Venables - one of the James Bulger killers - back in jail

[LadyBlaBlah]

here

Not a good advertisement for the rehabilitation programme they went on. I did hear that it was in Ireland and he tried to strangle a girlfriend..........but obviously that is not based on any factual evidence, just internet gossip.

Anyhow, difficult difficult difficult

Surely people aren't really considering that some children are BORN EVIL????

Bizarre. Are you all Calvinists or something?

I think people who refuse to belive some people are just born bad, are the ones who are afraid.
because if they are born that way there is nothing we can do. so it is better for them to blame something else, that way they can find a way to mend it.

'Born bad'?

This is so simplistic an argument. There is no doubt that individuals inherit certain genetic 'traits' however the interplay between 'nature and nurture' is so complex that it is impossible and indeed almost a waste of time to consider what is born into an individual and what is made.

Certainly there are some traits (eg IQ)which might be inherited but the impact of environment and development upon these factors is massive.

To say someone is 'born bad' is naive in the extreme - sorry.

"If we view anyone as beyond rehabilitation then we are giving up on humanity."

Not unless you define "humanity" as "being as pliable as Playdoh".

Yes, habits and even personalities of very small children can change. But surely there comes an age beyond which you can't really change a person - he will learn from his mistakes and mellow a bit with age, but he will remain the same person.

What is that age? 30? 20? 10?

Can a 10 year old who planned for and took pleasure from the torture and murder of a little child ever change so much that you would ever leave children to his care? Will he never take pleasure in torturing a pet?

Putting aside the use of the words "good" and "evil" for a minute, I doubt if any parent would deny that babies are born with their own characters. As parents, we can influence these traits to a certain extent, but they are there at birth.

"This is so simplistic an argument"

why doesn't it suprise me that someone wrote that?
is that the word of the week,.
people can be born good or bad.
how else do you explain people who come from perfectly normal backgrounds who go onto do terrible things?
blaming society is simplistic in my veiw

Fitfot

'Can you really not accept that some people are just 'evil' and obviously that includes children as all adults were children once!'

yep, people really believe that.

And after reading the Telegraph article and the judgement of Lord Justice Woolf can we please clear up the 'remorse' issue.
They did ask the police during interview to apologise to Denise Bulger, they showed remorse during the trial and whilst in custody, leading the judge to reduce their sentence by 2 years. In fact, by 2000 at least, their rehabilitation seemed to be successful.

2shoes
In the Indepedent article about children's secure units it clearly states that the overwhelming majority of children who commit serious crime come from difficult backgrounds.

Imagine holding your tiny newborn in your arms and try and equate that with your last posts. Do you really believe that a baby is born evil?

Because 2shoes there are so many complex factors that impact upon a personality that you could not even begin to name them.

It's pointless even trying to raise this issue I guess as people as so entrenched in their views. It just astounds me that in 2010 people are talking in such deterministic terms about 'born evil'. It's like saying the earth is flat.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but there is no basis in science or nature to uphold that view.

Cote - if you read my post I did say that there are certain 'traits' children can demonstrate from birth but these alone cannot account for future behaviour and all evidence has shown that the impact of development and environment are at least as powerful on shaping future conduct and personality.

Well if we are to believe the media coverage on the JV and RT, then there are a few points that should be questioned.

If JV has had a history of drug abuse, why was he not recalled to prison when that first come to light? As i understand that was one of the terms of his licence.

Same goes for the many violent outbursts he has had over the 9 years. Why was he not put into jail over these crimes?

RT has apparently struggled with drug addiction, if true that violates the terms set on his licence.

Yet as far as we know this is the first time either of them has ended up back in jail. So if any truth lies in these reports, obviously they are not on a very tight rein.
And they have been shielded once again from the law.

They are not 10 year old boys anymore, they are grown men. I personally think before their release there should have been an a serious threat put into place, to prevent any form of reoffending. For example, any criminal activity and the anonymity order will be lifted, it would of given them some serious food for thought, i think they know they are protected for life and as a result JV has failed to keep his side of the deal.

And honestly 8 years may seem like a long time to a 10 year old, but with regards to punishment i don't think they served long enough or in the right conditions. And to be fair they got out of their sentence with better education then they would have had in the outside world. And to be released when they are 18 is really a bit of a joke. At 18 it's the time in your life you most enjoy, young carefree, no obligations, able to go out and party. In my opinion if i had to miss out on 8 years of my freedom, 10 to 18 would be the perfect age as quite frankly they are not really that riveting in the first place. And if the media is to be right in any of the reporting they didn't actually miss out on any of their childhood in any case.

