James Bulger Murderer Jon Venables Returned To Prison

[hboy]

 

I have a feeling that the evidence that rehabilitation often does not work will be on the front page of the News of the World by Sunday.

 

Something appearing in a paper (whether trashy or not) isn't evidence. I quite agree though that some of the papers will probably pick it up and ASK why they were ever released (the problem being them) or that 'rehabilitation' (whatever that is supposed to mean) did not work (which is an issue with the system). And I do think that rehabilitation does not work well, which is not to say that people cannot change or learn from their mistakes, etc.

 

 

You really are full of crap. Say, just hypothetically say, that in the next week its shown that the new incident is a stabbing, murder, violent assault. Just hypothetically. It would actually likely show that often people don't learn anything through rehabilitation and that certain things might be hard wired into people over which they have no control. Its already reported in the Guardian tonight that he was the victim of a stabbing in 2007 after a violent argument over a woman.

 

A bad person has no control over whether they are bad or not, just as a gay person has no control over whether they are gay or not. You can't change the nature of people through councelling - you can maybe help them understand who they are and why they do things - but you can't stop their compulsion to be what they are.

[r1man]

Evil is a concept like any other; a way of allowing us to make sense of our world. Evil describes something that is fundamentally disconnected from the cultural norms of our society. Many other words do that also. To be Evil is not the only way to describe someone or something that is disconnected from the cultural norms of a society. Not ever act that is disconnected from cultural norms is evil.

 

In the case where 2 ‘children’ abduct and kill another child is fundamentally against the norms of our society. It is Evil. That one of the perpetrators of such evil, for that is what it is, breaks the terms of their licence to be given limited freedom (a freedom incidentally, that the victim has been deprived of, and something the victims family have to live with every day, forever) is for that perpetrator to fail to understand their renewed opportunity within our society.

 

The only question is, what is the best option:

 

1. A cell in the new sumptuous prison at Jurby?

2. A room at the Hilton?

3. A bed-sit in Ramsey?

4. 10 minutes in a room with the victims family?

 

This man is evil, his existence in this world paid for by the taxpayer. If I were a UK taxpayer I would feel aggrieved at paying for the upkeep of this oxygen thief.

 

Incidentally, if any such hypothetical person were incarcerated here (which clearly isn’t the case in this instance), who would pay for his healthcare after the 1st April when the reciprocal agreement ends?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You really are full of crap. Say, just hypothetically say, that in the next week its shown that the new incident is a stabbing, murder, violent assault. Just hypothetically. It would actually likely show that often people don't learn anything from rehabilitation and that certain things might be hard wired into people over which they have no control. Its already reported in the Guardian tonight that he was the victim of a stabbing in 2007 after a violent argument over a woman.

 

A bad person has no control over whether they are bad or not, just as a gay person has no control over whether they are gay or not. You can't change the nature of people through councelling.

It doesn't show anything. It MIGHT actually be because they are just of a bad mind and have committed another crime because of some predisposition to do so. It MIGHT be a different matter of rehabilitation techniques being poor and not working for people who COULD change. It MIGHT be (in the case of something violence) that after being a victim of a stabbing he has NOW done something violent because of the effect of that crime on him. You could even say that the prison term made it sure that he would be very predisposed to committing violent crime, etc. You just don't know.

 

That one of the perpetrators of such evil, for that is what it is, breaks the terms of their licence to be given limited freedom (a freedom incidentally, that the victim has been deprived of, and something the victims family have to live with every day, forever) is for that perpetrator to fail to understand their renewed opportunity within our society.

You say a renewed opportunity. Well...they have conditions attached their release. It isn't as if they have served their time and have the same freedoms as others in society. They are permanently or in the long-term kept under restraint with threats of punishment to a greater degree than others. If someone has been punished, I don't see it right to place conditions on their freedom from this punishment after they have released.

 

Incidentally, if any such hypothetical person were incarcerated here (which clearly isn’t the case in this instance), who would pay for his healthcare after the 1st April when the reciprocal agreement ends?

Christ! That's another issue altogether. Let's not go there.

[Right-Wing]

This man is evil, his existence in this world paid for by the taxpayer. If I were a UK taxpayer I would feel aggrieved at paying for the upkeep of this oxygen thief.

 

Incidentally, if any such hypothetical person were incarcerated here (which clearly isn’t the case in this instance), who would pay for his healthcare after the 1st April when the reciprocal agreement ends?

