One of James Bulgers killers returned to prison

[RB]

JohnF I seldom disagree with what you say, and I understand fully where you're coming from.

I just feel that in certain cases there is need for a more drastic penalty. To me, this is one case. 

There are so many people constantly punished by these pair being alive.

The Bulger family.
The DHSS people dealing with them
The Prison Officers and staff
The fellow prisoners
The people living near them now
The judges who sit on parole boards
The fellow employees who now know that they were in the midst of one of Britains most notorious murderers.
The families of those people who feel tainited by them
Down to even you and I as outraged citizens

The list of people 'hurt' to a greater of lesser degree is enormous.

On capital punishment I sway back and forth, agreeing and disagreeing. But if I look at this individual case. I have no doubts, even today, that I would prefer if they had been killed.

Is this case much different from say the Yorkshire Ripper case? I'd say yes, Peter Sutcliffe is a monster who suffered mental abberations. In essence he could not control himself.

I'm not that familiar with the Baby P case, but having just read a little on it, I can only assume that drugs were involved somewhere along the line. If not then it would possibly fall into the same category as the Bulger case.

I believe that a life is just a 70 year cycle of cells. So cutting short someones life as punishment is not that distressing. But of course, no-one has the right to cut-short someones life... except the state. Now you run into problems of legalised murder. 

Maybe the answer is to have a capital punishment sentence decided by extended jury of maybe 500, with 75% majority and subsequent application of it by referndum annually with a 2/3 majority requirement. If not applied then the sentence would be commuted to life without parole. That way, the people choose. In the Bulger case I suspect that the death penalty would be applied.

It really is a terrible terrible crime. I cannot find it in myself to feel compassionate about the two murders even in the slightest, not even on behalf of their family members. If it were my brother who committed the crime, I'd like to think I would have no compassion either.

Given that the UK does not support the death penalty I do think that these two should have been locked away for ever. No chance whatsoever of any freedom. Stuff the do-gooders.

They were 10.
Even when we had the death penalty we didn't kill 10 year olds.
Nor did we lock them away forever.

[Steve]

Massive rumour round these parts about someone working in Birchwood until last friday. Won't say anymore in case it gets the site in bother.

You do realise that if you are the first to publicise this rumour and this detail then you may be jailed for your actions?

Alternatively, how would you feel if the guy you describe is off sick and is visited by a group of vigilantes?

[Mr Widnes]

You do realise that if you are the first to publicise this rumour and this detail then you may be jailed for your actions?

Alternatively, how would you feel if the guy you describe is off sick and is visited by a group of vigilantes?

Calm down Norris, there are other rumours circulating that he allegedly lived elsewhere as well.

[rayvon]

JohnF I seldom disagree with what you say, and I understand fully where you're coming from.

I just feel that in certain cases there is need for a more drastic penalty. To me, this is one case. 

There are so many people constantly punished by these pair being alive.

The Bulger family.
The DHSS people dealing with them
The Prison Officers and staff
The fellow prisoners
The people living near them now
The judges who sit on parole boards
The fellow employees who now know that they were in the midst of one of Britains most notorious murderers.
The families of those people who feel tainited by them
Down to even you and I as outraged citizens

The list of people 'hurt' to a greater of lesser degree is enormous.

On capital punishment I sway back and forth, agreeing and disagreeing. But if I look at this individual case. I have no doubts, even today, that I would prefer if they had been killed.

Is this case much different from say the Yorkshire Ripper case? I'd say yes, Peter Sutcliffe is a monster who suffered mental abberations. In essence he could not control himself.

I'm not that familiar with the Baby P case, but having just read a little on it, I can only assume that drugs were involved somewhere along the line. If not then it would possibly fall into the same category as the Bulger case.

I believe that a life is just a 70 year cycle of cells. So cutting short someones life as punishment is not that distressing. But of course, no-one has the right to cut-short someones life... except the state. Now you run into problems of legalised murder. 

Maybe the answer is to have a capital punishment sentence decided by extended jury of maybe 500, with 75% majority and subsequent application of it by referndum annually with a 2/3 majority requirement. If not applied then the sentence would be commuted to life without parole. That way, the people choose. In the Bulger case I suspect that the death penalty would be applied.

It really is a terrible terrible crime. I cannot find it in myself to feel compassionate about the two murders even in the slightest, not even on behalf of their family members. If it were my brother who committed the crime, I'd like to think I would have no compassion either.

Given that the UK does not support the death penalty I do think that these two should have been locked away for ever. No chance whatsoever of any freedom. Stuff the do-gooders.

Re the mental abberations bit, do you not think they had mental abberations?
How many normal 10year olds do you know who would act like that?

[ozviking]

Re the mental abberations bit, do you not think they had mental abberations?
How many normal 10year olds do you know who would act like that?

I draw the distinction between a man working alone, driven by a mental condition, in a misguided sense of right versus two (or more) people working together to specifically enact atrocities and inflict pain or death on another.

