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

I don't agree with that though, and this is the sticking point for me. I suppose I just can't get past the revulsion and the (in my eyes) leniency of the sentence. (and I'm not advocating the death penalty or anything like that obv)

I'm not a poor boys person, not really

I believe justice has to be seens to be done

but that has to be on a parallel with other cdrimes (back to the under 10 years sentence I mentioned earlier, where btw baby was younger than JB so still an innocent child) and their sentences.

And whilst age isn't an excuse it is a factor needing to be taken into account.

TBH I was horrified the way they brought down the age of adult cul[ability to fit the case: my ten year old is still very much a small child. But that is done now .

last was for Peachy (x-posted with loads of others)

Kimi - too far mate. Way too far. I would tell you to fuck off but that would be rude.

Scum? Put down like rabid dogs? You'd have them burnt at the stake next. Hatred breeds hatred - did they not teach you that at school?

I have to say I agree with Rhubarb's 14:10:16 post.

There are some things you just can't give folks a second chance on.

I didn't realise there were so many qualified psychiatrists on mumsnet who could make an assessment that people couldn't be rehabilitated.

Of course some people can be. Some can't depends whether it is a pathology or not. Even then you can 'manage' damaging behaviour.

I don't think it does any good to speculate what Veneables may have done to end up back inside. He may be released again quite quickly after the parole board has heard the terms of his breach of licence. I expect the probation officer who manages his licence would always err on the side of caution so that he could easily be recalled quite quickly. It may be serious but it may quite easily not be related to violence. No point in speculation.

It's horrific what happened to Jamie Bulger but the media hounding his mother for a statement everytime something happens is cruel and inappropriate. Of course she is going to want them locked up forever. She was his mother. Fortunately, as someone said earlier, we have a judicial system that makes those decisions for us.

whois, whilst I get that take on it I can't take that perspective myself.

Kimi have reported your post as it adviocates child killing. nasty.

Agree with Peachy's last post, the 'middle ground' is what is happening now.
Rehab, strict terms of licence on release, and immediate action in the case of a breach.

Kimi, if you have nothing thoughtful or intelligent to say please don't post such shit. You make yourself look stupid.

Also agree with Rhubarb. Sometimes the risk of giving people a second chance has to be weighed against the benefit. If either of these people goes on to hurt someone else, everyone will be looking for someone to blame.

fifitot - I think you will find that most of us have given our OPINIONS. We do not claim to be psychiatrists any more than you do.

This is an opinion board, in case you hadn't noticed.

Say if we didn't release them

After a certain time surely the sentence would be sre]erved (a set sentence being a specific requirement after all) so what then?

I have read on this debate as well wrt to Paedophiles that have served term but are not thought safe.

If they have served sentence and have done nothing else, is it OK to incarcerate people without additional crime?

I think not

I ahve read up on Paedophiles being given access to sort of nicehalfway houses with decent housing etc but constant monitoring (can't remember where I read it sorry), but surely at 18, 28, 38 whatever sentence they serve some life is their right?

And yes I do think they have rights. And responsibilities of course.

Yes well don't dress up opinions as fact then. Where is your evidence that people can't be rehabilitated. It's just nonsense.

But someone else went on about their human rights.

I want to ask now - what about their human rights? Is it right that they should be asked to live a lie? That their pasts are wiped to be replaced with new ones? Does that take away their identities?

What about their friends and girlfriends? What about their rights to know the truth? Esp if they were to be married - wouldn't you want to know all about your partner? Wouldn't that be your right? To make up your own mind?

"Yes well don't dress up opinions as fact then. Where is your evidence that people can't be rehabilitated. It's just nonsense."

I said THINK, I have always said that I don't THINK they can.

Who are you anyway? A forensic psychologist? Do you work in criminology?

Interesting Rhubs

I think it is fine to ask them to live that lie themselves; not force, but ask.

WRT to famillies etc, IKWYM. There's a system in palce wrt to sex offenders where SSD will visit a new family they have taken up with and give them X time to disclose and if not SSD will not disclose. I am not confortable with this being sued for child offenders and more than I am for people to not know the truth about their partners histiry: I don't have an answer really.

Actually yes.

Sorry, SSD will disclose

but thinking they cannot be rehabilitated is just personal opinion. And where do we draw the line?

The age of responsibility is ten, so what if a 9 yo committed a similar crime? or an eight yo? or a seven yo? Children of that age do know right from wrong, yet at what age do people feel it would be appropriate to lock up a child for the next sixty, seventy, eighty years?

Also there is no magic button that makes ten year olds mature and nine year olds incapable of understanding their actions. Evry child is different, and every child matures at a different rate. So how is it that we can say that every child is capable of being tried as an adult when they reach the age of ten?

Peachy, they are forced though aren't they? They cannot live outside with their true identities.

fifi - good for you, I studied criminology too and have made up my own mind. You have your way of thinking and I have mine. Not everyone agrees with you so just accept that instead of ranting on about facts. Typical lawyer attitude. We cannot see the facts in this case because of its secrecy.

And there are plenty of times when rehab has failed. You must know of those, perhaps they are in your facts?

Theya re forced by events: the ethical issue trhough I think is best solved by giving them an option, so if they wanted to risk life and limb they could.

Then any forcing tbh is of their own creation.

Interesting in a way that this news is colliding with Sarah's Law being rolled out nationally.

That would be one solution. But it wasn't a solution that was considered at the time. They had to take their new identities or they wouldn't have released them. It would have cost millions to protect them if they used their own identities.

Yes rehab does fail but there are alot of people on this thread with very uninformed opinions. We don't know if rehab has failed here as we don't know the facts.

I just find it interesting that people who are not particularly well versed in the principles of psychological and psychiatric assessment can say they don't think people can change. I KNOW they can have an opinion on that but I suppose I just don't think it is helpful to the debate to state things so categorically.

I was hardly ranting either.