Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder how many people actually understand

194 replies

TheLadyEvenstar · 15/03/2010 11:40

How it feels for the Victim and victims family when a criminal is released or escapes and then reoffends?

I have one hell of a lot of sympathy for James Bulgers family and to some extent understand how she is feeling right now.

1993 little James was murdered, that was also the year i was sexually and violently assaulted, no the 2 were not connected. But one thing that does connect them is Jack Straw made a bad decision on both cases.

He made the final decision on releasing the Bulger killers and also the final decision on moving my attacker from Rampton to Prestwich hospital - the result in both has been awful.

For Denise and her family they had to be notified when these 2 were released, and now that Venables is back inside after commiting another crime - level 4 child pornography - just one less than beastiality and violent pornography/acts.

For myself I was contacted in 2006 to tell me the criminal who attacked me had escaped and was on the loose. Took from November 2006 - March 2007 for him to be caught and then only because he reoffended did that happen.

I know the dread i felt daily and the pain it caused me and my family. Imagine being glad your Dad, in my case, was no longer alive to know he had escaped and that the man who had hurt me was on the loose to do the same to another woman.

Its easy to say, they were children/too young/difunctional family etc but at the end of the day the sympathy should not be with the criminals but the forgotten victims - THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS. Because they will never forget what their child/parent/sibling went through.

OP posts:
ooojimaflip · 15/03/2010 14:22

Steve Earle

ShowOfHands · 15/03/2010 14:23

Gino D'Acampo.

mayorquimby · 15/03/2010 14:24

stanley tookie williams - responsible for an obscene amount of murders but later renounced violence and gang-banging and worte childrens books and other literature to try and stop other kids making his mistakes.

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 14:26

Here is an interesting piece from wikipedia on recivism in the UK and the US

[As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable.

The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.

IngridFletcher · 15/03/2010 14:28

Edward Bunker - writer and actor

His book. 'No Beast so Fierce' is amazing.

Rhubarb · 15/03/2010 14:28

How about serious criminals? Murderers? Rapists? Paedophiles?

I object to the huge amount of money spent in rehabilitating these boys. A lot is said about their human rights, but have their human rights not been taken away anyhow? They have had their true identities taken from them, they have had to live a lie, now one of them appears to have cracked up under that lie. Where are the human rights then?

What about their future friends/girlfriends? Do they not have human rights? Would you be happy if you found out that the man you married was someone completely different, different name, different background, different memories to those he had told you? And worst of all, he had committed a hideous crime - wouldn't you have the right to know about that before you committed your life to him?

What is also worrying is that if Venables had a history of drug abuse, violence and was caught downloading sickening images of child abuse - how long was that going on? Where were the authorities who were meant to be keeping tabs on him?

Yes the parents should also face prosecution. The parents had no idea where those boys where or what they were up to. They were neglected and failed. I am presuming that the immediate families are also getting protection? Did the parents get changes of identity too? At how much cost to the taxpayer?

For their own protection and for their own sanity - and yes, human rights too - they should have been kept in jail. They could have been moved to a less secure jail, but nevertheless, they should be in jail.

mayorquimby · 15/03/2010 14:36

stanley tookie williams was multiple murderer (possibly serial or does that have psychological connotations?) and most liekly a rapise due to being involved in the LA gang scene.

ooojimaflip · 15/03/2010 14:38

Rhubarb - FYI - Erwin James and Leslie Grantham were both convicted of murder. Jimmy Lerner is another author who was convicted of murder. But I don't think that looking at individual examples helps either way.

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 14:41

you might find this of interest, Rhubarb

clearly there is always the risk of reoffending, but again, you cannot lock people up because they MIGHT reoffend.

Our society passes sentences on convicted criminals. We might take issue with the length of these, and personally feel that they are not long enough, but within the context of society and a functioning justice system, there are benchmarks for a reason. It is simply impractical to suggest that ALL criminals convicted of an offense should be locked up forever. And therefore judgements must be made.

