Tangent 21 - Bulger secrecy

Posted by
Incandenza

Posted on
17:02
Apr 04 2002

Bulger secrecy

by Ethan
What about the more serious facts like we deserve the right to know where the relevant people are hiding the likes of the Bulger (sp?) murderers? I read in a paper this weekend that the police had to spend a ludicrous amount of money protecting one of the individuals. We deserve to know where they are for our own and our families safety, that is our basic human right!

As part of the social contract, you have a right to protection from criminal acts. The police and governing officials provide that protection to the best of their abilities in the manner that they see fit.

And even better, convicted criminals who have exited the justice system are also entitled to that protection.

That is because central to the tenets of our society is the awareness of the concepts of rehabilitation, penance and redemption.

Most children who commit violent offences are themselves victims of physical or emotional abuse as is true in the case of Venables and Thompson. The aim of the justice system when dealing with children is rehabilitation. Both offenders in this case have indicated deep remorse for what they now recognise was a horrendous crime.

There is no evidence that they are likely to reoffend, only evidence to the contrary, and a highly qualified judicial body in possession of all the facts (as opposed to the scaremongering of a newspaper) made the decision that they posed no threat to society.

As far as basic human rights are concerned, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children who come into contact with the law should be protected, and treated with humanity and respect.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the trial of the two boys (11 at the time) was unlawful, that the action of the Home Secretary at the time (Michael Howard) to up the sentence was unlawful and that an independent judicial body should make the decision about their eventual release date.

Alternatively, basic human rights are there to protect the weak and the few against the tyranny of the strong and the many.

Two young men who have grown up in an institute for Young Offenders versus a lynch mob? Who needs the most protection?

34 Replies and 7518 Views in Total. [ 1 2 ]

Jayjay "I may be scattered / A little shattered / What does it matter / No one has a fit like I do / I'm the only one that fits you"

Firstly, I couldn't care less who the source of a report was. If a fool says the sun will rise tomorrow it doesn't mean it won't.

As soon as I entered 'Stevanne Hill' into Google I got the link to the Justice for James site. I also got one to a now removed article from the Australian edition of the Daily Telegraph. I'm still trying to find other routes to her data and the exact nature of her report, but I suspect I won't be able to find what I'm looking for on the net.

On a side note, I am a little concerned that someone described as predominant in her field by the JfJ site seems to have no mention anywhere else at all...

As for the adaptation of the Hare test, I read this to mean that applying a test for adults to adolescents/children was such an adaptation, rather than any actual change to the process in this case. However, there can be no way to know this without finding more intact data on what was said.

Anyway, to repeat myself, I don't care where the data came from, only in researching its validity. Just as I would want to had the article appeared in my beloved Guardian or BBC/C4 News. Who are not beyond misrepresenting the facts themselves. JfJ may be a bunch of rabid lynch mobbers, but that's not the issue. The issue is, is there sufficient reason to question the release of Thompson and Venables. That will be done by checking Ms Hill's credentials and trying to locate the content of her report. Not sniping about who took what from where.

Posted: 07:19 Apr 09 2002

Joe "Aren't you a little short for a storm trooper?"

by Jayjay
On a side note, I am a little concerned that someone described as predominant in her field by the JfJ site seems to have no mention anywhere else at all...

That's not a side note, in my view. It's actually critical that posters shouldn't be allowed to pluck 'authorities' on any given field out of the air, without being able to support their claims with solid credentials. And a link to The Lancet would mean something to me, impressionable as I am. But maybe I'm being too fastidious about verity.

As to the report, Miss Hill seems to be atempting to argue that Thompson and Venables belong in a mental institution, but since mental disorders didn't figure in their trial, the hands of the Home Office would appear to be tied. And is it so hard to believe that these two weren't born sick, but made sick, and therefore capable of being cured? I've argued before that society by itself can be quite enough to warp the minds of people, paricularly young people, without a stable family background of some kind, but this is a concept that's proving very resistable, it seems.

Posted: 11:56 Apr 09 2002

Whistler "I wonder wonder why the wonder falls. I wonder why the wonder falls on me. I wonder wonder why the wonder falls, with everything I touch and hear and see."

by Joe
That's not a side note, in my view. It's actually critical that posters shouldn't be allowed to pluck 'authorities' on any given field out of the air, without being able to support their claims with solid credentials.

While posters may want to back up their argument with links to articles they refer to, etc, it isn't a necessity. This is a discussion board, people aren't writing papers or a thesis on the subject here. At the end of the day, it's up to them how they put across their opinion. And if you find it annoying that they haven't backed it up with references then you have to deal with it. By all means 'criticise' the opinion, in the proper sense of the word but please don't take the thread totally off topic on such a trivial point.

And a link to The Lancet would mean something to me, impressionable as I am. But maybe I'm being too fastidious about verity.

