The New News Thread.

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related).

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:55 pm

Just to put this into context: I was a 6 year old living in the same city as Jamie Bulger when he was killed. I was halfway in age between the victim and the two killers. I remember the schools being on red alert; my mum holding my hand extra tight when we walked through town, while the killers were still at large.

I also cycled along the canal where some of those awful events took place, most weeks last year on my way to work.

I know that the murder and it’s aftermath took place 26 years ago this week, and I know that without Googling, because the dates are etched into my memory.

So I understand the gravity of what those two boys did.

But it’s important to realise that those two boys don’t exist any more. Instead there are two adults who spent half of their childhood locked up, who have to live with the terrible legacy of what those two boys did. One of them clearly can’t escape his past, and is likely damaged for life and will certainly die in the next 10 years. The other - well, who knows?

One thing’s for sure. If they were in an adult prison with their original identities, they would both be killed in prison. There is a huge amount of money up for grabs for any career criminal who fancies setting up their family for life. They will absolutely be killed as soon as their identities and whereabouts become known, be it in prison or outside. For that reason they must keep getting new identities, because otherwise how can we call ourselves a truly civilised society, if we knowingly allow vigilante justice to prevail?
 
Elessar
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:06 pm

Elessar wrote:Good point.

Well, the case of Jamie Bulger’s killers was indeed dealt with in a courtroom, and the two killers dealt with individually on a case by case basis.

So what’s the problem?


well, the problem is you :P somehow, you find logic in applying the behaviour of 99.99% of the youngster population, to the sick and twisted minds (see, I'm being a positivist now) of the two murderers.

in the courtroom, I'm sure there was no one going "but they're only 10 years old. maybe they didn't know what they were doing". I find it quite hard not to take offence by that stance, given the facts and execution of the crime :?
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:13 pm

Elessar wrote:But it’s important to realise that those two boys don’t exist any more. Instead there are two adults who spent half of their childhood locked up, who have to live with the terrible legacy of what those two boys did. One of them clearly can’t escape his past, and is likely damaged for life and will certainly die in the next 10 years. The other - well, who knows?



Elessar wrote:It’s the same with humans. Every cell might be replaced but the sum total remains roughly the same, and important things stay very similar (eg DNA makeup). Pretty much every atom in your face has changed since childhood, yet you are still recognisable from childhood photos.


kidding aside, I'm still of the opinion that their "character" has evolved, but it is still inherently "evil". those two boys, they are the devil incarnate. then, and now. I'd wager, their child-self was the softer version of the wretched minds they have evolved in today. From something rotten, nothing good can come.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:42 am

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:Good point.

Well, the case of Jamie Bulger’s killers was indeed dealt with in a courtroom, and the two killers dealt with individually on a case by case basis.

So what’s the problem?


well, the problem is you :P somehow, you find logic in applying the behaviour of 99.99% of the youngster population, to the sick and twisted minds (see, I'm being a positivist now) of the two murderers.

in the courtroom, I'm sure there was no one going "but they're only 10 years old. maybe they didn't know what they were doing". I find it quite hard not to take offence by that stance, given the facts and execution of the crime :?


It seems that not only do you think they were the human embodiment of pure evil (weird coincidence that two truly evil boys happened to live in the same town and go to the same school), but you also attribute them with levels of insight that are vastly superior to all their peers.

The uncomfortable truth is that with the perfect storm of a violent, abusive upbringing, escalating bad behaviour, I daresay some genetic predisposition, and the opportunity, any number of people could have ended up doing what those boys did.
 
Elessar
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:12 am

Elessar wrote:
The uncomfortable truth is that with the perfect storm of a violent, abusive upbringing, escalating bad behaviour, I daresay some genetic predisposition, and the opportunity, any number of people could have ended up doing what those boys did.


if that was true, then it should happen every day
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:51 am

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:
The uncomfortable truth is that with the perfect storm of a violent, abusive upbringing, escalating bad behaviour, I daresay some genetic predisposition, and the opportunity, any number of people could have ended up doing what those boys did.


if that was true, then it should happen every day


Why? Are those exact conditions replicated every day?

