James Bulger

[parksie]

Normally stuff doesn't get me worked up...but this does.

Who else here thinks it's despicable the level of protection they're getting? Who cares whether they're under threat of attack from the public? They should have thought about that BEFORE they did it.

*rant over but possibly to be resumed...*

[barrk]

Sorry to be so ignorant but....who?

[parksie]

Katie - A little kid named James Bulger was two when he was murdered on a railway line by two other kids. They're now coming up to 18 and the courts have given them protection!?!?!

[parksie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1107000/1107626.stm

[parksie]

The SAS sent the two boys a death threat...so it's fairly serious stuff :(

[barrk]

I can't believe that they let the kids out of prison in the first place!

It is the duty of society to protect ALL of its citizens.
Even those who, by their actions, have placed themselves
outside the law. Whether or not you believe in the death
penalty, it is fairly well agreed upon that the only entity
that has a right to kill with due deliberation is the state.

Vigilante justice devolves into mob rule. Its a
restatement of the principle that power corrupts, absolute
power corrupts absolutely.

[barrk]

After committing such a hideous crime...or committing murder with no extenuating circumstances..at any age....they should not be release from prison.....I'm not saying they should be subject to vigilante "justice". I don't think they should be released simply because they reach a magic age of 18. I can certainly see why the parents of the little boy are quite upset though!

[parksie]

It's not that that annoys me so much. It's the fact that they've been let out and HELPED.

If they were left in prison, that's okay - any adult who did this would be locked up for 20 years or more.

Surely they knew the difference between right and wrong - I did at that age...and I'm the same age as they are.

Parksie --

[/quote]
Who else here thinks it's despicable the level of
protection they're getting? Who cares whether they're under
threat of attack from the public? They should have thought
about that BEFORE they did it.
[/quote]

Your first post said nothing about how long or what the
circumstances were or that they were helped. It was
addressing only the issue of vigilanteism in the form of
decrying the protections afforded them.

I'm not disagreeing with your outrage, just that you do
need to be more clear. It's too easy to dismiss you as
just another hot-headed dipshit who talks in right-wing
radio cliches rather than thinking about the problem as a
precursor to fomenting a possible solution.

[barrk]

Originally posted by DerFarm
......just another hot-headed dipshit who talks in right-wing radio cliches ....


Was this aimed at me, DerFarm or just the world at large?

Katie --

It was aimed at, and addressed too, Parksie.

Your post dealt with the crime, the punishment (or lack of
it) and the parent's response to the release. You did not
say the boys should be shot, or unprotected, ....

[barrk]

Thanks for clearing that up...I do appreciate the response.

[Sophtware]

I dont mean too be a dick but..........


Why do you always "go against the grain" with everyone?
why is that?

Is the world wrong and you are right?

[Benjamin]

It is the duty of society to protect ALL of its citizens.
Even those who, by their actions, have placed themselves
outside the law. Whether or not you believe in the death
penalty, it is fairly well agreed upon that the only entity
that has a right to kill with due deliberation is the state.



I don't see why the government should protect people who intentionaly murder anybody. It's wrong to cold bloodedly murder someone, and should the public decide to return the favor, well the government should stay out of it. The bastards killed somebody, and that cannot be changed, they should be punished, if not by the government, then by the people.

and another point. had the killers been adults, they would have gotten life in prison, or possibly the chair, but they weren't, they were kids, but everybody assumes children cannot make descisions of their own, if it's because they can't make the right choices, then why are there as many adult-murders as there are?

I think children and adults should be punished equally if murder was involved. But if it was a petty crime, such as theft, the punishment should be lowered, yes; reckless and thoughtless descisions were made, but the taking of a life was not involved. But in this case, the children intentionally murdered an infant, it may have been thoughtless, but it involved a death, and all people -- regardless of age(excluding peoples under 5) should know better than that.

[parksie]

DerFarm - I don't think it's right that a vigilante attitude should be taken towards them, I just don't like it that they are being given so much help to "protect" them. It's not going to make any difference in a few years anyway because foreign reporters and such are going to find their indentities.

[paulw]

It is the duty of the Government to protect all of its citizens on behalf of those very same citizens! The protection of unedifying scum is necessary to ensure that protection is available to ALL. This goes to the very heart of what punishment is about - is it redeeming or merely vengeance on behalf of the state? Can people expiate their crimes? If Myra Hindley really has changed should she be released? Running a brutal prison system brutalises and degrades us all. It is a sad comment on Human nature that these two need new identities. Who is worse the criminal or the 'right-minded person' who tries to lynch him?

Hard cases make bad law. This IS a hard case, but they were only ten when they killed that poor child - did they actually understand what they were doing? The people that I would really like to have a go at are their parents - what were two ten year olds doing cruising a shopping center looking for unattended toddlers?

As a by-note, you may think "how could anyone let a two-year old wander off?". Until I had my own, I couldn't understand it, but last year, just after Sarah Payne was lost, my three year old slipped out of my hand and went over to his mum (I thought) in a motorway service station. When I got over there, he was nowhere to be seen and I had the most excruciating two minutes of my life. In fact, he had seen his Grandmother outside and was happily chatting away to her - he couldn't understand why his father gave him a VERY hard time for running off. Even given that, I would prefer us to err on the side of just treatment lest it should ever be me standing there.

Phew.

Cheers,

P.

[tumblingdown]

Don't we have any colonies left, where we can just export these evil runts. Thats what we used to do in the old days.


td.

[paulw]

Yeh, its called the Isle of Wight - Parkhurst, Albany, Camp Hill...

Cheers,

P.

[tumblingdown]

Don't we own France? I thought we did. We could put them there. Or Canada maybe. I'm pretty sure we still own Canada...



td.

[Knut]

The whole case is outrageous, I still remember (vaguely) the attention the trial got back then... Yes they were 'just' kids, in fact they still are. But they comitted the most serious crime there is (I believe all kinds of 'civilized' societies or those who concider them to be agree that the deliberate killing of a human being is the ultimate felony).
They 've been found guilty. And now they've done their time and NOW THEY NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM SOCIETY?

OK, that most certainly is the case. BUT doesn't society needs protection from them as well? IMHO, they should be seriously locked away, some kind of closed psycological facility (don't know the term), which would protect them AND society.
I know its awfully expensive and stuff, but if we wnat to call ourselves civilized, that's the price we have to pay.