Two children sentenced to minimum 20 years for double murder.

by Syl Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:31 pm

First topic message reminder :

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/10/teenagers-jailed-for-at-least-20-years-for-spalding-murders-elizabeth-katie-edwards

"]A girl and boy aged 15 have been sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in detention for murdering a mother and daughter as they slept in their beds.
The teenagers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, stabbed and smothered Elizabeth Edwards, 49, and her daughter Katie, 13, to death at their home in Spalding, Lincolnshire, on 13 April this year. They then shared a bath, had sex and watched the Twilight vampire movies. Both were 14 at the time of the killings. They are believed to be the UK’s youngest ever double-murderers.
Sentencing both to life, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave told a packed courtroom at Nottingham crown court that the killings were “a terrible crime with few parallels in modern criminal history”.
The murders had been “brutal ... almost in the form of an execution”, the judge said. He told the pair: “Both of you are perfectly intelligent and knew exactly what you were doing – either of you could have backed out at any time but you were selfishly determined to do it together.” They had “revelled” in their actions, the judge added.
Neither the boy nor the girl reacted as the sentence was delivered. As the judge spoke, a family member wept quietly in the public gallery."

Is this a fair and just sentence?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:28 pm

Most people have a troubled upbringing one way or another.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

A child of 14 cant consent to have sex, or vote, or drive a car, marry, drink and so on, a person over 18 can.

So what? A person of 14 still knows what murder is, and they can commit murder. You're still defending those two, and I have no idea why. I think it's a bit sick.

I am not defending them. I was answering your point about making a distinction between 14 year olds and adults over 18.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:30 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So what? A person of 14 still knows what murder is, and they can commit murder. You're still defending those two, and I have no idea why. I think it's a bit sick.

I am not defending them. I was answering your point about making a distinction between 14 year olds and adults over 18.

You're talking about irrelevant issues though. We are talking about murder, not the things you mentioned.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Most people have a troubled upbringing one way or another.

When you read about other child murderers from this country, Thompson, Venables, Mary Bell, for eg...they have had horrendous upbringings.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I am not defending them. I was answering your point about making a distinction between 14 year olds and adults over 18.

You're talking about irrelevant issues though. We are talking about murder, not the things you mentioned.

My point was in law a 14 year old is not classed the same as an 18 year old.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:36 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Most people have a troubled upbringing one way or another.

When you read about other child murderers from this country, Thompson, Venables, Mary Bell, for eg...they have had horrendous upbringings.

So what? That doesn't mean they are forced to go and murder someone. Venables actually had a supportive mother. The press always go over the top about someone's upbringing anyway.

Are you suggesting that a bad upbringing is always behind a murder? Why then do you not excuse an adult who murders someone? After all, one could say that at least they controlled themselves for longer.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:38 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're talking about irrelevant issues though. We are talking about murder, not the things you mentioned.

My point was in law a 14 year old is not classed the same as an 18 year old.

We're not talking about the law in general, we're talking about why you and others excuse someone who is under 18, no matter what they've done. That is what you're doing.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

My point was in law a 14 year old is not classed the same as an 18 year old.

We're not talking about the law in general, we're talking about why you and others excuse someone who is under 18, no matter what they've done. That is what you're doing.

No...if we were excusing them we would not be agreeing that taking away their freedom for a minimum of 20 years is a fair and just sentence. Rolling Eyes

How about you telling us what you would do? As the law stands they will most probably be free in 20 years, so how would you treat them whilst incarcerated?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:48 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

We're not talking about the law in general, we're talking about why you and others excuse someone who is under 18, no matter what they've done. That is what you're doing.

No...if we were excusing them we would not be agreeing that taking away their freedom for a minimum of 20 years is a fair and just sentence.

How about you telling us what you would do? As the law stands they will most probably be free in 20 years, so how would you treat them whilst incarcerated?

The same as anyone else who's incarcerated. It's supposed to be a punishment, not a holiday. There's no rehabilitation going on in prison anyway.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:57 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

No...if we were excusing them we would not be agreeing that taking away their freedom for a minimum of 20 years is a fair and just sentence.

How about you telling us what you would do? As the law stands they will most probably be free in 20 years, so how would you treat them whilst incarcerated?