The same city also happened to throw together three of the greatest musicians of all time (plus an okay drummer) in the early 1960s, but do you really think that by amazing coincidence those naturally gifted musicians all happened to be in the same place at the same time, or do you think that perhaps circumstances had just as much to do with it as innate talent, and that they achieved greatness because they were all in the right place at the right time?

There’s no doubting that Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were messed up kids but any number of little changes along the way - if one of them had flu that day, if one of them had moved away, if one of them was in trouble for something else - chances are that terrible crime would have never taken place. There was nothing inevitable about what happened, it was a terrible perfect storm of conditions.
 
Elessar
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:45 am

Elessar wrote:
Why? Are those exact conditions replicated every day?

The same city also happened to throw together three of the greatest musicians of all time (plus an okay drummer) in the early 1960s, but do you really think that by amazing coincidence those naturally gifted musicians all happened to be in the same place at the same time, or do you think that perhaps circumstances had just as much to do with it as innate talent, and that they achieved greatness because they were all in the right place at the right time?


being a musician is much more a matter of talent, than it is a matter of surroundings. No matter how much you're being pushed by your surroundings to become an "artist", if you don't have the talent it will absolutely make no difference. Nothing noteworthy will grace "the canvas". it isn't comparable. so I'm going to discard this argument.

back to the murderers.

circumstances like bad surroundings, violent parents etc.... I wouldn't want to feed them, they are plenty and everyday's matters. judging by the amount of bullies on school, there is also no shortage of assholes.

all opportunities for perfect storms.

.... where are they?
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:34 am

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:
Why? Are those exact conditions replicated every day?

The same city also happened to throw together three of the greatest musicians of all time (plus an okay drummer) in the early 1960s, but do you really think that by amazing coincidence those naturally gifted musicians all happened to be in the same place at the same time, or do you think that perhaps circumstances had just as much to do with it as innate talent, and that they achieved greatness because they were all in the right place at the right time?


being a musician is much more a matter of talent, than it is a matter of surroundings. No matter how much you're being pushed by your surroundings to become an "artist", if you don't have the talent it will absolutely make no difference. Nothing noteworthy will grace "the canvas". it isn't comparable. so I'm going to discard this argument.

back to the murderers.

circumstances like bad surroundings, violent parents etc.... I wouldn't want to feed them, they are plenty and everyday's matters. judging by the amount of bullies on school, there is also no shortage of assholes.

all opportunities for perfect storms.

.... where are they?


You seem to be lamenting the fact that there aren’t more child murderers.

Do you really think it’s plausible that two of the most evil people ever to have lived (if for a moment we accept that ‘evil’ really exists) just so happened to be friends in the same class at the same school? Don’t you think that’s a remarkable coincidence?

Or is it not far more likely that there are thousands of people that could, if the circumstances lined up, end up doing something like that, but fortunately it’s very rare that those circumstances do line up?

It’s like the juvenile concept of ‘The One’. It seems remarkable how many people manage to find their ‘One’, out of 7 billion people, and usually they just so happen to be from their same country and often the same town. How extraordinary! Far more likely there are tens of thousands of equally suitable partners scattered across the world.
 
Elessar
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby JLP » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:41 am

I clearly remember the Jamie Bulger murder, it truly was something far worse than anyone could imagine. I remember some other children being linked to the killing and their homes being targeted by vigilantes baying for revenge.

Then during the trial, details of the circumstances the two boys who carried out the killing emerging. Being exposed to horror films, I think one that was mentioned was the one with the doll called Chucky. There was also an environment of physical abuse and other stuff.

Whilst that does not for a micro second defend what they did, you have to wonder what that sort of stuff does to a young child's mind. It surely blurs the lines between right and wrong alongside good and evil.
Come on you Tigers.
 
JLP
Site Admin
 
User avatar

 

Growing old disgracefully

      
 
Posts: 11487
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:33 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:01 pm

I think that once examined in any serious way, the idea that people can be truly ‘evil’ falls apart pretty quickly. I know an ophthalmologist who has several senior colleagues who remember a Syrian junior colleague they had in the early 1990s. Apparently he was quiet but very nice and friendly. Then his brother died back in Syria, and he had to abandon his medical career and return home, where he would later become President Bashar al-Assad. He has been implicated in the killing of thousands of his own citizens.