Yes, you are. Please can this thread return to talking about the Bulger case and NOT on the rights and wrongs of constructing an argument. Thank you

(Edited by Whistler 09/04/2002 14:21)

Posted: 14:19 Apr 09 2002

Incandenza It's not a zero-sum game.

by Whistler
While posters may want to back up their argument with links to articles they refer to, etc, it isn't a necessity. This is a discussion board, people aren't writing papers or a thesis on the subject here. At the end of the day, it's up to them how they put across their opinion. And if you find it annoying that they haven't backed it up with references then you have to deal with it. By all means 'criticise' the opinion, in the proper sense of the word but please don't take the thread totally off topic on such a trivial point.

If someone chooses to support their post by quoting from a third party source (not a necessity but what actually happened in this instance) then it seems to me that the credentials or otherwise of that third party source are not in the least bit trivial.

For example:

Were I to support a contention that income tax was going to go up in next weeks budget with the third party quote 'I expect Gordon Brown to increase income tax', the validity of my opinion would vary quite significantly depending on whether the quote was attributed to:

a) Gordon Brown's press secretary
b) My mate Dave who heard it from his bookie in the pub last Friday.

The problem with published opinions is that they carry the veneer of facts. Unless the source is identified, it is impossible to gauge the reliability/impartiality etc. of that opinion.

Posted: 14:38 Apr 09 2002

In a State of Dan That's just, like, your opinion, man

by Whistler
By all means 'criticise' the opinion, in the proper sense of the word

From our old friend dictionary.com -
"criticise
v : express criticism of; point out real or perceived flaws;"

If anyone thinks that definition doesn't fit Joes post, I'd be interested to know why.

but please don't take the thread totally off topic on such a trivial point.

Well I don't consider it off-topic, or trivial. This is being presented as a vital piece of evidence in the debate at hand. Any reasonable questioning of its reliability is entirely relevant and on-topic.

Posted: 14:47 Apr 09 2002

Sange It's only kinky the first time!!! after that it's just the Norm ;o)

by Jayjay
Seems to me there are three issues here.

Should either Thompson and/or Venables be released?
Are they receiving disproportionate protection?
Should their identities and location be revealed?

From what people have read/validated for themselves, what do people think?

Posted: 14:53 Apr 09 2002

Incandenza It's not a zero-sum game.

by Sweet-Sange
From what people have read/validated for themselves, what do people think?

Should either Thompson and/or Venables be released?

The relevant authorities felt they should. Without access to the evidence on which they made that decision it is difficult to second guess them.

Are they receiving disproportionate protection?

No

Should their identities and location be revealed?

Very definitely no.

Posted: 15:30 Apr 09 2002

Julz "As God once said, and I think Rightly.." (Margaret Thatcher)

If they should be released, should their identities/location be released?

I have to say no. I don't have kids and I readily admit
that might change my perspective, but we can't allow vigilante activities and we can't reasonably have every parent moving their kid from whatever area the Bulger kids are relocated.

Should they be released if it is clear they have been rehabilitated?

If they are no longer a danger (if), then I think by taking away their childhood we have given them all the punishment we reasonably can to people of their age. IF they are rehabilitated then it -must- have been action caused by their young age, and we cant hold it against them forever.

Have the been rehabilitated?

That's the only thing that really matters to me, and we can speculate till the ends of the earth but we simply aren't privy to all the facts of the case. We aren't psychologists and even if we were we haven't had access to the boys. Whatever evidence is presented to the people who decide is far greater than any we possess and we must allow them to judge this point, and therefore, in my view, all of the points above..

Posted: 15:49 Apr 09 2002

Diandra I have no idea what I'm doing out of bed.

I'm a late jumper-in to this topic and not as well informed on this, since we in the US haven't gotten as much coverage of this case. But doesn't the protection these two (or just one of them?) receive also benefit the public? I doubt it's possible for any expert to know whether someone will re-offend, but hopefully police presence also operates to deter and prevent the protected person from commmitting another crime, if he's so inclined.

I know that's not the way that the penal system is supposed to work, since convicts aren't supposed to be released until they've paid their debt/been rehabilitated. I'm suggesting that the police protection acts as another form of incarceration, albeit a probably more expensive one. Shouldn't that be somewhat reassuring to the public?

I'm quite willing to be proved wrong.

Posted: 17:08 Apr 09 2002

Sange It's only kinky the first time!!! after that it's just the Norm ;o)

Diandra this might help give you more of an insight into what "protection" they are going to recieve, its actually very interesting if you go through a lot of the other sections reguarding the case.

www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/article/0,2763,511475,00.html

Posted: 19:00 Apr 09 2002

Joe "Aren't you a little short for a storm trooper?"

As far as this 'We need to know if they're living near us so we can have the chance to move somewhere else' argument, how would that work in practise..?