The same as anyone else who's incarcerated. It's supposed to be a punishment, not a holiday. There's no rehabilitation going on in prison anyway.

Well if that's the case God help society when they are eventually released.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:05 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The same as anyone else who's incarcerated. It's supposed to be a punishment, not a holiday. There's no rehabilitation going on in prison anyway.

Well if that's the case God help society when they are eventually released.

I would say that people who don't reoffend just don't want to go back to prison, it's not because they saw the error of their ways.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:05 pm

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm not sure about that. The nature of the crime was appalling, and their cavalier attitude even worse. You know, psycho's are born as well as made.

I don't know that psycho's are born.
I think people will develop the personality they are born with, but I also think the way a baby or child is treated can influence greatly how they will act whilst they are young.
I also think the people they come into contact with can have a great effect....if these kids had never met and fed off each others fantasies they possibly would never have killed anyone.

Recent studies have shown they are born. Not all psychopaths kill.

Scientists have identified biological brain differences that mark out psychopaths from other people – offering hope of spotting the disorder before it triggers heinous crimes.

Brain scans found a critical connection between two regions of the brain, which control behaviour and aggression, is different in psychopaths which could explain their aggressive behaviour.
Dr Michael Craig, a psychiatrist, said if the link to brain wiring can be proved it could have far-reaching consequences with the prospect of psychopaths being diagnosed and treated with new therapies.
"If replicated by larger studies the significance of these findings cannot be underestimated," he said.
"The suggestion of a clear structural deficit in the brains of psychopaths has profound implications for clinicians, research scientists and the criminal justice system."
Criminal psychopaths, as portrayed in Hollywood films by such characters as Hannibal Lecter, are people with anti-social personalities who lack emotional empathy.
They can commit rape or murder but show no signs of remorse or guilt.
Psychopaths are thought to make up about 15 per cent of the UK prison population and criminals who are psychopaths commit 50 per cent more offences than those who do not have the disorder.
Dr Craig and colleagues at King's College London investigated the brain anatomy of nine psychopaths with convictions that included attempted murder, manslaughter, multiple rape with strangulation and false imprisonment.
None was currently serving a prison sentence and their brains were scanned using a powerful new technique called diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI). The results were then compared with those obtained for normal volunteers of a similar age and IQ.
The researchers found big abnormalities in the 'wiring' of white-matter called the UF (uncinate fasciculus) which connects parts of the brain called the amygdala and the OFC (orbitofrontal cortex) in the psychopaths.
People who had been diagnosed with more extreme psychopathy showed greater degrees of dysfunction in this tract, said the study published in Molecular Psychiatry.
The amygdale is the area associated with emotional responses such as fear and aggression and the OFC is the region which deals with important decision making.
Dr Craig said: "There needs to be a connection between these two areas of the brain, which deal with emotions and the control of emotions. If it doesn't work you could see how that could lead to problems."
While psychopathy is strongly associated with serious criminal behaviour and repeat offending its biological basis is poorly understood.
Also some investigators stress mainly social reasons to explain anti-social behaviours. Nobody has investigated the "connectivity" between the specific brain regions implicated in psychopathy – such as the UF – until now.
Dr Craig said his results suggest psychopaths have biological differences in the brain which may underpin their behaviour and provide a more comprehensive understanding of criminal psychopathy.
He added: "This study is part of an ongoing programme of research into the biological basis of criminal psychopathy.
"It highlights exciting developments in brain imaging such as DT-MRI now offer neuroscientists the potential to move towards a more coherent understanding of the possible brain networks that underlie psychopathy – and potentially towards treatments for this mental disorder."
Professor Declan Murphy, co-researcher, said the findings offered the most compelling evidence yet that altered brain anatomy might be involved in psychopathy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/5979198/Psychopaths-are-born-not-bred-according-to-a-new-study.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com/research-indicates-psychopaths-are-made-not-born-241358

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:10 pm

None of this explains why a psychopath would kill anyone for no apparent reason. I can see why they might kill someone for their money, for example, and feel nothing, but to kill someone for pleasure surely implies something more like sadism.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:18 pm

That's interesting HT, I wonder how many psychopaths never commit a crime so never know they have those tendencies, they just know they are different.