Is he an evil man? When he was examining old ladies’ cataracts was he fantasising about gassing children? Was it inevitable that one day he would go on a rampage, killing the men, women and children of Moorfields Eye Hospital?

I think not.

If Hitler has got into the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, would he have become a celebrated artist with a dark secret: That he wanted to murder millions of Jews?

Of course not.

People aren’t innately evil. Their circumstances shape them and can, in some extremely rare and unfortunate cases, lead to truly terrible consequences.
 
Elessar
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:14 pm

Elessar wrote:I think that once examined in any serious way, the idea that people can be truly ‘evil’ falls apart pretty quickly. I know an ophthalmologist who has several senior colleagues who remember a Syrian junior colleague they had in the early 1990s. Apparently he was quiet but very nice and friendly. Then his brother died back in Syria, and he had to abandon his medical career and return home, where he would later become President Bashar al-Assad. He has been implicated in the killing of thousands of his own citizens.

Is he an evil man? When he was examining old ladies’ cataracts was he fantasising about gassing children? Was it inevitable that one day he would go on a rampage, killing the men, women and children of Moorfields Eye Hospital?

I think not.

If Hitler has got into the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, would he have become a celebrated artist with a dark secret: That he wanted to murder millions of Jews?

Of course not.

People aren’t innately evil. Their circumstances shape them and can, in some extremely rare and unfortunate cases, lead to truly terrible consequences.


what is "guilt" then, in your opinion?

can anyone truly be guilty in your theory?

is anyone guilty, at all?

No, you argue. it's the circumstances that shape a criminal.

that may all be well and true, but how are you going to defend society against individuals who commit atroicous crimes, whatever the cause is?

surely you'll agree, people have a constitutional "right" to safety?

even when the roman empire was defeated, and europe was run by vigilant barbarc tribes.... the first thing people asked was protection against thieves, opposing tribes and violence. it is the first fundamental need.

faced with a criminal, you can ponder the causes all day long, but in the end, a decision will need to be made. to PROTECT society against future crimes.

but you want to release the bulger killers. I'm still not sure why. I can see your reasoning as to WHY they did it, but nowhere do I see any guarantee that they won't do it again.
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:39 pm

action wrote:
what is "guilt" then, in your opinion?

can anyone truly be guilty in your theory?

is anyone guilty, at all?

No, you argue. it's the circumstances that shape a criminal.

that may all be well and true, but how are you going to defend society against individuals who commit atroicous crimes, whatever the cause is?

surely you'll agree, people have a constitutional "right" to safety?

even when the roman empire was defeated, and europe was run by vigilant barbarc tribes.... the first thing people asked was protection against thieves, opposing tribes and violence. it is the first fundamental need.

faced with a criminal, you can ponder the causes all day long, but in the end, a decision will need to be made. to PROTECT society against future crimes.

but you want to release the bulger killers. I'm still not sure why. I can see your reasoning as to WHY they did it, but nowhere do I see any guarantee that they won't do it again.


Fortunately there are people whose sole raison d’être is to make that kind of decision.

The kids were imprisoned in 1993 and released in 2000, after a panel of experts decided that they are low risk for future re-offending. Sadly one of them proved them wrong but crucially the other has so far proved their judgement of him to be right.

To aid their decision-making, these people had access to all the relevant records pertaining to the boys, as well as their own interviews with them, but you seem to think you have better judgement than them on the issue because you read about it in the paper.
 
Elessar
 
User avatar

 
 

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:54 pm

the expert panel made a big mistake by releasing them. one of them was found with child porn. why didn't they foresee that? what guarantees me then, he won't murder again?

this is madness!

they're gambling with the lives of innocent people :roll:
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby JLP » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:23 pm

action wrote:the expert panel made a big mistake by releasing them. one of them was found with child porn. why didn't they foresee that? what guarantees me then, he won't murder again?

this is madness!

they're gambling with the lives of innocent people :roll:


Has the other one committed any crimes? Not that we know of so why should he continue to be punished?
Come on you Tigers.
 
JLP
Site Admin
 
User avatar

 

Growing old disgracefully

      
 
Posts: 11487
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:33 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:16 pm

JLP wrote:Has the other one committed any crimes? Not that we know of so why should he continue to be punished?