Mental abberation is the wrong phrase perhaps - if one accepts that there's a "normal" way to go about inflicting torture then its arguably not an abboration. I have no intention of arguing that point. Psychosis is probably the better word to use, that clearly is a deranged mental condition (for want of a better phrase) but two working in tandem would not both be psychotic. What they did appears to have been for 'fun' or divilment. That's not "normal" behaviour which is why it's not accepted, it's criminal.

I understand RB that killing a 10 year old is a big call which is why I put my personal view on life itself. Age really doesn't come into it. It's like saying that killing a 90 year old is less of a crime that killing a 10 year old, because he's so old. If it's okay to hang a 25 year old for murder (in the excpetional circumstances I describe) then those same exceptional reasons exist for 10 year olds.

There is a point where understanding of responsibility for ones actions needs to be taken into account. So a 5 years old cannot be responsible for murder. But as I said in an earlier post, at 10 I think that you understand that taking, torturing and killing a 2 year old is wrong. You also know that you'll go to prison for it. . . and if we had the death penalty you'd know that too.

Like I say, life to me is just the state of some cells that lasts for 70 years (or so). Other than the fact that I'd understand you're killing me, technically there's no difference between killing me and killing a tree. And its the understanding part that makes murder still a crime in my eyes. If you believe in God you will feel different about that. So be it.

I think I'm in danger of straying into a different discussion about "what is life?". No I'm not going there.

[RB]

I understand RB that killing a 10 year old is a big call which is why I put my personal view on life itself. Age really doesn't come into it. It's like saying that killing a 90 year old is less of a crime that killing a 10 year old, because he's so old. If it's okay to hang a 25 year old for murder (in the excpetional circumstances I describe) then those same exceptional reasons exist for 10 year olds.

There is a point where understanding of responsibility for ones actions needs to be taken into account. So a 5 years old cannot be responsible for murder. But as I said in an earlier post, at 10 I think that you understand that taking, torturing and killing a 2 year old is wrong. You also know that you'll go to prison for it. . . and if we had the death penalty you'd know that too.

The difference as you say between 5 years old and 10 years old is an argument about the age of Criminal Responsibility.
I think the age of Criminal Rsponsibiility in England and Wales is 12 years old.

Even when the UK did hanged people we didn't hang kids under 18.
Their was the famous case in London where a 16 year old shot and killed 2 policemen and wasn't hanged and his accompilice who was 18 and didn't shoot the policemen was hanged.

No civilised country hangs minors.
I am surprised that we have more than one person on here advocating that.

[mr hat]

Still , 8 years in Butlins and then "off you go and dont do it again" is a damning reflection on our justice system. I cant for the life of me work out where justice was seen to be done here

[Torn Sock]

Still , 8 years in Butlins and then "off you go and dont do it again" is a damning reflection on our justice system. I cant for the life of me work out where justice was seen to be done here

Pretty much spot on. Not sure on the death penalty, like previously posted sometimes i think yes, sometimes no, but they should have got 25 years MINIMUM!possibly life meaning life, in which case i would tend to say why waste millions to let them be banged up for 23hours a day.

[Steve]

Calm down Norris, there are other rumours circulating that he allegedly lived elsewhere as well.

well don't come crying to me when the Mods are in a cell....

[Cartman]

well don't come crying to me when the Mods are in a cell....

Drama queen 

[johnf]

Still , 8 years in Butlins and then "off you go and dont do it again" is a damning reflection on our justice system. I cant for the life of me work out where justice was seen to be done here

Do you know - it is very rarely I agree with you but in this case you are spot on. There is no question that the two of them (four if you count Brady and Hindley) should have been kept in a very small, dark room for the rest of their lives - they should not have been granted any degree of liberty under any circumstances whatsoever. None. But they should still not have been sentenced to death. Nobody ever should. 

[local viking]

The difference as you say between 5 years old and 10 years old is an argument about the age of Criminal Responsibility.
I think the age of Criminal Rsponsibiility in England and Wales is 12 years old.

Even when the UK did hanged people we didn't hang kids under 18.
Their was the famous case in London where a 16 year old shot and killed 2 policemen and wasn't hanged and his accompilice who was 18 and didn't shoot the policemen was hanged.

No civilised country hangs minors.
I am surprised that we have more than one person on here advocating that.

RB if you go back far enough I think you will find that not only did we hang children for trivial abberations, we also used to hang pregnant women.

[local viking]

Speaking on a personal and emotional level, I would have banged them in solitary for six years and then hanged them, children or not they became evil when they lured that tiny boy away from his Mum.

They deserve all the horrible stuff life could possibly throw at them and in this instance I could care less if someone torched him.

[mike]

its being reported that it will cost the tax payer at least £250 000 to change his identity again, now that his current one may have been blown 


absolutely ridiculous, just leave him in the nick

[luckylady]

its being reported that it will cost the tax payer at least £250 000 to change his identity again, now that his current one may have been blown 


absolutely ridiculous, just leave him in the nick

Are we sure he isn't a banker, thats about what they are getting for the damage they did