I remember once seeing a programme about the brain studies of people with autism.....their brains had some noticeable differences that were also similar to people with a hyperactivity disorder....now called ADHD, but when my son was small it was just called hyperactivity.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:24 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's relevant whether they might commit another crime or not. Brady and Hindley probably wouldn't have committed another crime if they'd been released either. I'm talking about this crime, and it was so horrendous that seeing people talk about "hope" for these two is a bit icky. You don't seem to have any comprehension of the evil behind it, how they planned it, and how they celebrated afterwards.

Well it is relevant Rags. One day they will most probably be freed, it will be relevant then.

Brady and Hindley were adults. I don't think you can compare the two.

Thankfully child killers are rare, but has there ever been a child murderer in this country that has not had a horrendous upbringing? It's not an excuse to say these kids had useless role models but it's one reason why they were so disturbed.

It's rare for kids to kill, but common for kids to be cruel. Most people grow out of that, but if you're a psychopath you don't ...you don't care or have empathy for suffering and never will. There's been plenty of adult psycho's who killled who had normal upbringings.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:25 pm

Syl wrote:That's interesting HT, I wonder how many psychopaths never commit a crime so never know they have those tendencies, they just know they are different.

I remember once seeing a programme about the brain studies of people with autism.....their brains had some noticeable differences that were also similar to people with a hyperactivity disorder....now called ADHD, but when my son was small it was just called hyperactivity.

Perhaps it's a case of many psychopaths just don't get the chance or meet the wrong people. But if they did, say like Hindley and Brady, Rose and Fred West, etc...then they form an unholy alliance that enables their worst tendencies.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:None of this explains why a psychopath would kill anyone for no apparent reason. I can see why they might kill someone for their money, for example, and feel nothing, but to kill someone for pleasure surely implies something more like sadism.

The wiring is wrong. I think they do it because they can. Normal people can't because they would be horrified at causing pain or suffering to others. Having said that, I think a lot of what we perceive as 'normal' human behaviour is also part of our social conditioning. Take that away. and for a lot of people it's every man or woman for themselves. You see that kind of behaviour during war and riots.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Most people have a troubled upbringing one way or another.

Some people have terrible upbringings and never do a single vile thing to anyone.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:32 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well it is relevant Rags. One day they will most probably be freed, it will be relevant then.

Brady and Hindley were adults. I don't think you can compare the two.

Thankfully child killers are rare, but has there ever been a child murderer in this country that has not had a horrendous upbringing? It's not an excuse to say these kids had useless role models but it's one reason why they were so disturbed.

It's rare for kids to kill, but common for kids to be cruel. Most people grow out of that, but if you're a psychopath you don't ...you don't care or have empathy for suffering and never will. There's been plenty of adult psycho's who killled who had normal upbringings.

Adults psychos yes, people change when they mature.

Many adults can have had perfectly good upbringings and commit horrible crimes, if kids are brought up with love and guidance then they don't.

There can always be the exception to the rule, but I believe if a kid shows signs early on of being cruel to animals or others, they can be helped... as long as someone is around them that cares.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:34 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:That's interesting HT, I wonder how many psychopaths never commit a crime so never know they have those tendencies, they just know they are different.

I remember once seeing a programme about the brain studies of people with autism.....their brains had some noticeable differences that were also similar to people with a hyperactivity disorder....now called ADHD, but when my son was small it was just called hyperactivity.

Perhaps it's a case of many psychopaths just don't get the chance or meet the wrong people. But if they did, say like Hindley and Brady, Rose and Fred West, etc...then they form an unholy alliance that enables their worst tendencies.

Yes, I agree with that theory.
Not only psychopaths either. Some people together are toxic, apart perfectly normal.

by Syl Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:37 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Most people have a troubled upbringing one way or another.

Some people have terrible upbringings and never do a single vile thing to anyone.

Of course, the same theory is the majority of child abusers have been abused themselves as children, but not all children who are abused go on to abuse children when they are adults.

by eddie Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:43 pm

All I can say is, for better or worse, your early years can really shape who you become.
Perhaps that's the case here.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:16 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:That's interesting HT, I wonder how many psychopaths never commit a crime so never know they have those tendencies, they just know they are different.