There is only one thing I got to say about the bulgar case.

With the bulgar case, I don't like this idea of criminals "who didn't know what they were doing, on neurobiological grounds". Not that it isn't true, but it leads to perverse consequences. Wether you use that neurobiological knowledge in judgment of serious crimes, is very much a political choice. And I'm against it, for the following reasons.

because this means, we can never really be sure wether a criminal would commit a crime, again. The one conclusion is to jail them for life, with no means to know wether they would murder someone else when freed.

it also means, since you're referring to neurobiological elements, that people "can" be jailed "even" when they did not commit a crime yet.

if a person is neurobiologically wired to commit a crime, then society has a right to "defend" itself against these individuals, and thus jail them as a means of prevention.

This is a school in penology that came to life with the emergence of positivism. People like Enrico Ferri (with his emphasis os psychological causes of crime) and Lombroso (with his biological emphasis on the causes) implemented positivism in penology, to come up with all of the above.

people like mussolini and Hitler would eagerly assimilate their theories. because their theories allowed them to jail people on the base of biological and racist motives (not saying you're advocating all of this too, but I'd just want you to know the dangers of referring to biological causes for crime)

so I guess I'm more related to the "classical" school in penology, that hypotheses that people, when they commit a crime, make a deliberate and considerate CHOICE (away with neurobiological nonsense).

it means, you can and should jail people in the fiersest ways, when they commit a crime. You can't free them when the crime was serious enough. Again, society has a right to defend itself, but unlike in the positivist school, a crime has to be committed first.

but doesn't it follow then that, all people under 20 be jailed, "just in case"? because you point to neurobiological processes, that are prevalent with all people under 20. Every one of them "doesn't know what they are doing", so they are all potential toddler killers.

I disagree, Elessar. I disagree on biological grounds. You see, it is my understanding that, if biological causes are the cause, that in the burgler case there were "other" neurobiological processes at work, different to those of your ordinary youngsters. Biological processes that, arguably, didn't suddenly dissapear when they got older. Therefore, even on biological grounds, I believe they should still be jailed.

I agree that rehabilitation has it's purposes, but given that you have referred to neurobiological processes, it is not clear to me how rehabilitation could change them. How can you change a physical thing with rehabilitation? Shouldn't that, theorethically, rather be done by surgery? God, that reminds me of that horrible dining scene in "Hannibal".

this does not have anything to do with the burglar murders. of the billions of youngsters, only they have ganged up and murdered a toddler. yes, they were young. Yes, they didn't have much concept of life. still, so do millions of other youngsters and they didn't murder anyone. the bulgler murderers did, and they need to be punished.


"not necessarily". that enough to let them free? because of a possibility?

I'd say, it's just as likely that they WILL commit another crime. we just don't know. If you're going to release them, then please prove with 100% certainty that they will not commit another crime. But you can't. "not necessarily", you say. I'm sorry, that's just not good enough.

I'm a follower of the classical school, which doesn't struggle with these uncertainties: they committed a murder, so they should be imprisoned for life.

what is the solution then? you offer no convincing alternative to a life imprisonment, to ensure that they will not commit other crimes. it's all hypothesis. society has a right to defend itself against murderers, and you can't offer me certainty that all will be safe and well, when they get released.

Rehabilitation is sensible for certain crimes. think of petty shoplifting. or drug abuse. certainly in the case of Drug abuse, rehabilitation should be the first option. if the rehabilitation fails, then the worst thing that can happen is they relapse. but no worries, we'll try again then.

I don't think rehabilitation is the right answer to murder. if rehabilitation fails and he commits another murder, are you gonna say "oops, guess we'll have to try better next time"?

rehabilitation failed, someone screwed up. who is going to take responsability. I guess you won't, hiding behind the way science works and the lack of 100% certainty. While that very reason, was why I refused to let them free in the first place.

I could even "start" to consider your proposition, if the two murderers were living perfect crimeless lives since then, but even that is clearly not the case. there is child porn involved, for one thing.

litterally every box that's a contra-indication to releasing them, has been ticked.

and at no point did I ridicule anything you said.

you're a positivist. You try to understand the biological and / or psychological processes between crime. this is the reason, you question the need to jail a 10 year old murderer for life. Your definition of "guilt" is highly dependent on biological and positivistic parameters.

