James Bulger Killer Jon Venables back in Prison

[Stu Monty]

Kinginho, I think you're placing too little emphasis on how the world people exist in moulds them into a person. Babies aren't born evil. I would venture that people like Hitler and Einstien have certain elements in their genetic make-up that mean they have the potential for greatness but without being very lucky, or unlucky, and having just the right influences on them they wouldn't have been who they were.

 

I don't believe babies are born good or evil. I certainly don't have very strong convictions that if I had led exactly the same life as the Bulger killers I too wouldn't have been a very fucked up kid, and not have turned out to be the shining example to humanity that you see before you today.

[Antynwa]

Just got a text off someone on one of those chain bastard things with naming someone who is 'supposedly' Jon Venables.

 

Anyone still think the public don't need to know? Someone innocent could get hurt here.

[Stu Monty]

Just got a text off someone on one of those chain bastard things with naming someone who is 'supposedly' Jon Venables.

 

Anyone still think the public don't need to know? Someone innocent could get hurt here.

 

Come on Ant, let's not pretend that's what it's about, it really isn't. It's about people knowing who he is so they can lynch him. He's in jail and even if he got out it's highly unlikely that knowing his name would hardly stop him whipping a kid away and doing something terrible to it (if that's the suggestion).

[Uncle_Meat]

Just got a text off someone on one of those chain bastard things with naming someone who is 'supposedly' Jon Venables.

 

Anyone still think the public don't need to know? Someone innocent could get hurt here.

 

 

Just had the same text myself.

 

I blame someone at Vodafone or Orange for putting texts like these out. They must make a mint.

[Dirk]

Just got a text off someone on one of those chain bastard things with naming someone who is 'supposedly' Jon Venables.

 

Anyone still think the public don't need to know? Someone innocent could get hurt here.

 

Actually, by naming and shaming him, it probably means somebody will get hurt. He will walk away if he is named and shamed because he will be able to claim that he's not been allowed to have a fair trial. If he does turn out to be a perpetual reoffender then it's vital that he's allowed to be convicted for his crimes. The public outcry threatens to jeopardize justice. That's why he hasn't be named and his alleged offences reported, not because of some campaign led by "lentil munchers".

Edited March 8, 2010 by Dirk

[Guest Red Rag]

Kinginho, I think you're placing too little emphasis on how the world people exist in moulds them into a person. Babies aren't born evil. I would venture that people like Hitler and Einstien have certain elements in their genetic make-up that mean they have the potential for greatness but without being very lucky, or unlucky, and having just the right influences on them they wouldn't have been who they were.

 

I don't believe babies are born good or evil. I certainly don't have very strong convictions that if I had led exactly the same life as the Bulger killers I too wouldn't have been a very fucked up kid, and not have turned out to be the shining example to humanity that you see before you today.

In the case of Hitler, this is very true. I think it's well known that he was a failed artist, but he was also a talented architect. The only reason he wasn't accepted into an architectural college in Vienna was that he didn't stay at school to finish the equivalent of a High School Diploma. If he had done so, then it's possible that the entire course of world history would have turned out very differently. August Kubizek's book gives fascinating insights into Hitler's character, and a tantalising glimpse into what might have been.

 

The Young Hitler I Knew: Amazon.co.uk: August Kubizek, Ian Kershaw: Books

 

Having said all that, it has to he said that even as a teenager, Hitler comes across as a complete prick. Arrogant, opinionated and overbearing, but nothing to indicate that the path his life would take in later life was unavoidable given a different set of circumstances.

[Antynwa]

Just had the same text myself.

 

I blame someone at Vodafone or Orange for putting texts like these out. They must make a mint.

 

It's a snowball effect, all it takes is one loony to get this text and go out finding the mentioned person.

[Stu Monty]

Well really, who calls their son Peter File?

[Simbo]

A very interesting thread that has had me hooked all morning!

 

Ive just read the article posted earlier dating back to the trial....absolutely sickening.

 

These 2 boys may have had a tough upbringing but by the age of 10 you know right from wrong. It would be a totally different story if these 2 had grown up with limited interaction with other people but by 10 you've already spent years at school mixing with other children. I have no doubt that they knew exactly what they were doing to James Bulger and 8 years imprisonment and a fresh life is no punishment.

 

Ive got an 8 month old son and in the shoes of James Bulgers' Dad I would have no hesitation in dishing out the ultimate revenge to those 2 evil bastards.

 

People can go into the intricacies of why they did it but for me the bottom line is that they did it, they knew exactly what they were doing and their actions have caused immense pain and suffering to not only James Bulger but also his family and they should have been locked up in prison forever.