I remember once seeing a programme about the brain studies of people with autism.....their brains had some noticeable differences that were also similar to people with a hyperactivity disorder....now called ADHD, but when my son was small it was just called hyperactivity.

Perhaps it's a case of many psychopaths just don't get the chance or meet the wrong people. But if they did, say like Hindley and Brady, Rose and Fred West, etc...then they form an unholy alliance that enables their worst tendencies.

Were they all psychopaths? I feel it's a bit too easy to just label someone that way. It could be that the lack of remorse is them trying to blame someone else because they don't want to feel bad.

by HoratioTarr Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

Perhaps it's a case of many psychopaths just don't get the chance or meet the wrong people. But if they did, say like Hindley and Brady, Rose and Fred West, etc...then they form an unholy alliance that enables their worst tendencies.

Were they all psychopaths? I feel it's a bit too easy to just label someone that way. It could be that the lack of remorse is them trying to blame someone else because they don't want to feel bad.

Well, I guess anyone who takes delight in torturing and killing isn't quite right in the head. Ian Brady was a typical psychopath, but was Myra Hindley? Not sure that she was. She was damaged goods, however. Either way, those two combined were a lethal mix, each enabling the other to commit the crimes they did.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:04 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Were they all psychopaths? I feel it's a bit too easy to just label someone that way. It could be that the lack of remorse is them trying to blame someone else because they don't want to feel bad.

Well, I guess anyone who takes delight in torturing and killing isn't quite right in the head. Ian Brady was a typical psychopath, but was Myra Hindley? Not sure that she was. She was damaged goods, however. Either way, those two combined were a lethal mix, each enabling the other to commit the crimes they did.

We don't know if they would have done anything on their own. I don't think she would have, but I'm not sure I believe that business about a lethal mix. I think one can influence the other, but Brady may well have found someone else to do his dirty work if he hadn't met Hindley.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:57 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

PC crap! What the fook do you have to justify? They killed two people. It's like you people close your eyes and dream of children playing in a playground on a spring day?? The are fookin' bloody murderers. No dreams...no PC. If you are gong to have the death penalty, there could be no better candidates. Shoot 'em, fcs.

PC crap because I would find it abhorrent to sentence 2 kids to death??....I also find it pretty abhorrent that so called civilised people could see any justification in doing it.

They are only "kids" because you choose to look at them through weak, maudlin eyes. FCS, they killed, and if they can do that, they can be held responsible.

Syl wrote:No one is looking at these kids through rose coloured glasses....they are murderers and I don't see anyone saying differently.

But that's precisely what I see you doing. If they are responsible, let them have the revenge of the state upon them. I don't condone the death penalty, but if that is the standard, certainly they deserve it.

by The Devil, You Know Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:33 am

these kids not just murdered but revelled in it, although 15 year olds are no longer really kids these days.
20 years is not enough as they will probably be out in under 10.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:37 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:these kids not just murdered but revelled in it, although 15 year olds are no longer really kids these days.
20 years is not enough as they will probably be out in under 10.

It was a minimum sentence, so they'll have to do 20 years - unless there's a successful appeal. It still seems a bit inadequate though.

by 'Wolfie Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:05 pm

FIFTEEN YEAR OLDS are no longer children, so the title for this thread is already fucked up, from the get go...

Chronologically, they are already mid-teens..
By their actions, they seemingly consider themselves "adults" ?

If they do the crime, they should be prepared to do the time..

Even without a death sentence, surely 25-to-life would be a more realistic sentence ??? Suspect

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:07 pm

They were 14 at the time they committed the crime.

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

PC crap because I would find it abhorrent to sentence 2 kids to death??....I also find it pretty abhorrent that so called civilised people could see any justification in doing it.

They are only "kids" because you choose to look at them through weak, maudlin eyes. FCS, they killed, and if they can do that, they can be held responsible.

Syl wrote:No one is looking at these kids through rose coloured glasses....they are murderers and I don't see anyone saying differently.

But that's precisely what I see you doing. If they are responsible, let them have the revenge of the state upon them. I don't condone the death penalty, but if that is the standard, certainly they deserve it.

