I do think the inability to reoffend after death is somewhat under rated in the ‘lock them up for life or rehabilitate’ argument. If wicked people are to be reintegrated into society they have to live next to somebody. If they’re truthful would anyone of the pro rehabilitation for Mr V be happy to have him live next door to them? I know that’s an overly personalised question but it’s also reality for someone.

I would rather do that than face the other options people (not you) have presented, such as jailing a person for life for a crime committed when they were so young or making them face the death penalty for the same.

Many people are in denial here and everywhere. Do people honestly think they have never lived near or associated with people who have sexually assaulted other adults or children, beaten their spouse or offspring or even committed murder. Some research suggests that most crimes go unreported and unpunished – most are indeed less sensationalised than this one…

I went to school with a child abuser, was taught by a teacher accused multiple times of improper behaviour, worked with a murderer and surely known people who have raped. I doubt my experience is uncommon.

Neal I stand corrected, I think.

I was correcting wozza with his story that “sprung to mind”
(And rubber buccaneer who, I presume, was trying to prove a point)

The story is a myth but it doesn’t really alter the fact that we have a nasty, vindictive, unhealthy and counter-productive obsession/hysteria around child sex crimes in this country, fuelled by our delightful tabloid media.

The story is a myth but it doesn’t really alter the fact that we have a nasty, vindictive, unhealthy and counter-productive obsession/hysteria around child sex crimes in this country, fuelled by our delightful tabloid media.]

Like when they make up stories about “a mob burning down a paediatricians house” 😉

Which then become “facts” referenced by people who are unintentionally perpetuating a wider myth that “this sort of thing” is happening all the time.

Yes, it does happen from time to time. But it’s hardly common.

And maybe the “made up” paediatrician stories have actually helped to reduce the incidents, by publicising how vigilantism can go badly wrong ?

The worst thing you can do is kill a kid, that’s why kids who kill kids should be killed…

Jesus H christ. So you’re having a laugh when you say that, yes?

No, I’m dead set serious.

Btw my previous post obviously should have had the word “read” at the end.

I genuinely perplexed at some of the attitudes on here…unsubstantiated photos which may or may not be Venables and Thomson.

Their identities have been kept secret for years to prevent this exact thing happening. It is just a shame there are many **** weapons-grade idiots in the country which will take them as gospel and possibly maim/kill/wee in the shoes of some innocent.

How about directing this fury at the NHS chiefs who oversaw the mass starvation of thousands in Staffs? The MoD procurement wasting billions on shit contracts for cushy jobs when they leave?

****

😐

At least he wasn’t burned down.

When I lived in Croydon every Saturday they would let people have a little demonstration. Normally one group of nutters saying how much better their religion is than others.
One day they had a protest against child abuse.Lots of shouty people and a young girl who just stood there crying.
I have never worked out if these people had installed such fear into the girl that she was crying for a thing that hadn’t happened yet or she just hated being there.

Yes, it does happen from time to time. But it’s hardly common.

Not really sure what your point is TBH. Do you think we have a healthy, rational view on ‘paedos’ in this country?

If wicked people are to be reintegrated into society they have to live next to somebody. If they’re truthful would anyone of the pro rehabilitation for Mr V be happy to have him live next door to them? I know that’s an overly personalised question but it’s also reality for someone.

to be fair, statistically most abuse happens within the family circle..but only “paedo in the park” type hysteria sells copy and the press are happy to fan the flames of ignorance with such stuff as it keeps them employed.

“The majority of perpetrators sexually assault children known to them, with about 80% of offences taking place in the home of either the offender or the victim.”

does not sell papers!

and yes, if someone was undergoing rehabilitation, was being monitored etc….I’d have no problems with them being in the community near my family. As with any predator..the one you see is not the problem, it’s the ones coming in from your blind side that get you.

Beware predators:

I’ve no idea what you’re on about grum.

Tazzy. I may be a drama queen about kids deaths now I have kids but my point was having kids changed me.
Re.we are born as a blank slate genetics would tend to suggest otherwise. The extent of genetics v environment is one that will never be answered both in general and also for an individual. Some folk are born wrong uns and some.are.made.bad by upbringing. We will never.know which is which in this case IMHO.

Some folk are born wrong uns

not really, some folk may be born with a inherited neurological or metabolic condition which may present a psychotic disorder at a later stage with the correct triggers or lack of treatment….

most studies are based on the possibility of genetic pre-disposition towards aggressive behaviour.

One gene that has been linked to violence regulates the production of the monoamine oxidase A enzyme, which controls the amount of serotonin in the brain.

All experts in this field agree that genes are ruled by the environment, which can either mute or aggravate violent impulses. Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals.

to say some are born wrong uns is to hark back to the ignorance of the past where we could suppose the the shape of a mans head determines if he was going to be murderer.

Lets get to criminal phrenology.

Sorry junky. in this you are wrong. Mankind’s ability to do horrific things to each other is Nurture not nature

xx

I *heart* tazzy. He speaks sense.

He speaks sense.

