Death penalty

[Candiflare]

I could. I might seen heartless or whatever, but I think if he was old enough to know he was taking someones life - he is old enough to realise what he did wrong and therefor should face the consequence whatever it may be - even if it is death.

Apparently when they properly quizzed him about why he did it, he said that he had been watching torture videos and he thought that Jamie would miraculously come back to life like the victims did on films. I believe that he didn't KNOW he was killing him.

 

[*Spider*]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[VickiP]

Apparently when they properly quizzed him about why he did it, he said that he had been watching torture videos and he thought that Jamie would miraculously come back to life like the victims did on films. I believe that he didn't KNOW he was killing him.

What is his excuse for watching kiddie porn since he left prison then? Does he think that the kids enjoyed being tortured? Load of rubbish, he was probably told what to say. Sometimes there is a genetic malfunction I think and I can't see the point of keeping these people who are a danger to society alive, there has to come a point when we accept that whilst it is not pleasant it is in fact the 'safest' solution.

 

[Candiflare]

What is his excuse for watching kiddie porn since he left prison then? Does he think that the kids enjoyed being tortured? Load of rubbish, he was probably told what to say. Sometimes there is a genetic malfunction I think and I can't see the point of keeping these people who are a danger to society alive, there has to come a point when we accept that whilst it is not pleasant it is in fact the 'safest' solution.

Did you believe in Father Christmas when you were a child even though he didn't exist? Well that's what Jon Venables was doing when he thought Jamie Bulger would come back to life; but his imaginings and perceptions of the world were channelled through a horrific, dysfunctional context because of his horrendous upbringing.

 

[Sue&Sooty]

Sometimes there is a genetic malfunction I think and I can't see the point of keeping these people who are a danger to society alive, there has to come a point when we accept that whilst it is not pleasant it is in fact the 'safest' solution.

A very dangerous statement I feel.... :shock: ... if killing people because of a 'genetic malfunction' is acceptable, where would the line be drawn.... killing people who are of no use to society

 

[VickiP]

Did you believe in Father Christmas when you were a child even though he didn't exist? Well that's what Jon Venables was doing when he thought Jamie Bulger would come back to life; but his imaginings and perceptions of the world were channelled through a horrific, dysfunctional context because of his horrendous upbringing.

Sorry not buying that, plenty of people have horrendous dysfunctional upbringings and don't do what he did or in fact watch kiddie porn as adults. Sorry I can see your trying to be charitable and nice but, I cannot understand the need to feel compassion for a criminal who has crossed the line and committed a crime against humanity. I think when they cross that line they give up the right to be treated humanely themselves. I wish I could be more forgiving but I think more emphasis needs to be on the victims and their families not these 'criminals'.

 

[SarahP]

I'm not going to take part in this debate (but I have voted). I just wanted to say what a good and interesting poll, ie in the set of options. :thumb:

 

[VickiP]

A very dangerous statement I feel.... :shock: ... if killing people because of a 'genetic malfunction' is acceptable, where would the line be drawn.... killing people who are of no use to society

Of course not just the ones who are a danger to society and innocent people trying to live their lives.

 

[Candiflare]

Sorry not buying that, plenty of people have horrendous dysfunctional upbringings and don't do what he did or in fact watch kiddie porn as adults. Sorry I can see your trying to be charitable and nice but, I cannot understand the need to feel compassion for a criminal who has crossed the line and committed a crime against humanity. I think when they cross that line they give up the right to be treated humanely themselves. I wish I could be more forgiving but I think more emphasis needs to be on the victims and their families not these 'criminals'.

There is no evidence that he watched children's porn, only rumour.

 

[Charys]

I'm not taking part in this debate either, as I have argued extensively on the Jon Venables thread and can't make my feelings any clearer than I did there. However, I voted, 'no, for a variety of reasons'

 

[VickiP]

There is no evidence that he watched children's porn, only rumour.

Rumour that was substantiated sufficiently to be printed in the paper and on the news? I think there has to be a little bit of truth before the media will print it doesn't there or they face trouble for slander etc

They aren't actually printing the details because it may in fact 'hinder' the court case and help him get away with it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-Jon-Venables-worked-bouncer-nightclub.html

 

[Candiflare]

Rumour that was substantiated sufficiently to be printed in the paper and on the news? I think there has to be a little bit of truth before the media will print it doesn't there or they face trouble for slander etc

They aren't actually printing the details because it may in fact 'hinder' the court case and help him get away with it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-Jon-Venables-worked-bouncer-nightclub.html

Daily Mail have been sued countless times for libel, slander and contempt of court and the amount of newspapers they sell to the bloodthirsty public more than make up for the charges, plus profit. The DM, I think, is one of the only papers that is still making a profit because it will print stuff like that to get people going.