As I said, I'm of the "classical" school. My approach is much more straightforward: everyone is supposed to be able to make conscious decisions. this supposition is not subject to criticism (in the objective absence of more accurate data, and until science is advanced enough to provide more certain conclusions). the reason for this excessive approach, is the right and the need for society to protect itself. We've got two murderers of a toddler. It's crisis, and action needs to be taken. A lifetime sentence is both a gift to the murderer (we could have also just applied capital punishment) and a definite security measure for society. Lifetime imprisonment gives far more guarantees that another murder wont be committed, than if we freed them.

the severeness of the crime, warrants the severeness of the punishment.

Being 10 years old at the crime does not make the facts any less grave. When you're 10 years old, you're able to make conscious decisions. evidence of this conscious approach is in the crimes themselves and the way they were performend. it's nothing like a toddler finding a gun and shooting it by accident. It's not as much a grey zone as you make it out to be. it's really full blown conscious decision, the way this murder was committed.

a sentence needs to be applied, on a case-by-case basis.

even a 10 year old can make an uneducated decision. he too, can find a gun and "accidently" fire it. there is no age limit applicable here. As I said, a case to case base. In the bulgar case, the facts themselves show a conscious decision, between two individuals. Planning and careful execution went behind the crime. How is it not a 100% conscious decision? As a result, the fiercest punishment should apply. But the 10 year old who finds a gun and accidently fires it, shouldn't spend a day in jail. Case-to-case Elessar. Else, we wouldn't need courtrooms.

most of the decisions I made are of so little importance, they have left very few traces to this day. As for the more important decisions? I guess they made me the man I am today. With a family, a BMW and money on the bank. I didn't fucking murder a toddler

well, the problem is you :P somehow, you find logic in applying the behaviour of 99.99% of the youngster population, to the sick and twisted minds (see, I'm being a positivist now) of the two murderers.

in the courtroom, I'm sure there was no one going "but they're only 10 years old. maybe they didn't know what they were doing". I find it quite hard not to take offence by that stance, given the facts and execution of the crime :?

kidding aside, I'm still of the opinion that their "character" has evolved, but it is still inherently "evil". those two boys, they are the devil incarnate. then, and now. I'd wager, their child-self was the softer version of the wretched minds they have evolved in today. From something rotten, nothing good can come.

if that was true, then it should happen every day

being a musician is much more a matter of talent, than it is a matter of surroundings. No matter how much you're being pushed by your surroundings to become an "artist", if you don't have the talent it will absolutely make no difference. Nothing noteworthy will grace "the canvas". it isn't comparable. so I'm going to discard this argument.

back to the murderers.

circumstances like bad surroundings, violent parents etc.... I wouldn't want to feed them, they are plenty and everyday's matters. judging by the amount of bullies on school, there is also no shortage of assholes.

all opportunities for perfect storms.

.... where are they?

what is "guilt" then, in your opinion?

can anyone truly be guilty in your theory?

is anyone guilty, at all?

No, you argue. it's the circumstances that shape a criminal.

that may all be well and true, but how are you going to defend society against individuals who commit atroicous crimes, whatever the cause is?

surely you'll agree, people have a constitutional "right" to safety?

even when the roman empire was defeated, and europe was run by vigilant barbarc tribes.... the first thing people asked was protection against thieves, opposing tribes and violence. it is the first fundamental need.

faced with a criminal, you can ponder the causes all day long, but in the end, a decision will need to be made. to PROTECT society against future crimes.

but you want to release the bulger killers. I'm still not sure why. I can see your reasoning as to WHY they did it, but nowhere do I see any guarantee that they won't do it again.

the expert panel made a big mistake by releasing them. one of them was found with child porn. why didn't they foresee that? what guarantees me then, he won't murder again?

this is madness!

they're gambling with the lives of innocent people :roll:

/repeat

and that's all I got to say about that
Why stand on a silent platform?
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 3012
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 233 times

PreviousNext

Return to Views Of The World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests