But this is part of the argument as already raised by fivetide, they are more than likely to have developed these 'feelings' at an early age. Just as someone who is gay does not grow up straight as a child and then all of a sudden at 18 overnight turn gay with no previous awareness.

It is perfectly possible for biology/nature to throw in evil (or whatever you want to call it) into a child with no outside contributing factors.

Some people are wired differently and that comes from the time they are created, it just doesn't show until they are old enough to express it whether it be being gay (which without being homophobic is different as we wouldn't exist if gay was the norm) or if they are some sort of child maths genius. No outside factors contribute to the way they turn out. Just as this happens it is more than possible for someone to be born wired in a way that means they are going to turn out sadistic.

 

Why does age matter? I realize that there is a legal age re criminal responsibility & it's there for a reason however there are always exceptions to any rule & something like the Bulger case should have been treated exceptionally imho.

TX.

 

That's fine, but within the law, in what way should it have been treated exceptionally?

 

COB, you have a child? Wow, I had no idea! I shall look toward you as a moral authority going forward.

 

Go and look-up monoamine oxidase A. If a child was discovered to be in possession of said gene and had been subjected to abuse, what would you do with them?

 

So why don't we see it more often?

And in those cases of child killers have they suffered appalling childhoods? The 3 I can think of anyway.

I'd suggest any child living in a loving family would not kill or seriously injure another child at 10 years old.

Statistics agree with me.

 

He can defeat your empirical, balanced and rational argument by using 'lefty' and 'human rights' in his response.

 

I thought you were ignoring me, couldn't resist another dig could you? How about you argue your case in an adult manner such as Davyboy does who unlike you doesn't throw his toys out his pram when he has a difference of opinion to what I do.

 

OK well why don't we see more child prodigies? They are rare too because it boils down to natural anomalies.

Again I agree with fivetide in that many abused youngsters grow into successful and perfectly 'normal' adults and don't resort to inflicting their childhood abuse on others. This to me shows that those who do inflict it upon others can't solely blame their childhood for their behaviour.

 

Because I have already realised there is absolutely no point in debating anything with people like you. The discussion ended the moment you reached for 'lefty' and 'human rights' as a way of pathetically trying to refloat your sinking argument.

 

Funny that because I haven't seen any worthwhile argument/discussion from you, just idiotic comments to people's views you haven't agreed with.

 

It's not about blaming, it's about understand where this behaviour comes from in some people,. It's not said as an excuse, it doesn't in anyway lessen the crimes, but it is a reason. Uncomfortable as it is, it is a reason.

Also worth noting that clinics and psychiatric wards up and down this country are full of kids with all sorts of self harming problems, in the overwhelming majority of cases this is down to abusive parents. The difference is their self loathing lead to harm to themselves not others.

 

Label them as a in-valid?

If people were pigeon holed because of their genetic make-up, we would be stretching out in to the realms of world like Gattaca.

 

OK well the same applies, swap blame for reason. The fact is not all abused kids go on to inflict it on others once into adulthood. Therefore that reason is not applicable to all so there are other factors that come into it when they decide to abuse others.

I'll also add that one defining topic that was mulled over by the court was criminal responsibility and whether at the age of 10 the two would have known right from wrong. It was rightly decided that they would and their age couldn't be used as an excuse for what they did.

 

I don't think anyone has tried to claim that all abused kids go on to be abusers. Lots go on to abuse themselves, some suffer long term issues, some get over it. But absulotely is a causal factor in many abuse cases.

I suspect that those who suffer the worst abuse are the one who are most likely to lose a grip on right and wrong though.

One thing for sure though, the day we as a society kill children is the day we all lose.

 

I don't seer them as children who committed that crime. That is where our arguments go off on what we believe is right. They cannot be compared to your kids, my kids or anyone else's. These two for me for the crime they committed are beyond saving which is why I think it's a disgrace they were given their freedom and another chance in life.

Jamie Bulger didn't get any chance with those two so what right do they have to be treated as children and let off to have their adulthood? No jail sentence is long enough for what they did so by being let out of prison they were let off in my book. With no capital punishment in this country then they should have been given natural life sentences.

 

Life in prison, never released?

TX.

 

Totally!

 

Yet we know that those conditions are much more likely to produce a child killer than where they don't exist. So, given that some are calling for child killing as an appropriate response to child killing, wouldn't a more humane society pre-empt this by identifying potential killers and medicating? Surely no one would object to this whilst supporting the delayed death penalty of a child criminal.

 

All this hormone imbalance pish.

I once had a parent come round with their Kid who was "suffering" with ADHD.

