Gilly wrote:
I don't. I claim the current way of dealing with and subsequently vilifying doesn't lead to prevention. Possibly the opposite!

oioioi wrote: I don't see it as by-the-by at all.
I see identifying the causes and contributing factors as essential to then assessing the 'appropriate' course(s) of action.

oioioi wrote:
Just to be clear, I wasn't reading it as though you were claiming to know the cause.I was meaning that I don't think the 'experts' actually know. That's the problem. Nobody knows how to do anything to effectively prevent. If there were effective cures, maybe people wouldn't feel like vilifying because the threat those like Venables pose would be diffused.

feather wrote:
This was what I was trying (and failing) to say.

Gilly wrote:
Well I suspect 'they' do! Just they can't come out with comments about how the current paradigm leads to dehumanisation in pursuit of profit....lest they lose their funding!

But if that's what it boils down to, how come what happened to little James Bulger isn't a common occurance? There's got to be more to it than that I think.

Gilly wrote:
Because adults have the game sewn up on being sick fuckers around kids.

I know, that's anything but an answer.

Those lads were kids when they did what they did, if they were my kids I hope I wouldn't just write them off as an evil monster and would instead take a long hard look at myself somewhere within the whole reflection bit. That's all I'm asking of society.

oioioi wrote:
I understand that fully.

But it's like spilt milk in this case. Venables will harm some other kid, I believe that. So while society fucks around deciding whats best, he carries on regardless. Its this I have the problem with.

psketti wrote:
I'm quite simple on that score. Until society thinks it can cope with a child killing sexual predator we lock him down...but every day these types are locked down we delay our own progress, but shake a fist!

I'll go there again....

Imagine he was/is your child...still an evil monster?

There but for the grace of responsibility go I!

I wish I could find the article (it was in a broad sheet, so not as bad as Torygraph or Fail)... It was about Venables reoffending and a theory that he had become institutionalised and that the child porn business was almost a cry for help. That he wanted to go back inside that environment. To be honest, this does make sense. It must be hard not to become institutionalised at such a young age.

We need to understand how this happens and make sure that its not just 'academia' who know about it and we need to actually do something actively to prevent it happening again.

IMHO there are some main contributing factors:

1) Money
2) Twisted society with twisted authority and twisted religion
3) Twisted abusive parents
4) Twisted media

You can guarantee 1 or more of the above crop up somewhere along the line. There may ofc be many more factors which should be identified and dealt with.

Unfortunately we can probably only deal with the above in reverse order.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
At a certain moment in time it made sense to him to do what he did.

I may be talking about either incident.

oioioi wrote:
I'm not really sure what went on. I've been a tad slow picking up on this one.

to me, just in my opinion, pretending they are victims of their environment is shit.
they cut a kid in 2 with a train... what is there to learn? why you would release such a disease back into society is beyond me. to see if they do it again? even if they never did it again, just kept low profiles.. how can you turn your back on this person, or let them be around another kid ever.

That pretty much echoes my views too, which I've expressed before.

"I'm quite simple on that score. Until society thinks it can cope with a child killing sexual predator we lock him down...but every day these types are locked down we delay our own progress, but shake a fist!"

What alternative do you suggest?

batou wrote:
Theres no-one here who would approve of releasing them as far as I can see.

What oi and myself would rather see though is some learning from it, find out why these lads did what they did and avoid pathetic excuses like 'evil genes' as we all know its bollocks. I doubt very much they can be 'fixed' whatever damage was done is permanent

The entire system is based on principles of revenge and retribution, (Thanks religion), as opposed to study, understand better, treat or contain the untreatable.

The complexities are immense though.
Humans are deceitful fuckers, it's a honed survival skill.
We also have to consider dodgy wiring and bad programming as contributory factors.

I am of the opinion though that unless it can be demonstrated (within reason), that an individual is unlikely to remain a threat, they need to remain contained.


Tigers are amazing creatures, I wish them no harm at all they are only living in the way they know how but I don't want them wandering the streets. (Bad analogy?)

Let us also remember the conclusion of the study may be, "This one is fucked beyond repair. We need to keep it locked up forever." we may not like that summary, it may offend our intellectual egos or charitable inclinations but it is what it is.

Next dilemma is whether we then end its life there and then.
In that situation do we simply reserve the entitlement to do ourselves what we condem as animalistic and beyond redemption in others.

Kill the killers because killing is bad m'kay.

feather wrote:
I don't go for hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance, I leave that to the Americans.
So I'm deffo against the death penalty but have no issue with permanent incarceration should that be necessary.