😯

That’s what I thought too! Are you sure noone’s hijacked your account for that last post? 😉

no that was studying* genetics at uni 😀

*vague recollections through a hung over daze of little laddery things and being disappointed that I could’t clone an army of goth beauties to be my concubines

So Venables has re-offended, has Thomson kept his nose clean and head down? If he has, rehabilitation has had a 50% success rate in this particular case which may not be too bad when compared to overall figures (it’s late and my Google ability has failed to find stats to back this up).

While I don’t disagree with everything you said in your post at the end of the last page taz, I got to thinking about some stuff I’d been discussing (well, me asking and them explaining) with some clinical child psychologists I know. So I did a bit of reading and it seems that:

All experts in this field agree that genes are ruled by the environment, which can either mute or aggravate violent impulses. Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals.

is not true at all. It’s nowhere near “all” experts in any way. For example, how do we explain the sociopathic toxic teenager who had excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings? Or the people who grew up to successful, well-rounded net contributors to society despite having the shittest of parents? As one article I read said,

For better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children. That is why they should not be so fast to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become.

Obviously, there are other factors that can influence a child and demonise him or her other than parents alone.

with some clinical child psychologists I know

and

It’s nowhere near “all” experts in any way

sorry DD I was referring to experts in the field of behavioural genetics as that was the answer was specifically about.

For example, how do we explain the sociopathic toxic teenager who had excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings? Or the people who grew up to successful, well-rounded net contributors to society despite having the shittest of parents?

as per my previous posts, that’s not genetically being a “bad un” but there are many, many other environmental or bio-chemical triggers that may and can cause behavioral change.

interestingly if you look at the statistics for self harming teenagers the majority of them are from the “excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings” categeory. They have tendency to aggressive impulsive behaviour but direct it inwards at themselves from behavioural conditioning.

What proportion of kids do fall into the “excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings” category? (Not a troll or prelude to a gotcha). How many kids are “normal”?

How many kids are “normal”?

none…at all…. 😯

tazzymtb – Member
and yes, if someone was undergoing rehabilitation, was being monitored etc….I’d have no problems with them being in the community near my family. As with any predator..the one you see is not the problem, it’s the ones coming in from your blind side that get you

I’m not sure I ‘feel’ your logic; All credit to you for being ‘ok’ about living next door to a known paedophile as you perceive the risk to be less than prsented by the as yet ‘unknown’ ones. I’d still rather not live next door to one hence I struggle with our strong desire to embrace rehabilitation for perpetrators of heinous offences as I’ve no wish to knowingly live next door to them hence to support rehabilitation for them is hypocritical.
Interesting debate though and always a school day on here….

Many people with the same genetic tendency for aggressiveness will never throw a punch, while others without it could be career criminals

True but the point remains as to which is the critical factor is unknown as it is a complicated interaction between environment and gentics that cuurently we dont understand, hence my argument that we cannot say which is which in any case

If it was all environment then an experience could trigger us all and we know this is not the case- we all respond differently to stressors be it in terms of aggression or likelyhood to be depressive.

interestingly if you look at the statistics for self harming teenagers the majority of them are from the “excellent parents who raised other well adjusted siblings” categeory. They have tendency to aggressive impulsive behaviour but direct it inwards at themselves from behavioural conditioning

Do all siblings raised with the same “behavioural conditioning” react like this or just some of them? It would be all if it was all environment as it is not all then it is not all blank slate. We can have the same environment and different outcomes. this would be impossible if it was all environment.

We are not borne either blank slates [ we have gentic dispositions] nor are we are unaffected by our environment.
The phrase “wrong un” was done on the phone [ ie brief] and may be more accurately described as greater gentic predisposition to behave in a certain way.
I think you are slightly overstating the case[ in places] to claim we are borne blank and it is all environment. Its not its both hence the discrepancy between siblings and also between different folk who experience the same trigger events.

I wonder if we should get back to the crux of the matter? I would ask, do people really think that posting possible pictures of Venables will actually do any good?

What is the intention here? Is it so that if you see him you can ostracise him, or hurt him, or even murder him? Is that what people want? Aside from opinions on crime, punishement and rehabilitiation, the problem is here is the one of extra judicial process, namely, what happens if you identify the wrong person?

Posting pictures bad . Wanting to kill 10 year old children who have committed a heinous crime wrong wanting to lock children up for the rest of their lives wrong . Wanting to hold the mature developed adult responsible for the acts of the immature undeveloped child for the rest of his life wrong . Pretending that if you lock away a child and make him a figure of national vilification that his later wrong doing is a sign of his inate evil plain stupid . All in my humble opinion of course .

I didnt say others wont murder ,and its cheaper than locking them up for 40 years

No it isn’t – because you have to make utterly sure the person isn’t innocent through a lengthy appeals process – which costs an utter fortune that is way in excess of locking them up for 40 years.

Then there’s also a body of evidence that suggests the death penalty increases a country’s murder rate.

Seriously….I can’t believe that someone just advocated killing children who murdered other children.

Philosophically, morally and scientifically this is by FAR the most idiotic thing I have ever heard or even read on a forum. Your going to kill a child because killing children is immoral and the worse thing one can do…..yes…..brilliant. There’s some sound **** philosophy.

Cue the first time I’ve had a thousand yard stare like this one from teh Internets. I think these two photo’s sum up my feelings on KonaBunny’s post.

Get me off this planet

and

wtf man