I don't thin the punishment fitted the crime, and that is why so many people are still angry at the system over this.

A person who commits such heinous, barbaric and premeditated murder, either can, or can not be rehabilitated. There is no half way.
These two got the best rehabilitation 'package' there was. Cost taxpayer millions. Did it work?
All of you dripping with sympathy and trying ever so hard to understand these two, answer one question.
Would you leave your small child in their care?
If your answer is no, then way not? Or is it all a big hypocritical hoopla to make you feel good about your compassion to all living things?

"If JV has had a history of drug abuse, why was he not recalled to prison when that first come to light? As i understand that was one of the terms of his
licence." I suppose it depends what kind of drug abuse. After all drug addiction does not necessarily equal illegal drugs - he could have become addicted to prescription drugs such as ADs or painkillers which he may be using for depression (coming to terms with what he has done) or for any other medical condition, in which case it wouldn't be a criminal offence, as opposed to purchasing illegal substances from the local dealer which would.

As i have read it was cocaine, but it all depends on if the media had reported it correctly. If the papers had of made it up, am sure they would have been forced to print a public apology. Or that is what i would imagine would happen anyway.

they can't though. Because to apologise and say "we got it wrong" will reveal the "right" info, iyswim? And they can't do that atm.

As i have read it was cocaine, but it all depends on if the media had reported it correctly. If the papers had of made it up, am sure they would have been forced to print a public apology. Or that is what i would imagine would happen anyway.

ROFL (sorry, no offence, but I have very much less faith in the media than that)

"I personally think before their release there should have been an a serious threat put into place, to prevent any form of reoffending. For example, any criminal activity and the anonymity order will be lifted"

What would lifting the order achieve though?
This thread has already revealed that there are people who would 'happily shoot them both between the eyes', that obviously cannot be allowed to happen.
They would have needed constant police protection.

"If JV has had a history of drug abuse, why was he not recalled to prison when that first come to light? As i understand that was one of the terms of his licence.
Same goes for the many violent outbursts he has had over the 9 years. Why was he not put into jail over these crimes?
RT has apparently struggled with drug addiction, if true that violates the terms set on his licence."

That is a hell of a lot of assumptions made from stories printed in the tabloid press. We cannot say with even a tiny degree of certainty what has happened to them since their release. We only know that a condition of the licence has been breached.

I can see what you mean, but according to the papers the violent crime happend 2 years ago. So if that is correct then surely would have no danger of outing the real reason for him being recalled. It is a very confusing issue to be honest. It also raises the question of why now? Why this crime? If indeed he has been on the wrong side of the law 2 years ago for a violent crime, then surely he should of been held in jail sooner. Am sure in the eyes of the police violence beats cocaine. That said am not too sure if the drug use has been recently that could have been a number of years ago.

Am sorry if that seems a bit hard to understand am typing through contractions, so could be making alot of errors.

X posts Jamie.

Tabloid speculation not good basis on which to base your opinions.

You are tying through contractions?
That's mn dedication

At the risk of repeating myself though, you are speculating on tabloid rumour, we do not know whether violence or drugs were even involved in the breach.

As i have said it is all down to what people have read. I am not saying it is solid gold fact. I just find it hard to understand that, if everything the press prints is in fact a lie, surely the courts would have a gagging order in place, to stop further incorrect reports? As all it is doing is inciting more public outrage then already exsisted.

As for having the threat of their protection being lifted, i personally believe it would have been a very powerful deterrent. No chance if i was hated to the degree they are would i risk my protection.

HOC it is very naive to think that the press would always print fact. The reality is that they do often get it wrong and print inaccurate information and yes, are often made to apologise. The difference though is that the inaccurate info is usually plastered all over the front page while the apology is printed at the bottom of page thirteen or so where most people never read it.

And by then the damage is already done and the sensationalist part of the story has already been absorbed by the gullable tabloid-reading public.

And with respect the two posters who think, it's laughable to base my opinions of what the media reports. How have you got your information on the rehabilitation side of the arguements? Is it not from the press itself, or have you got access to the confidential case files? I have not rubbished anyones opinion on here, neither have i quoted anyone. I have just expressed my views on the situation as only i can, through what has been reported.

"As all it is doing is inciting more public outrage then already exsisted."

Pretty accurate summary of the tabloid paper's principle agenda in any story they print.
Sentationalised, embellished crap, mostly.

WannaBe, Well i have had so many false starts on this labour, might as well do my best to keep my mind active. Have been lurking for so long, and i decide to come out of the lurking closet, on a topic that is obviously very emotive on both sides maybe i should of pressed the hide button