[gingerhulk]

Just got a text off someone on one of those chain bastard things with naming someone who is 'supposedly' Jon Venables.

 

Anyone still think the public don't need to know? Someone innocent could get hurt here.

 

i haven't received a text, but my mates dad got a phone call from a prison guard who gave him a name, and were about he has SUPPOSE to be living.

 

Your right that someone could get seriously hurt.

[AVEEZ]

I'm in 2 minds over the latest coverage of this. I have to say I dont fully understand why Denise Fergus thinks she has the right to know what the latest alligations are?

 

I understand that this man (as he is now) murdered her son and that he was released on Probation for that crime which he has subsequently breeched but unless the breech was directly linked to her or her family (a threat in some way) I cant see how this effects her.

 

My heart goes out to her dont get me wrong and seeing his name (or old name as it is) in the press again has got to be horrible and be bringing back all kinds of hurtful memories, but it would serve no purpose to tell her why he was remanded again, or no purpose that I can see.

 

I can see why Jack Straw is reluctant to release any more info, as I think Dirk mentioned, this may prejudice any future case against him and I'd hate to think of him walking away from any justified charges scot free..but that said I am also alarmed that he has a new identity and no one knows who he is or what he has done.

 

If the alligations published are correct and he has been done for some kind of child porn / abuse then this opens up a whole can of worms for future releases where names are changed to protect the guilty..

 

Releasing a man or woman before being 100% certain that s/he is rehabilitated and giving a new indenity potentially threatens the safety of those who may come into contact with them going forward. He may have met a woman with kids and with a false identity protecting him - this leaves no pretection for her or her family.

 

Its a double edge sword really, but I would have to say that the safety of the public should be paramount. Can you ever be 100% sure that people who commit violent / sexual crimes against children are safe to be around any other children again - in any capacity - ever? I'm no shrink but I doubt it.

 

Whilst I am a firm believer that time served is the punishment and that it shouldnt necesarily be a milestone around the neck for ever, crimes of this nature are something very different. Kids cant defend themselves and as such we should not put them in harms way, nor give anyone the ability to hurt them - I cant help but think that in this instance the latter may have happened.

[Boomshakalaka]

Yes, of course, with cognitive psychology, you can look at the way humans process social information.

 

I think you are confused by what I am saying. I am in complete agreement about the role of social factors. Take obesity, we have companies developing and marketing anti-obesity products, scientists investigating the neurochemistry of eating behaviours but it's a social phenomenon, which is driven by increased production of macronutrient-dense foods and lifestyle changes such as increased car driving. I doubt psychology and pharmacology will solve the obesity problem.

 

 

Dirk maybe you should be a politician as you so magnificently dodged my question.

 

We are both in agreement that social factors should be given more importance when studying anything as most people accept that it is a combination of genes and environment that shape us.

 

My question was that do you agree, albiet all to slowly, that social factors are being given far more credence in modern day experiments? This is seen, by me and yourself, as an essential advancement. I like the fact that you are using social factors as variables in you experiments already. Of course tis advancement is too slow otherwise everybody would have been conducting studies considering social factors for over thity years now. I do not disagree that the world has been held back by Boulder's paradigm.

 

Moving on obesity in it self is not seen as an illness but it is seen as a modern day epidemic: a phenomenon. A simple reason is supplied by evolutionary psychology that states the brain rewards a person with a good feeling when they eat fat as to guard against famine. This was an important part of survial back when food was scarce. Neuropsychology could cure/prevent this by removing the ability to produce leptin at a genetic level or just by stopping its production using drugs. Of course this is far too simple.

 

Anyway they provide the answers but with any addicition (I know, I know) the sufferer has to put the theory into practice. Again Psychology can provide the answer. This allows a circle to exist. This is what for me makes this subject so interesting due to the challenge of motivating individuals.

 

Therefore to prevent is to cure and to cure is to prevent, and; social factors are slowly but surely being considered more often than they have in the past (although not as often as they truly deserve to be).

[Stu Monty]

I almost hope that one of the papers goes too far and ruins the case. In the greater scheme of things the papers being reigned in a bit and being blamed for ruining the case could be a very positive thing. An editor in jail would be the jackpot.

[Guest The Chimp]

They knew what they were doing, and they knew it was wrong, otherwise why try and disguise the body and deny involvement. I know it's not a simple situation, and to be honest I don't really want to get embroiled in a discussion here as the emotiveness of it makes it very hard for me to look at it dispassionately.

