Thread: Who cares about Venables?

I see Jon Venables, the killer of the Bulger child, is back in police custody for a serious crime. Along with a mate, he lured and sadistically killed a toddler in Merseyside, receiving a 'stiff' sentence in a comfortable jail, before being released six years later with a new identity and full-blown state security forces to protect him from harm.

Some journalists are wondering which new lag brought into custody is actually Venables - and more than a few of us also wonder how a violent murderer could have received such an original non-punishment in relation to the crime for this to happen now.

Left wing bloggers often lambaste newspapers for sensationalising, often not without legitimate grounds, but this time I wonder if they protest too much. The unwittingly honestly-named Enemies Of Reason:

Cage this beast! Enemies of Reason



First of all, I notice how loopy modern Leftists consider even derisory punishments for crimes as legitimate and worthy. "Look, Venables committed his heinous murder", I've often heard, "got six years for it and now he's a free, respectable and honest man with his slate and character wiped clean". Six years is no sentence for torture and dragged-out murder, especially as his hopes were kept up for insanely early release whilst he was inside.

It's not unreasonable to expect dangerous and violent criminals to at least be locked up for a good long time. It happened with Dennis Nilsen and the Yorkshire Ripper, so it's not impossible. It's just funny how modern Leftist opinion derides even that as some primitive and vulgar lust for revenge, never mind hanging. The 'valuable' European Court of Justice helped Venables gain his early release, an institution marinated in such 'principles'.

I know the blogger seems to be addressing his view of anybody's right to personal safety against vigilantism under any circumstances (though in this case Venables should still be inside for the Bulger murder for this not to be relevant), but he also makes a baffling attack on people who regard the likes of Venables as 'animals'. Of course they are. They do need to be caged, with 'left to rot' being more a euphamism. But given the politicians promising us that any gallows-worthy criminals would be locked up for a true life sentence after the rope was banned, it's no wonder people are angry that the length of porridge for even capital murder gets shorter and shorter.

But other than the claim that animals aren't higher than these vicious killers (animals kill because they need to and not because they're reprehensibly evil), this really gets on my nerves:


"It's easy to dehumanise criminals by calling them animals and beasts, but of course they aren't. They may act appallingly and do horrific things which shock us, but they aren't animals, or beasts. But if harm does come to the Bulger killers as a result of any of this publicity and clamour for information, who then are the beasts? Who then are the animals? And who then is guilty?"


Turning the argument round and shifting all the negativity against the would-be vigilante (or journalist) is typical of the looking-glass Left. "He's no animal, just the other bloke who killed him for it". That's not too far removed from the old "society's to blame" crap when talking about your average street thug. The criminals are the victims, apparently, with the real victims (and their families) just over-emotional unfortunates 'in the wrong place at the wrong time', not to be taken notice of too much. The scum are to blame, or perhaps the 'liberal' Left are still far too daft to notice.

And as for 'dehumanising' the criminals? You don't need the newspapers or public to do that, the feral swine responsible do that the moment they commit their barbarous acts! And with politically-correct revolving-door merchants in Labour still controlling the judicial system, with their hand-picked lunatic judges, it's no wonder such scenarios are set to run and run. If anyone should share the term 'dangerous animals' it should also be the politicians (both Tory and Labour) who broke their promises not to unleash evil killers back into society, all in the name of Justice.

_________________________________________________

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7051089.ece

Extra link: Bulger killer cover blown | The Sun |News

It is indeed in the Public interest! We are bleeding well interested!

Extra link: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...nsibility.html (ANOTHER two innocent deaths which ALL Lefties share responsibility for)

What do you think the perpetrators of that crime will end up getting, if even caught? Probation? Community Service, as used in the communist bloc? An ABC? ASBO? A kiss on the nob for good behaviour? Might as well.

Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public

-- It's not unreasonable to expect dangerous and violent criminals to at least be locked up for a good long time. It happened with Dennis Nilsen and the Yorkshire Ripper, so it's not impossible. It's just funny how modern Leftist opinion derides even that as some primitive and vulgar lust for revenge, never mind hanging. The 'valuable' European Court of Justice helped Venables gain his early release, an institution marinated in such 'principles'

Nilsen and the Yorkshire Ripper where adults when they committed their crimes.

Also - both Left and Right have been in power for decades and both sides have had decades to change the laws regarding child prisoners or to make sure they were locked up forever for their crimes.
Still, yet another potentially interesting thread is now not worth bothering to develop further because you simply want to use it for "left" and "right" politics.

Why are they not disclosing why he's back in prison? I can't form an opinion until I know why they arrested him again.