"Yes, it is a lovely house, isn't it, Mr and Mrs Prospective Buyer? To be perfectly honest, Mr E and I would be happy to stay here, if not for the convicted child killers that moved in a couple of doors down the other week... Hey, where are you going?"

Posted: 01:46 Apr 10 2002

Samphirette To you I guess I'm just a clown who picks you up each time you're down

by Joe
As far as this 'We need to know if they're living near us so we can have the chance to move somewhere else' argument, how would that work in practise..?

Actually I've always thought this would be hard to implement as unfortunately you could move anywhere and still have a prospective unknown problem neighbour

Its an awful thing to say but there are so many people out there hurting children. The bulger case was a big highlighted problem because it was children inflicting the pain and death on little Jamie. The problem is that the many killers/rapists in the papers have very often been in jail and then released to kill/rape again in a vicious circle and it must be even more heartbreaking to relatives of victims of these crimes to think *if only I'd known* or *if only they'd threw away the key*

I think its more about peace of mind for some people, but it must be difficult living somewhere that you know has a convicted murderer and constantly adjusting yours and your childrens lives to keep an eye over your shoulder

Posted: 02:00 Apr 10 2002

Sange It's only kinky the first time!!! after that it's just the Norm ;o)

by Pegasus
(quotes)Actually I've always thought this would be hard to implement as unfortunately you could move anywhere and still have a prospective unknown problem neighbour

I think its more about peace of mind for some people, but it must be difficult living somewhere that you know has a convicted murderer and constantly adjusting yours and your childrens lives to keep an eye over your shoulder

As I said in my previous post peg , I do know that there are pedohiles/rapists/serious sexual offenders that live near me, I know where they live and what they look like I had to deal with it everyday of the week at work. And yes it has effected the way I have taught my children about stranger danger (as parents we all do this but how many of us "really" inflict it on our children) because of what I know I have constantly told my kids and all I can hope is that in knowing this it helps me teach them. So yes I can see the benefits for knowing where these people live.
I didn't move house or go round and burn there houses down, I didn't pass that information onto a third party, but I do feel safer knowing where they are and who they are than not knowing.

Posted: 08:38 Apr 10 2002

Incandenza It's not a zero-sum game.

by Pegasus
Its an awful thing to say but there are so many people out there hurting children. The bulger case was a big highlighted problem because it was children inflicting the pain and death on little Jamie. The problem is that the many killers/rapists in the papers have very often been in jail and then released to kill/rape again in a vicious circle and it must be even more heartbreaking to relatives of victims of these crimes to think *if only I'd known* or *if only they'd threw away the key*

I have to take issue with you on this Pegasus.

There are very few people out there hurting children, but the nature of the crime is such that when it does happen, it receives massive media coverage as demonstrated last summer when the News of the World tried to lead a nationwide witch hunt which inevitably led to mob violence.

The reoffending rate is very low for killers/rapists (if it were otherwise do you really think they would be released?) and the truth of the matter is that with murder, rape and paedophile offences, the statistical probability is that the victim knew their attacker.

The vast majority of child abuse of any kind is caused by parents, family members or close friends of the family. However, it is easier to lead campaigns against shadowy bogeymen than it is to point the finger at abusive parents.

Posted: 11:22 Apr 10 2002

MonSTeR No big eyes! No magic powers! No giant robots!

by Incandenza
(quotes)

I have to take issue with you on this Pegasus.

There are very few people out there hurting children, but the nature of the crime is such that when it does happen, it receives massive media coverage as demonstrated last summer when the News of the World tried to lead a nationwide witch hunt which inevitably led to mob violence.

The reoffending rate is very low for killers/rapists (if it were otherwise do you really think they would be released?) and the truth of the matter is that with murder, rape and paedophile offences, the statistical probability is that the victim knew their attacker.

The vast majority of child abuse of any kind is caused by parents, family members or close friends of the family. However, it is easier to lead campaigns against shadowy bogeymen than it is to point the finger at abusive parents.

The problem that I see with this reasoning is that it makes the normal assumption of equating the frequency of the crime itself directly with the frequency of the crimes that are detected. Those that are never detected and somehow reported and probably some other legal bumf never make it to the crime figures. The secrecy and taboo that surrounds these crimes makes it all the harder to get accurate figures.

Likewise the true "reoffending rate for killers/rapists" is unknown. The most we and anyone can gain access to is the recorded reoffences by recorded offenders

I wish we could catch every offender but I'm sure many slip through the net, and probably feel reassured by this into offending again

Posted: 13:20 Apr 10 2002

[ 1 2 ]

Post a Reply

Back to the Forum

Poll

What do you think of Matt Smith as The Doctor?

He's fantastic! Instant favourite! (14%)

Good. A decent choice. (57%)

Not sure, need to see more. (29%)

Meh... he'll do I guess. (0%)

Terrible! Might stop watching. (0%)

Site Info

About T21