Imagine if it was your three-year-old brother or sister (God forbid) that was snatched from a public place, dragged to a railway line, had their head stomped on and were bludgeoned with an iron bar. How would you feel then? Would you still be defending the killer who wants to start a fresh life?

 

Sorry to anyone who doesn't agree, but at the end of the day he brutally tortured & killed a three-year-old boy. It doesn't matter what age the killer was, he was old enough to know what he was doing! There must be something mentally wrong with him too. I mean, who in their right mind does a thing like that?

 

I don't understand how anyone can even begin to defend this vile monster.

It's all very well saying 'imagine if it was your kid killed', Martin, but all of us, no matter what our current viewpoint on the situation is, would be distraught, and feel bitter and anger and hatred for the people responsible, but that's what love does. The bond between parent and child is so strong most of the time, of course a parnent of a dead child would feel anger beyond words.

 

HOWEVER we are not those parents! We can see a little more clearly, and from an unbiased point of view. NOBODY is defending the actions of these two boys but they have had time to think over the crime now; for them to be allowed to live (the right decision, obviously - i dont condone the death penalty and if it did exist still i wouldnt think they should have received it) but not to be able to birth a child or marry is no kind of life at all!

As a few trusted friends on here know I caused the death of someone very dear to me by an act of negligence, there isn't a fukkin day that goes by where I don't analyse everything that lead to that death in great detail and wish I could turn back the clock and do things differently, I have to live with what happened and the fact I was negligent and could have changed things and maybe the person had not died but I have a CONSCIENCE and I have never MURDERED anyone, I very much doubt any murderer has a moral conscience and I very much doubt that Thompson and Venables think much about what they did as they have no conscience if they were capable of murder

I doubt they intended to murder Bulger though, which is where the main hinge of this argument as to whether they feel remorse or not seems to be heading - do you not think they do the same and wish they could turn back the clock and do things differently? I'm sure there have been people in the world who have murdered and regret their actions and have a conscience.

It's all very well saying 'imagine if it was your kid killed', Martin, but all of us, no matter what our current viewpoint on the situation is, would be distraught, and feel bitter and anger and hatred for the people responsible, but that's what love does. The bond between parent and child is so strong most of the time, of course a parnent of a dead child would feel anger beyond words.

 

HOWEVER we are not those parents! We can see a little more clearly, and from an unbiased point of view. NOBODY is defending the actions of these two boys but they have had time to think over the crime now; for them to be allowed to live (the right decision, obviously - i dont condone the death penalty and if it did exist still i wouldnt think they should have received it) but not to be able to birth a child or marry is no kind of life at all!

 

 

They were 10 though. They knew what they were doing at 10.

It's all very well saying 'imagine if it was your kid killed', Martin, but all of us, no matter what our current viewpoint on the situation is, would be distraught, and feel bitter and anger and hatred for the people responsible, but that's what love does. The bond between parent and child is so strong most of the time, of course a parnent of a dead child would feel anger beyond words.

 

HOWEVER we are not those parents! We can see a little more clearly, and from an unbiased point of view. NOBODY is defending the actions of these two boys but they have had time to think over the crime now; for them to be allowed to live (the right decision, obviously - i dont condone the death penalty and if it did exist still i wouldnt think they should have received it) but not to be able to birth a child or marry is no kind of life at all!

Exactly Couldn't have said it better.

And what kind of life does the three year old boy have?

They were 10 though. They knew what they were doing at 10.

You're not an adult until 16 and it's called adult hood for a reason; because while you are still a child, you are still growing, learning, becoming who you are. We may never know why they did what they did but chances are they wouldn't have done it at 18 and will never, ever be so immortally stupid as to even contemplate doing that kind of thing again. Ever.

They were 10 though. They knew what they were doing at 10.

Oh come off it! :rolleyes: I doubt anybody who is 10 knows clearly what they were doing, and a 10 year old would not seek actively to murder - it is hard enough for an adult to murder, but do you not think a 10 year old would be FAR more adversely affected, especially considering a 10 year old isn't even fully mentally developed yet?

And what kind of life does the three year old boy have?

Could one not say the same for every case of manslaughter in the history of the world?

And what kind of life does the three year old boy have?

None obviously, being dead, but you cant change the past. This debate regards whether the killer of that boy should be allowed to marry and ultimately have children. At, what, 25 (?) he has his whole life ahead of him. The dead boy doesn't but that's gone now, and the man who killed him has and still, and always will, pay the crime.