Point out where I have said they are not responsible for the murders they have committed..

In the eyes of the law (and any adult with a brain) a 14 year old is still a child. If you think people who understand that FACT are looking at them through "weak, maudlin eyes" you are the one who isn't seeing straight.

They have both been rightly sentenced to a minimum of 20 years, would you prefer it if they were tortured by the state too....just to satisfy your own personal idea of 'revenge'? Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:51 pm

No... it's just easier and cheaper...

What's the point in looking after them both at enormous cost for 20 years or so before they are released?

Because even if they are released... they must first show they understand what they have done and why it is so wrong etc... and if so will never be able to lead a normal/happy/productive life after that when having all that weight of guilt and memory of cold blooded murders on their shoulders...

So do us all a favour and just take them out the back and shoot them...!

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:54 pm

Even if they can be "rehabilitated" so that they show remorse and feel guilt, won't they suffer even more? They won't be able to take back what they did or make up for it. Perhaps that's the real punishment.

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Even if they can be "rehabilitated" so that they show remorse and feel guilt, won't they suffer even more? They won't be able to take back what they did or make up for it. Perhaps that's the real punishment.

I agree that IF they ever can be rehabilitated back into society when the time comes it wont be easy.
But it has ben e done ...Mary Bell and Robert Thompson seem to have managed, but as children who kill (in recent times) are few and far between there is not much evidence either way.

I don't know how they will ever be able to come to terms with what they did and move on, but that's why they need all the help they can get if it's to be achieved.

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

No... it's just easier and cheaper...

What's the point in looking after them both at enormous cost for 20 years or so before they are released?

Because even if they are released... they must first show they understand what they have done and why it is so wrong etc... and if so will never be able to lead a normal/happy/productive life after that when having all that weight of guilt and memory of cold blooded murders on their shoulders...

So do us all a favour and just take them out the back and shoot them...!

Well you could say that about any long term prisoner, and in some cases I would agree.
Never about children though.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:12 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Even if they can be "rehabilitated" so that they show remorse and feel guilt, won't they suffer even more? They won't be able to take back what they did or make up for it. Perhaps that's the real punishment.

I agree that IF they ever can be rehabilitated back into society when the time comes it wont be easy.
But it has ben e done ...Mary Bell and Robert Thompson seem to have managed, but as children who kill (in recent times) are few and far between there is not much evidence either way.

I don't know how they will ever be able to come to terms with what they did and move on, but that's why they need all the help they can get if it's to be achieved.

I'm not talking about them not committing another crime. I just think that if they can get over what they did, they haven't really shown any remorse anyway. If they genuinely show remorse, they'd have trouble fitting in anywhere, and they'd be eaten up with guilt. So you think that they should be helped to not feel guilty and "move on"? Why?

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:16 pm

You get my point Raggs... if they are released they must first show remorse and that they understand the evil/severity of what they did .. this guilt will prevent them from ever living a normal/productive life... so why bother wasting our time...?

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I agree that IF they ever can be rehabilitated back into society when the time comes it wont be easy.
But it has ben e done ...Mary Bell and Robert Thompson seem to have managed, but as children who kill (in recent times) are few and far between there is not much evidence either way.

I don't know how they will ever be able to come to terms with what they did and move on, but that's why they need all the help they can get if it's to be achieved.

I'm not talking about them not committing another crime. I just think that if they can get over what they did, they haven't really shown any remorse anyway. If they genuinely show remorse, they'd have trouble fitting in anywhere, and they'd be eaten up with guilt. So you think that they should be helped to not feel guilty and "move on"? Why?

I imagine if they do come to terms with what they have done and feel remorse, then they will always feel guilt, and that is probably the worst punishment of all.

Whether you like it or not they will one day move on. If they have been helped to live some sort of productive life that's better for everyone not just them.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You get my point Raggs... if they are released they must first show remorse and that they understand the evil/severity of what they did .. this guilt will prevent them from ever living a normal/productive life... so why bother wasting our time...?

Yes, I do see your point Tommy. I have sometimes thought that about Mary Bell. Of course we know very little about her because of the protection she has, but if she "moved on" and had a happy life, then clearly she felt no remorse in the first place.

