. Mary Bell was rehabilitated, though, so it is possible. We would know if he'd been caught offending, the media would have delighted in reporting it.

What I think is really scary about people like that getting new identitys is the fact they can go on and have families of their own and their partner wont know that they had committed such a horrific crime. It seems the injustice is never ending.

baby don’t rewrite any post - especially one that I never wrote to twist it in to something that fits your agenda. It’s weird. Unless you see it printed, don’t rewrite it or accuse people of something they did not write because your argument means nothing because it was never written ...

Also you are not a spokeswoman for JB mother so don’t proclaim to know what’s offensive to her. Unless you know her personally don’t speak for her or claim to know what she knows. Do you know her baby?

butchy child pornography does not exist. What you are discribing is child abuse . The word pornography is derived from the Greek word meaning prostitute. These kids are not prostitutes. Yes the term is still commonly used but it doesn’t mean we still have to use it.

We are heading into the realms of speculation on RT though. Reality is that to the best of our knowledge RT has not re-offended

Yes agree.

He is now on life licence, but it is not for people on the internet to presume that he “clearly hasn’t been rehabilitated” when we know nothing of the sort

And this equally applies to "people on the internet saying he HAS been rehabilitated" to......which is why I disagree with people who say he has been rehabilitated, we dont know that either.

Lovely456, as has been mentioned several times, as part of their life license, V&T have to tell their partner of their real identity.

What I think is really scary about people like that getting new identitys is the fact they can go on and have families of their own and their partner wont know that they had committed such a horrific crime. It seems the injustice is never ending.

One of the terms of release is that they must divulge their past to potential partners. It's been said a million times on this thread.

laguna when I think of T I think of that situation. Maybe he is just too clever and knows how to behave.

It's really offensive to Denise Fergus when you say you would murder someone who did that to your child, because you're saying you are better mothers than Denise.

I don't agree with Stringvegetables or Sleepingbunnie AT ALL, and I find the sentiment that they'd be willing to murder (presumably) a child quite chilling.

However, I don't think they are saying they think they're better mothers than Denise Fergus.

And this equally applies to "people on the internet saying he HAS been rehabilitated" to......which is why I disagree with people who say he has been rehabilitated, we dont know that either.

We know he hasn't been arrested for any crime since he has been released. What other proof do you want?

laguna when I think of T I think of that situation. Maybe he is just too clever and knows how to behave

Oh for gods sake maybe we need to deploy the thought police on him? This isn't an episode of black mirror you know.

Interesting to note that the judge himself/herself refers to 'child pornography' possessed by Venables in his sentencing remarks, not 'images of child sexual abuse'.

lovely their partners would know, it's part of the terms of their license that they have to inform partners.

I have just spent some time googling, and understand that an under-18 who has committed murder should serve 12 years in prison (or equivalent) and then be on a life licence. If another offence is committed (or if it is about to be committed) then they will be returned to prison.

So on the strength of the above, these boys served less than the normal tariff.

What I don't understand is why for jv's latest offence he has only been sentenced to three years, given that the nature of this is related to his original crime. He didn't commit a burglary, or fraud - he was on the dark web accessing the very worst of material. If this had been a first time offender and the usual tariff is three years, then so be it. But if he is on licence (i.e. the crime is not spent) then why the leniency?

Butchy they're not saying that, but that is the implication.

Butchy they're not saying that, but that is the implication.

I would read it more as an admission - albeit a totally unashamed one - that they lack self control.

The idea that most child killers can be rehabilitated and go on to lead normal lives really bothers a lot of people. I think this is because it shows that really, they are fundementally much like everybody else, which isn't a message most people want to hear. Much more comforting to believe they are some sort of evil "other" .

Thanks babyccino grumblebumble I didnt see that.
Berryferry no need to be rude is there!