 

There's no doubt that you have to try and understand the actions - you simply can't just shoot them (and I'm not talking about the moral debate here) because society has to learn from such incidents and the trigger factors behind it to ensure that similar situations don't arise again. That said, eight years seems much too short a period. I'm on dangerous ground here as I've not all the facts, but if an offence has taken place (whether this is controvening what was required when released), then you could say it more than seems short, it's demonstrably so for one of the perpetrators.

[AVEEZ]

I almost hope that one of the papers goes too far and ruins the case. In the greater scheme of things the papers being reigned in a bit and being blamed for ruining the case could be a very positive thing. An editor in jail would be the jackpot.

 

Perhaps, I can see what you are saying, but having a potential child predator lose to achieve this wouldnt be the best outcome!

[Whelan]

A ten year old child who has never been told what is right and what is wrong wouldn't know what is right and what is wrong!

 

It is the same with Mary Bell, she lived in a one bedroom flat whilst her mother took tricks from punters, to me that is inconceivable and utterly beyond comprehension how any child could grow up normal.

[RedinSweden]

In the case of Hitler, this is very true. I think it's well known that he was a failed artist, but he was also a talented architect. The only reason he wasn't accepted into an architectural college in Vienna was that he didn't stay at school to finish the equivalent of a High School Diploma. If he had done so, then it's possible that the entire course of world history would have turned out very differently. August Kubizek's book gives fascinating insights into Hitler's character, and a tantalising glimpse into what might have been.

 

The Young Hitler I Knew: Amazon.co.uk: August Kubizek, Ian Kershaw: Books

 

Having said all that, it has to he said that even as a teenager, Hitler comes across as a complete prick. Arrogant, opinionated and overbearing, but nothing to indicate that the path his life would take in later life was unavoidable given a different set of circumstances.

 

Most people don't grow up to be mad dictators responsible for the deaths of millions though. It's a long shot to predict that. Hitler wasn't a doer himself, he just got other people to do it for him. Had he personally killed all of them, then you could say it was always going to happen (he would have to have a hell of a work ethic too), but had he not gained so much power he probably would have just grown up to be a bit of a twat.

[Dirk]

Dirk maybe you should be a politician as you so magnificently dodged my question.

 

We are both in agreement that social factors should be given more importance when studying anything as most people accept that it is a combination of genes and environment that shape us.

 

My question was that do you agree, albiet all to slowly, that social factors are being given far more credence in modern day experiments? This is seen, by me and yourself, as an essential advancement. I like the fact that you are using social factors as variables in you experiments already. Of course tis advancement is too slow otherwise everybody would have been conducting studies considering social factors for over thity years now. I do not disagree that the world has been held back by Boulder's paradigm.

 

Moving on obesity in it self is not seen as an illness but it is seen as a modern day epidemic: a phenomenon. A simple reason is supplied by evolutionary psychology that states the brain rewards a person with a good feeling when they eat fat as to guard against famine. This was an important part of survial back when food was scarce. Neuropsychology could cure/prevent this by removing the ability to produce leptin at a genetic level or just by stopping its production using drugs. Of course this is far too simple.

 

Anyway they provide the answers but with any addicition (I know, I know) the sufferer has to put the theory into practice. Again Psychology can provide the answer. This allows a circle to exist. This is what for me makes this subject so interesting due to the challenge of motivating individuals.

 

Therefore to prevent is to cure and to cure is to prevent, and; social factors are slowly but surely being considered more often than they have in the past (although not as often as they truly deserve to be).

 

 

I dodged your question because it was self-evident that we were in agreement that social factors are increasingly being given greater credence but I don't think they are yet given enough credence.

 

 

Neuropsychology couldn't, neuroscience or neuroendocrinology might but then I think that's highly implausible because a lack of leptin leads to obesity. Leptin ob/ob mice die of hyperphagia because they lack the genes which produce leptin. Selective leptin treatment is only a viable treatment for those deficient in leptin. A lack of leptin causes obesity in some but not many because most people are not leptin-deficient. A more realistic neurohormonal target might be ghrelin rather than leptin but, even then, feeding is regulated by so many chemical signals, that I'm sceptical that by targetting one, they will find a solution; NPY, 5-HT, CCK, Grh, AEA, 2-AG are some of the neurotransmitters implicated in feeding, off the top of my head, it's doubtful that antagonising one or agonising another would be sufficient to cure obesity.

 

My supervisor is one of the world's top obesity psychologists. He knows that whenever researchers try to promote social change, such as preventing food companies from targetting adverts at children, lobbyists campaign on behalf of food companies to prevent such interventions being implemented.