I actually think that Venables has had a very troubled life since he was released, so he clearly feels some remorse IMO. The way he wanted to tell people who he was, his interested in child abuse - all that points to a troubled soul to me.

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:You get my point Raggs... if they are released they must first show remorse and that they understand the evil/severity of what they did .. this guilt will prevent them from ever living a normal/productive life... so why bother wasting our time...?

From the very few child killers that we have seen in the past I have mentioned two that have managed (as far as we know) to do just that.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:31 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not talking about them not committing another crime. I just think that if they can get over what they did, they haven't really shown any remorse anyway. If they genuinely show remorse, they'd have trouble fitting in anywhere, and they'd be eaten up with guilt. So you think that they should be helped to not feel guilty and "move on"? Why?

I imagine if they do come to terms with what they have done and feel remorse, then they will always feel guilt, and that is probably the worst punishment of all.

Whether you like it or not they will one day move on. If they have been helped to live some sort of productive life that's better for everyone not just them.

If they feel remorse, they will not move on - not in their heads. That will be the punishment. If they can move on and be happy, then they have no remorse IMO.

Productive for whom? For themselves? For others because they won't be murdered by these two? Your concern that they have a good life later on tells me that you have a great deal of sympathy for them and that you have none for the victims.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:32 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:You get my point Raggs... if they are released they must first show remorse and that they understand the evil/severity of what they did .. this guilt will prevent them from ever living a normal/productive life... so why bother wasting our time...?
From the very few child killers that we have seen in the past I have mentioned two that have managed (as far as we know) to do just that.

I don't know why you see that as a good thing though, other than that they probably won't murder anyone else. You constantly talk about these killers as "victims" who should be helped to have a nice life.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:35 pm

These two mudlrderers don't deserve life... let alone a happy one later on...

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I imagine if they do come to terms with what they have done and feel remorse, then they will always feel guilt, and that is probably the worst punishment of all.

Whether you like it or not they will one day move on. If they have been helped to live some sort of productive life that's better for everyone not just them.

If they feel remorse, they will not move on - not in their heads. That will be the punishment. If they can move on and be happy, then they have no remorse IMO.

Productive for whom? For themselves? For others because they won't be murdered by these two? Your concern that they have a good life later on tells me that you have a great deal of sympathy for them and that you have none for the victims.

Wrong. I have already said my sympathy is for the victims and their families.

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:These two mudlrderers don't deserve life... let alone a happy one later on...

Would you have thought the same about Venables and Thompson?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:55 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If they feel remorse, they will not move on - not in their heads. That will be the punishment. If they can move on and be happy, then they have no remorse IMO.

Productive for whom? For themselves? For others because they won't be murdered by these two? Your concern that they have a good life later on tells me that you have a great deal of sympathy for them and that you have none for the victims.

Wrong. I have already said my sympathy is for the victims and their families.

I know what you said, but everything else you're saying points to you having the view that these teenagers are victims, and that the primary goal is to help them to be happy and get over what they did - like it never happened.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:01 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:These two mudlrderers don't deserve life... let alone a happy one later on...

Would you have thought the same about Venables and Thompson?

I dont think they set out with a premeditated plan of murder...

But yes... they could have been shot too and nobody would have minded...

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

Would you have thought the same about Venables and Thompson?

I dont think they set out with a premeditated plan of murder...

But yes... they could have been shot too and nobody would have minded...

They were both 10 years old when they murdered so I should think every sane person in the land would have minded.

by Syl Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Wrong. I have already said my sympathy is for the victims and their families.

I know what you said, but everything else you're saying points to you having the view that these teenagers are victims, and that the primary goal is to help them to be happy and get over what they did - like it never happened.

I think that's just the way you are reading it.
I haven't said anything of the sort and it's definitely not what I believe.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:20 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I know what you said, but everything else you're saying points to you having the view that these teenagers are victims, and that the primary goal is to help them to be happy and get over what they did - like it never happened.

I think that's just the way you are reading it.
I haven't said anything of the sort and it's definitely not what I believe.

Well perhaps you need to rephrase what you're saying then.

by Sponsored content