Jump to content

Jon Venables


Recommended Posts

Huntley and Whiting will both die in jail, Thompson and Venables served less than a decade and have been given new identities and rehabilitated into life at huge taxpayer's expense. 

One of them has constantly been in trouble including downloading child pornography, im guessing that is why there is more public outcry over this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

You convinced me. But...

It could vary based on lots of things. Sutcliffe will generate more seethe in Bradford, Brady/Hindley in Manchester. That's even before other variables. Venables was at a particular time in history. No-one had ever seen an abduction, leading to murder on cc tv footage before. The brutal method was widely reported. The media whipped up hysteria that still exists.

This. That's where the public perception that these 10 yr old boys must be somehow more evil than an adult killer came from.

22 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

 


You won’t be alone but you’re comparing 3 completely different cases and there is no possible way of measuring how the public reacted to each differently. There is still massive public hatred for Huntly and Whiting but those cases are closed now and neither will see the light of day again. The James Bulger case happened 24 years ago and it’s still making the news and making people angry.

 

It was obvious to me Throbber.

People can't reconcile the fact that children can murder children and somehow the only way it can compute is to tar them as evil. There is no such thing as evil, killers are not born they are made. I read the transcripts and it was harrowing stuff but it still sounded to me like 2 very confused children talking about something they didn't really understand. If you haven't read it I wouldn't advise it and I certainly couldn't go back and read it again after becoming a father.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Equalizer said:

This. That's where the public perception that these 10 yr old boys must be somehow more evil than an adult killer came from.

It was obvious to me Throbber.

People can't reconcile the fact that children can murder children and somehow the only way it can compute is to tar them as evil. There is no such thing as evil, killers are not born they are made. I read the transcripts and it was harrowing stuff but it still sounded to me like 2 very confused children talking about something they didn't really understand. If you haven't read it I wouldn't advise it and I certainly couldn't go back and read it again after becoming a father.

 

In general people believe adults are capable of evil. To believe children are evil is beyond the comprehension of many. Regardless of the perpetrators capacity for understanding, the public are more repulsed.

There isn't a scale we can use to measure reaction to murder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

In general people believe adults are capable of evil. To believe children are evil is beyond the comprehension of many. Regardless of the perpetrators capacity for understanding, the public are more repulsed.

There isn't a scale we can use to measure reaction to murder.

 

No of course there isn't but you can gauge what you see and hear.

 

You can say that the public outpouring of grief for Princess Diana was much larger than anything we'd ever seen before or since.

I can confidently say the same about the Bulger case in terms of anger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's difficult to grasp the difference in public reaction to a crime committed by two young kids against a toddler, particularly given the fact most of us have an image of the victim popping into our heads the second it's mentioned.  It becomes personal.  To compare with Huntly and Whiting (who I had to Google to remind myself) isn't really like for like IMO.  Why not Hindley and Brady which would be  more appropriate comparison, surely?   

Regardless, do we need a pecking order of evil and can we even measure it if we wanted to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I don't think it's difficult to grasp the difference in public reaction to a crime committed by two young kids against a toddler, particularly given the fact most of us have an image of the victim popping into our heads the second it's mentioned.  It becomes personal.  To compare with Huntly and Whiting (who I had to Google to remind myself) isn't really like for like IMO.  Why not Hindley and Brady which would be  more appropriate comparison, surely?   

Regardless, do we need a pecking order of evil and can we even measure it if we wanted to?

That would be some deck of 'Top Trumps'. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The Equalizer said:

Then the problem is with the justice system and sentencing laws. By the route taken to get them out I assume you mean new identities? Someone can correct me here but I think the UK govt has only ever issued these new identities to 4 people so it's not as if they are being frivolous about it.

 

None of these cases became famous in the US, so I just googled them.

It seems like there was no controversy with the adults and everyone agreed that they should be sentenced to life. With the kids there was a public campaign to get them out early, and the European Human Rights Court agreed. That's bound to create outrage and entrenched opinions for the people on the other side of the issue. The controversy and debate is the reason for the vitriol. Also throw in that the opinion of both sides is about equally socially acceptable, which is abnormal for controversial issues. It's the perfect storm.

Edited by TheProgressiveLiberal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

None of these cases became famous in the US, so I just googled them.

It seems like there was no controversy with the adults and everyone agreed that they should be sentenced to life. With the kids there was a public campaign to get them out early, and the European Human Rights Court agreed. That's bound to create outrage and entrenched opinions for the people on the other side of the issue. The controversy and debate is the reason for the vitriol. Also throw in that the opinion of both sides is about equally socially acceptable, which is abnormal for controversial issues. It's the perfect storm.

Sounds interesting. You got the links?

The ones you googled because you are American and new to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

None of these cases became famous in the US, so I just googled them.

It seems like there was no controversy with the adults and everyone agreed that they should be sentenced to life. With the kids there was a public campaign to get them out early, and the European Human Rights Court agreed. That's bound to create outrage and entrenched opinions for the people on the other side of the issue. The controversy and debate is the reason for the vitriol. Also throw in that the opinion of both sides is about equally socially acceptable, which is abnormal for controversial issues. It's the perfect storm.

I don't recall this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Equalizer said:

I don't recall this.

That's because he made it up. Like the Vikings wiping out the natives in New England. Does it all the time, puts in one half fact and bullshits around it to fit his agenda. Can't be bothered even checking his shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, welshbairn said:

That's because he made it up. Like the Vikings wiping out the natives in New England. Does it all the time, puts in one half fact and bullshits around it to fit his agenda. Can't be bothered even checking his shite.

Do you mean to say that Swampy The Progressive Liberal is being less than truthful with us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

Sounds interesting. You got the links?

The ones you googled because you are American and new to the subject.

Just the Wikipedia. Nothing big.

1 hour ago, The Equalizer said:

I don't recall this.

Like I said, I just read the Wikipedia. It mentioned a few high profile politicians calling for the release of the kids and public outrage. Mentions the Chief Inspector of Prisons saying he admired the progress of the killers and calling in the press for their early release.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/492487.stm

It also includes a public quote by the 2nd highest judge in England calling the sentence "Institutionalized vengeance by politicians playing to the gallery."

I took that to mean there were some government officials arguing in public that the sentence should be reduced, which would create outrage on the other side. Did these arguments mention not reach the general public? I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That's because he made it up. Like the Vikings wiping out the natives in New England. Does it all the time, puts in one half fact and bullshits around it to fit his agenda. Can't be bothered even checking his shite.

Last week I just watched a PBS documentary on the Pilgrims if you're wondering where I got that. 

It looks like there is debate about which disease exactly wiped out the Indians and how it was introduced.

What's undeniable is that almost all the Indians along the coast of New England were dead when the Pilgrims arrived. Contemporary accounts from the settlers talk of empty villages full of bones.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/16/2/09-0276_article

Here's a quote from the colony governor, William Bradford.

" . . .and the people not many, being dead and abundantly wasted in the late great mortalitie which fell in all these parts about three years before the coming of the English, wherin thousands of em dyed; … ther sculs and bones were found in many places lying still above the ground, where their houses and dwellings had been; a very sad spectackle to behould.“

Happy to be corrected if you think I'm wrong about something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There's no little to no evidence the Vikings even reached New England.

2. Even if they did it was hundreds of years before the Pilgrims.

3. Who shared the first Thanksgiving?

4. Perhaps Bradford was writing about the them, the people his had infected. It's an awful lot more likely. 3 years before, aye right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...