 

Exactly, so either this evil person should be put to good use by building a big railway (or tunnel under the irish sea) or terminated because otherwise they are just a drain on our (their) taxes.

[hboy]

You could even say that the prison term made it sure that he would be very predisposed to committing violent crime, etc. You just don't know.

 

Neither of them served time in an adult prison. Not one day. So I doubt that you could blame the prison system for affecting either of them.

[Mr. Sausages]

 

To quote the Home Secretary on the evening news defending why they cannot name him ... "[We] must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings". Looks like the political shit is hitting the fan on this one - so there are categorically future criminal proceedings that also require incarceration post trial.

 

That full quote is: "At this juncture I can say nothing more than confirm that Jon Venables is back in custody. I believe the public do have a right to know and I believe they will know all the facts in due course. But I must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings,".

 

He's not referring to why they cannot name him. He's referring to why they cannot release details of the incident. One of the reasons is that releasing details would make it easier for someone to identify him, which is the last thing they want regardless of whether there will be any new criminal proceedings.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

They were placed under the 'care' of the state - I know. It was imprisonment, but no not technically gaol. But you COULD blame the state system of dealing with crime by imprisoning - I do. But I don't know its effect in this case.

[hboy]

 

To quote the Home Secretary on the evening news defending why they cannot name him ... "[We] must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings". Looks like the political shit is hitting the fan on this one - so there are categorically future criminal proceedings that also require incarceration post trial.

 

That full quote is: "At this juncture I can say nothing more than confirm that Jon Venables is back in custody. I believe the public do have a right to know and I believe they will know all the facts in due course. But I must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings,".

 

He's not referring to why they cannot name him. He's referring to why they cannot release details of the incident. One of the reasons is that releasing details would make it easier for someone to identify him, which is the last thing they want regardless of whether there will be any new criminal proceedings.

 

Strictly speaking he is saying that they cannot say that Mr X who has been banged up for whatever event is Jon Venables as it would prejudice his right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings which is what I said at the start. If its a crime involving violence if a jury knew Mr X was actually Mr Venables a convicted child murderer then he could never ever get a fair trial. Plus his safety in prison would be severely compromised.

[Mr. Sausages]

Strictly speaking he is saying that they cannot say that Mr X who has been banged up for whatever event is Jon Venables as it would prejudice his right to a fair trial which is what I said at the start. If its a crime involving violence if a jury knew Mr X was actually Mr Venables then he could never ever get a fair trial.

 

They're not going to name him at all, ever. Not because of prejudicing a fair trial, but because there is a worldwide anonymity order which places a legal duty on the Govt to keep his identity secret.

 

It has always been in place, and the fact that they are still sticking to the rules now in no way indicates the seriousness of whatever he's done now.

[hboy]

They're not going to name him at all, ever. Not because of prejudicing a fair trial, but because there is a worldwide anonymity order which places a legal duty on the Govt to keep his identity secret.

 

They are otherwise the Home Secretary would not be making those sort of comments - he says we as the public will "know all the facts in due course". To me this looks like it has been carefully thought about because they know its going to blow up some time very soon.

 

My guess would be that there is a trial coming to an end and they think he might be named afterwards - or maybe more likely that it might be fairly obvious who he is when the facts are reported upon.

 

These days if its a good story a newspaper will go back to a persons schools and childhood friends etc to follow the story through. With someone like him they'll draw a complete blank on past friends, jobs, schools, parents etc and it might be completely bloody obvious what the score is .

[sarahc]

The media is also subject to this order. If they do know/find out they're not supposed to tell.

[The Old Git]

but because there is a worldwide anonymity order which places a legal duty on the Govt to keep his identity secret.

 

Can such a thing exist?

[daisychain]

My guess is it has to be a serious current crime as release of his name (which Jack Straw won't do) would prejudice a jury and lead to claims of an unfair trial in the knowledge that he was a child murderer. Look for a big recent event were the perpetrator was a 27 year old male.

 

Complete speculation. For all you know he could have just gone to Liverpool, or been caught in possession of drugs - that's all it would take. And they won't release his new secret name for the same reason they've never released his new secret name - it's a secret.

 

Thanks Speculation, it could be a minor offence, "violations such as late probation visits and missed curfews may also result in their licence of release being revoked. Breach of those rules would make them liable to be sent to prison"

[daisychain]

[

[Pierrot Lunaire]

Evil is an anagram of live. And vile. And, at a push, ivel, which is nearly the name of St Ivel, a manufacturer of dairy produce.