Originally Posted by Arcana XV

Why are they not disclosing why he's back in prison? I can't form an opinion until I know why they arrested him again.

I think the basic idea is that if he went to trial and his previous history was in the jury's mind that the trial could be alleged to be unsound - it would be pretty impossible to get a jury that hadn't seen the horrible images from Sefton shopping centre.

It's tricky ground whichever way this goes.

Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos

I think the basic idea is that if he went to trial and his previous history was in the jury's mind that the trial could be alleged to be unsound - it would be pretty impossible to get a jury that hadn't seen the horrible images from Sefton shopping centre.

It's tricky ground whichever way this goes.

Well, alright, but why does he get that kind of protection? Aren't jury's allowed to know the criminal's previous history?

Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos

Still, yet another potentially interesting thread is now not worth bothering to develop further because you simply want to use it for "left" and "right" politics.

I did mention the Tories also broke promises to keep the worst of our felons locked up, or perhaps you yourself are being ridiculously simplistic.

Though it is fair to say that it was Labour behind the drive to give up the rope, Lefties who are prone to hyperbole about 'state-sanctioned murder' on the subject of its potential return and more Lefties than anyone else who try to ring-fence evil youngsters off from any real consequences of their crimes.

If Venables was made to pay anything even approaching the proper price for his horrific deeds then he wouldn't be causing a scandal right now.

Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public

-- it is fair to say that it was Labour behind the drive to give up the rope, Lefties who are prone to hyperbole about 'state-sanctioned murder' on the subject of its potential return

It doesn't take "left" or "right" to say the death penalty is wrong - especially when the potential for miscarriage of justice is so high and proof that it works is so low.

Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public

-- If Venables was made to pay anything even approaching the proper price for his horrific deeds then he wouldn't be causing a scandal right now.

I certainly don't back his early release. The one thing that should be investigated and is being covered up by the furore over what he might have done is the parole decision that allowed him out when he clearly wasn't ready.

I know compartmentalising into Left and Right isn't the be-all and end-all, though in my experience most people are happy to plot themselves somewhere on the chart. (Though these same people can then often say 'Oo, it's not such a simple question of Left and Right' when they have to defend themselves over something.)




Capital punishment is bang right. Many socialists have said this too, though I do still stand by my assertion that the modern Left, the dominating trendy Left, screams against it. The People want it, it fits the crimes and it's Justice. Most of us accept that such measures allow a nation to excrete some of its most destructive specimens.

Miscarriages of justice have occurred in the past over this, though extremely rarely. But with strides in DNA-based detective work, as well as the commonsense idea that absolute and undeniable proof should be the only criteria for its use, there is no reason at all why the likes of Myra Hindley, Harold Shipman or even Venables shouldn't have lost their lives for taking away somebody else's so brutally and sadistically.

And capital punishment DOES have a deterrent effect in the long term - as well as an immediate effect on the level of serious offenders, reducing it by one. The murder rate was indeed much lower in past days when potential killers feared what was to happen to them... even when you take a lower population into account.Even corporal punishment for our street scum worked - when the Isle of Man dumped the birch a few years ago, the tranquil place almost immediately witnessed as much antisocial behaviour as any middle-sized town in England.

And if our masters baulk at the idea of punishing criminals properly, despite well over half of us wanting the Rope returned, they had better dump the latest crap they come out with. 'Wet' people drivel on that 'prison doesn't work'*, but our aloof politicians are slow to restore some true proportionality to punishments and have society's vermin fear again. If they don't want innocents hanged, as our neglectful masters always screech will happen if the Ultimate Deterrent is returned, then they had best lock away the other criminals for a decent time again to avoid the public pressure!





* And of course prison won't work if you soften the system and ridiculously reduce the sentences! Only other pigs seem to indulge such a delusion that pampering cuts crime.


_______________________________________

We want it back Mr. Home Sec.!

CHANNEL 4 POLL Reveals 70 Per Cent support for the Death Penalty - News - beecareful.info


Sound common sense in the comments:

Tara wants to know how executing a killer makes me any better than him. Oh let me see! Oh, I got it!! The murderer gets a trial, an appeals process, and a defense lawyer. Funny, I don't remember the murder victim getting any of these! The murderer killed an innocent person. I'm executing a murdering scumbag and have no regrets about it.




Stop lying about a lack of deterrent effect!

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15216

States without capital punishment is the USA see fewer murders. "Not good enough" say the Antis. But just one less is better.



And with no capital punishment to stop them, certain other life-wreckers take the p***:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...unishment.html

LEO McKINSTRY: Sorry not to join the liberal wailing: heroin traffickers deserve to die | Mail Online