And surely children must have the best chance of rehabilitation as opposed to adults?

adults kill children every week in this country, yet we do not see ongoing threads about each and every one of them.

Rhubarb · 15/03/2010 14:45

I don't think these examples work either, because you cannot compare their crimes to what these 2 boys did.

They were not spontaneous murders, the boys had planned this for a long time and had even gone on a trial run. I think (if my memory serves me right) they tried abducting a child before James.

That is what set this crime above all others, it was the sheer cruelty and evil made worse by the fact it was perpetrated by 2 boys. If an adult had done this, he would never be let out of jail. But they were not adults - yet does that make them any less evil for what they did? Can a child truly be evil? Perhaps, but if we are going to talk about their human rights we should remember that their rights have been violated by having their identities taken from them and now we are seeing the huge toll that has taken on one of them.
Not to mention the violation of the rights of those who come into close contact with the pair, such as girlfriends.

Rhubarb · 15/03/2010 14:46

Madame - that's in the US however, we have different practices here.

Rhubarb · 15/03/2010 14:46

(and don't forget that most murderers are given the death penalty in the US, so there is no chance of rehabiliation there.)

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 14:54

Are you suggesting that they should be kept in prison for the rest of their natural lives to protect them from vigilantes? Because being able to keep their own names in prison is better than having a new identity after having served their time?

Rhubarb · 15/03/2010 15:02

Ask Venables if having a new identity was successful for him.

I am saying they should stay in prison for what they did AND because it's safer for them. Either way their human rights are knackered, either by spending their lives in prison or by having their identities taken from them. But by staying in jail at least it spares others from sacrificing their human rights too.

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 15:03

But it is their human right to rejoin society after they have served their time.

Rhubarb · 15/03/2010 15:05

As someone else? Being asked to wipe away all previous memories? Being asked to lie about their background? Being given new names, new memories, new details?

Is that their human right too?

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 15:09

It is a pragmatic decision to protect them from the loony vigilantes populating many of these threads and the country and large. (I don't mean you, rhubarb!) but the ones who say that they should have thrown those children to the baying mob so they could literally have been pulled to pieces.

and witness that poor man in Liverpool.

It was the right decision given the circumstances.

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 15:11

You could also say that loss of name and identity is a price they continue to pay over and above their sentences for their crimes...which should keep some happy.

Though I think just being themselves is punishment enough.

Hullygully · 15/03/2010 15:13

I agree with Madame

Original poster
TheLadyEvenstar · 15/03/2010 15:16

They should have been locked up for life. they were not just average little boys were they? they were and still are MURDERERS. they did not steal a fucking lollipop the took anothers life

OP posts:
Hullygully · 15/03/2010 15:17

King Hammurabi lives on.

MadameDefarge · 15/03/2010 15:23

well, with all due respect, until folk on here are prepared to have the same reaction of shock and horror at every single murderer in this country, I have no time for those who think very damaged little boys are more deserving than adults of some of the vile suggestions I have seen on here. Damaged children are deserving of our compassion. It does not excuse their actions.

So I look forward to long long threads each time someone is convicted of murder, hopefully incorporating the violent acts posters would like to perpetrate on them.

Because in my book its those adults who kill who deserve the harshest punishment for their crimes, not two small children who were clearly so fucked up they could do what they did.

scaredoflove · 15/03/2010 15:25

They were damaged little boys that committed a horrific crime.

They were sentenced according to the law. They served that sentence. They only needed new identities as the law was changed, to feed the blood wanting masses. If the existing law had stood, they wouldn't have been named and then wouldn't have needed new identities.

I think they will have paid an enormous price and will continue to do so for the rest of their lives.

Hullygully · 15/03/2010 15:25

Quite.

CoteDAzur · 15/03/2010 15:31

"the opportunity for an offender to make amends to society"

This is one reason why they shouldn't have been given anonymity. How can they ask for forgiveness and make amends to society if they are in hiding?

Swipe left for the next trending thread