I respect your opinion though, and if he has been watching child porn, it's just so, so unfortunate that there are people like that in the world.

 

[Rachel89]

In reality it would only be applicable when there is no doubt whatsoever.

There was no doubt, he had already been in prision 2years of a 9year sentence....only because this was done in the same way as the person before and they had solid dna it was found he didn't do it.
He would of had a death penalty going on "no doubt" killings.

 

[VickiP]

There was no doubt, he had already been in prision 2years of a 9year sentence....only because this was done in the same way as the person before and they had solid dna it was found he didn't do it.
He would of had a death penalty going on "no doubt" killings.

Then so be it, eventually if there is a penalty that is realistically a deterrent to commit terrible offences against humanity we may stand a chance of saving at least some innocent people from the awful devastation that this sort of thing must bring onto a family.

 

[Rachel89]

So your saying you would happily have someone innocent be killed?

 

[Sue&Sooty]

Problem is most murders are not planned, most are committed when someone is not thinking logically. I doubt anyone who commits murder stops and thinks about the punishment as they are about to comit the crime so having the death penaltyvas a deterrent just doesn't work. If it did then how come people continue to murder where the death penalty IS used

 

[VickiP]

So your saying you would happily have someone innocent be killed?

I think I have misread what you wrote, I am not sure now what you were saying, I thought you said if there was no doubt he would have already received the death penalty, I think when there is absolutely no doubt someone has committed murder that they should be offerred a choice of death, hanging, firing squad or lethal injection. If there is any element of doubt and it cannot be proven 100% that obviously they should not be executed no.

 

[Rachel89]

I think we got a bit mixed up, in the courts eyes he 100% did it. He served 2years of a 9year prision sentence.
It was only because someone had been kileld in the same way again they then found the real killer and he was set free.
He appealed so much, there was alot of publicity about it how he was innocent but they had it down it was him.
If the death penalty had been around he would of been killed too.
Theres so many people who get convicted that people don't know about that later found are not guilty, its so hushed up.
He only got a small payout and now is struggleing to rebuild his life and had alot of problems from being inside.

If he wasn't my friend I would of been all for death penalties in some cases but after going through this with his family it makes me second think about it all so much, especially how many cases this happens to that people don't know about.

 

[VickiP]

Problem is most murders are not planned, most are committed when someone is not thinking logically. I doubt anyone who commits murder stops and thinks about the punishment as they are about to comit the crime so having the death penaltyvas a deterrent just doesn't work. If it did then how come people continue to murder where the death penalty IS used

No but, there is such a thing as pre-meditated murder and it does happen. It is very very difficult to debate whether something is pre-meditated or not, for example - did they lead that little child away from his mother with the intention of murdering him? How can you prove they didn't already have it planned.

For me it is irrelevant why or whether someone has motive, whether it is pre-meditated or not - if they commit the crime and it is proven without any doubt or indeed they confess then I think they have given up the rights to be treated as human. Crimes against humanity should not be afforded the courtesy - if you want to be treated humanely you behave as human being. Regardless of mental health, background whatever the circumstances, if someone takes away another person's life they do not deserve to live in society themselves in my view.

 

[VickiP]

I think we got a bit mixed up, in the courts eyes he 100% did it. He served 2years of a 9year prision sentence.
It was only because someone had been kileld in the same way again they then found the real killer and he was set free.
He appealed so much, there was alot of publicity about it how he was innocent but they had it down it was him.
If the death penalty had been around he would of been killed too.
Theres so many people who get convicted that people don't know about that later found are not guilty, its so hushed up.
He only got a small payout and now is struggleing to rebuild his life and had alot of problems from being inside.

If he wasn't my friend I would of been all for death penalties in some cases but after going through this with his family it makes me second think about it all so much, especially how many cases this happens to that people don't know about.

Yes I thought you were saying something else, I didn't realise you were referring to another case either. I think it's incredibly sad if mistakes do happen but, I personally think it is highly unlikely that anyone would be put to death in this country mistakenly, if they are not 100% sure it won't happen. One of the reasons death row in America keeps people alive for so long in some cases is because I think they either assess them and investigate further when there is a possibility of doubt.

Lets remember we aren't talking about murdering innocent people we are talking about executing prisoners who are most likely a danger to society. Of course I wouldn't condone executing anyone if there were even 1% doubt - that would then be murder. It would have to be reserved for the cases that are absolutely without question accurate.