Little **** decides to start jumping up and down on my briefcase.

Leftie human rights arsehole of a mum gives it "We can't do anything with him".

I shout at the little **** to get the **** off my briefcase - he sits down and not a peep from him for the rest of their visit.

Funnily enough it was the last time we saw the arsehole parent - but I'm sure her son will be in prison by now !

 

CoB - I don't think you are in the majority. I can't see many people on here being willing to kill 10 year old kids no matter what and I don't think you should ask someone else to deal with that either. It's very **** Germany, anyone able to flick that switch should probably be the next in the chair.

Lets not forget, these were a funny bag. They are actually quite clever. they planned it all, they lied to several people who saw them and they passed a lot of exams when inside. They are not retards by any stretch of the imagination.

It is true that not many kids kill. Mary Bell is probably the most famous one but a lot of the high profile serial killers do show tendancies as children, usually torturing animals etc they start with things they know they can overpower and it gets worse and worse over time. Perhaps Venables and Thomson (who we have heard nothing about since) started in the same way, perhaps one led the other or they egged each other on we just don't know. Either way it seems there is a predisposition towards violence and cruelty by some people on some level, it just seems to be a matter of time before it comes out.

However, once he was re-arrested for kiddie **** (and a lot of well brought up/educated people have been done for the same thing they just stop at the abuse stage), it takes a proper twisted mentality to go further. That's why I think rather than the 'never let him out' he should now get the death penalty.

Mind, I think the same about any paedo, as I said before, sexual orientation, if we accept that it is genetic and cannot be cured, means they will always be dangerous. Likewise no kids should be in the care of junkies because of some lefty tat about it being better that they are with their families when that clearly isn't the case.

I also think that anyone who is capable of abusing a child, punching them in the face etc should have a sentence where the same is done to them, every week, for the rest of their lives. As a parent I read these stories and I want to be the one dishing it out but could I gas a couple of 10 year olds? I don't think so and I'd liek to think I'm better than that.

5t.

EDIT to add: jasey had the same thing. Friends of the mrs have a kid who supposedly has adhd, communication issues etc etc and they came round for dinner one evening. He was cheerfully destroying all the little shopping items our little boy has. I gave it two minutes to let them stop him before I just said it was wrong and not to do it. He simply stopped. Apparently 'he doesn't normally do that' (stopping). I resosted the urge to say perhaps someone should try disciplining him instead of just saying he has a condition. There is something up witht he kid but honestly, too many little gits just have this excuse now.

 

Hello fella, long time no speak. As I said to Martin in my reply to him, I have made no suggestion of killing 10 year old children. I will repeat - I merely said I think what they did was more sick and twisted, which is what the majority have agreed with.

I can't put it any more simple than that

 

Morning

Just trying to clarify as no offense chap that still comes across as death sentence should have been handed out first time round.

You've said what they did is more sick and twisted than what? The early posts appear to be what they did is more twisted than putting them to death, on that score you are advocating the death sentence for kids.

As I said, now he's been picked up again, no issue but the above doesn't read right to me. Feel free to clarify!

5t.

 

No offence taken Least you weren't having pathetic jobs like James was

In my opinion what Bulger and Thompson did was the lowest of the low, made worse by the fact they were kids. I disagreed quite strongly with Martins view that capital punishment for the culprits would be more sick and twisted than what they did. No suggestions regards age or sentence, I simply disagreed with what he said.

 

Ok understood pal.

Although age isn't mentioned, the thread of the conversation had moved on a bit. The point was made that do you have them sentenced to death at 18 and keep them around just waiting for the day to off them?

I don't think most people would be happy to flip the switch on 10 year olds no matter what they had done. I think you do need to clarify as although you don't state an age (and I agree in principle with the death penalty as said) the implication is definately there.

5t.

 

So should he be given the death penalty or not? "Good example" and "could", fine, but what do you actually think?

 

Simple, in prision until 18 then death penalty

 

Maybe a 'countdown till you're killed' clock on the wall of their cell??

I think grown-ups should act like grown-ups, not seek to torture children for 8 years before killing them.

Sorry I repeat what I said before, this would be more twisted and calculating than what they did.

 

Hmm I see what you mean. My comment re. The death sentence as punishment would be more inclined to his recent activity. That's where the comments started being spun on this thread. So wasn't necessarily me suggesting minors should be zapped or injected. Maybe it's how I tried to type it on here. Hth.

James, I won't dignify you with a thought out response

 

We know what you dis-agree with what do you think should have happened though or was justice served as is?

TX.