 

There's also a professor in our department who has been involved in outlining the neurochemical underpinnings of feeding behaviours, specifically the endocannabinoid system and he was involved in the development of the now-discontinued Rimonabant. Feeding behaviour is incredibly complex. I get the feeling that a lot of them are frustrated by political intrasigence. Anyway, this thread is in danger of going massively off course.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Dirk

[Stu Monty]

There is no planned course.

 

Let's off-road!

[odris]

The people who are spreading the rumors of his name probably got it from here...

 

I'm living in fear over 'child killer' rumours - Blackpool Today

 

ALMOST 5 YEARS OLD

[Guest The Chimp]

A ten year old child who has never been told what is right and what is wrong wouldn't know what is right and what is wrong!

 

It is the same with Mary Bell, she lived in a one bedroom flat whilst her mother took tricks from punters, to me that is inconceivable and utterly beyond comprehension how any child could grow up normal.

 

 

The fact you'd disguise what you'd done or that you'd deny involvement - that you'd blame someone else must surely point to the fact that you knew what you were doing was wrong? This was planned. It wasn't something that just randomly occurred. If they had no idea what they were doing was wrong why do the above? They'd been in school, got into trouble, they must have been well aware that actions result in outcomes? I'm not saying the understood the full brevity of what they'd done but how the fuck can anyone not know torturing and murdering a baby is not OK?

[Stu Monty]

The fact you'd disguise what you'd done or that you'd deny involvement - that you'd blame someone else must surely point to the fact that you knew what you were doing was wrong? This was planned. It wasn't something that just randomly occurred.

 

Knowing it's wrong and having developed no sense of empathy or even caring that it's wrong is different.

 

I can't help but think, with the Chilcot enquiry bobbling along and all that, that these two kids missed their calling as employees of HM special services. They could have waterboarded and sliced their days away without any comeback and wouldn't have had to deal with the press giving them shit.

[redrosetints]

great thread this. In terms of shold they have been released and was it teh right decisions ? I find myself coming back to what is, for me the crux of this. Which is, as civilised society, who are rightly, deeply shocked and upset by the loss of one childs life is it right to take away the lives of two more to in some way 'make up' for it (revenge).

 

(I say take away in terms of liberty, forever, as some have said should have happened).

 

In all aspects of life we differentiate between adults and children and that is for a reason yet many people seem to think that at 10 you are grown up enough to be beyond help and rehabilitation.

 

Surely in a decent, civilised society, where all life is cherished and sacred we must accept that by simply binning these two , we would in effect be killing 3 children and therefore we must do all we can to save the two lives we can.

 

Indeed, you could argue that all three lives are lost anyway as all involved will always be affected by this in someway.

 

in Norway when 3 6yd old boys stoned a 5yd old girl to death, the response of the government was to ban Power Rangers from TV as being to violent and the girls mother said 'the boys are too young to be accountable'. Is it because of this tolerant and understanding attitude that Norway has a far lower crime rate and less violence generally ?

 

Similarly, is it because of our attitudes, being driven by revenge and hate, that we see less resepct and tolerance and in turn more instances of violence ?

 

If 6yr old boys arent accountable, why are 10 year olds ? Where does the accountability change ? at 7, 8, 9, when they are 10 ?

 

In terms of what to do, i dont know, if he has done wrong he should be punished as the law sees fit for an adult male.

 

However, the media outrage and coverage is inexcusable , they should never have been named in the first place back in 1993, nor should they have been made to appear in the trial the way they were, their notoriety was always going to make rehabilitation difficult.

 

Finally, I can understand Bulgers mothers anger, but what right does she have to know the details of this and what does she gain from this anger and revenge she seems to so keen on gaining (Id like to be in court to see his trial). Compare and contrast to Anthony Walkers mum who said she forgave the the Barton lad and it shoes how different people act.

[Guest The Chimp]

Knowing it's wrong and having developed no sense of empathy or even caring that it's wrong is different

 

That they just didn't give a fuck is something I think is entirely plausible - and whilst that sounds flippant I'm of course aware that their upbringing and their role models had a huge impact on this.

 

I'm not sure how breaking conditions of an early release shows signs of realising you've been given a second chance or of trying to live your life as fully and productively as possible. Now I know it's not as simple as this, but maybe the best way to atone for your actions (if truly repentant) is not to end up in shit again with the authorities?

 

I'm going to come in for a lot of flack for this, but genuinely, if Venables and Thompson never saw the light of day again, how much worse off is the world for this? Genuinely? I'm more than happy to see the alternate side here.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

What can a 10 year old be held accountable for ? When does it stop being the parent or society's fault. What level of wrong doing are we talking about ?