I doubt they intended to murder Bulger though, which is where the main hinge of this argument as to whether they feel remorse or not seems to be heading - do you not think they do the same and wish they could turn back the clock and do things differently? I'm sure there have been people in the world who have murdered and regret their actions and have a conscience.

 

They went equipped with iron bars Tyron, if they did not intend to murder the child then they would know that even if their intention was to give the child a beating that the child might die especially as we are talking about a 3 year old kid so the fact they had iron bars inside their jackets is enough intent for me, maybe they do maybe they don't I really don't know I have no access to their records or ever interviewed them so it is pure guesswork but given what I know about the case in question given the level of brutality involved it would surprise me a great deal if they do tear themselves apart over what they did

None obviously, being dead, but you cant change the past. This debate regards whether the killer of that boy should be allowed to marry and ultimately have children. At, what, 25 (?) he has his whole life ahead of him. The dead boy doesn't but that's gone now, and the man who killed him has and still, and always will, pay the crime.

 

My point exactly. He took a child's life....Why should he be able to move on with his and happily get married and even one day start a family? Because he's sorry? Because he was ten years old at the time and didn't know any better?

 

Nah, I think it's completley messed up.

My point exactly. He took a child's life....Why should he be able to move on with his and happily get married and even one day start a family? Because he's sorry? Because he was ten years old at the time and didn't know any better?

Nah, I think it's completley messed up.

But whatever he does, nothing will ever be completely perfect and happy in his life! He will always have to live with it and I think you're all underestimating that, which is understandable given that none of us have ever found ourselves in that position.

Oh, I'm seeing it all wrong then. He'll never be completley happy so I guess it's okay for him to go and build himself a life the best he can.

They went equipped with iron bars Tyron, if they did not intend to murder the child then they would know that even if their intention was to give the child a beating that the child might die especially as we are talking about a 3 year old kid so the fact they had iron bars inside their jackets is enough intent for me, maybe they do maybe they don't I really don't know I have no access to their records or ever interviewed them so it is pure guesswork but given what I know about the case in question given the level of brutality involved it would surprise me a great deal if they do tear themselves apart over what they did

We're talking about 10 year olds here though. Who's to know whether they had any idea of what would and wouldn't kill a 3 year old?

Oh, I'm seeing it all wrong then. He'll never be completley happy so I guess it's okay for him to go and build himself a life the best he can.

You're right. It is. Because he's paying all the time. When he wakes up he's having to think of what he did in a day of utter stupidity. Same for one he tries to go to sleep most probably, and god forbid what kind of terrible life that must be. Certainly worse than any sentence in prison - surely that is the true meaning of 'life' - suffering for life!?

We're talking about 10 year olds here though. Who's to know whether they had any idea of what would and wouldn't kill a 3 year old?

 

A 10 year old would have at the very least a basic understanding of what is right and what is wrong, someone aged 10 is in their 7th year of education and would have some level of intelligence and understanding of what happens in the world

 

I know at 10 that I never contemplated abducting kids and beating them with iron bars nor do I know anyone else who was that way inclined, reason ??? I knew the difference between right and wrong as did my friends

Why are we protecting such people?

 

Surely, they are under the Witness protection act? Surely they couldn't be called witnesses could they? Why are the government spending thousands of tax-payers money on protecting these two tos*ers? I mean, they did a few years in Prison, and now they have a free-life, do what they want, get married. Why should we have to pay for their identities to be hidden? Surely we shouldn't care if some vigilante kicked their heads in? I reckon public opinion would be "Good, they deserved it"

 

Also, the Daily Mail isn't really helping matters in keeping them secret, any office worker who has got a fiance is going to be slightly suspicious now if they see that. I thought they'd have to keep their profile low anyway, keep them away, not blast their picture all across the media?

The one who is getting married (Venables) is a born-again Christian according to http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_metho...-name_page.html, although the article itself is incredibly biased against the two in a way only a tabloid can manage, it does show that he has given Bulger a second though CrazyChris, so he clearly does feel at least some sort of remorse for the murder, and it gets to the root of the argument - no matter what reasons he may have for doing so, Venables is unlikely to murder again if he is seeking forgiveness from God, and therefore poses no danger to his future wife or any children they may have.

The one who is getting married (Venables) is a born-again Christian according to http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_metho...-name_page.html, although the article itself is incredibly biased against the two in a way only a tabloid can manage, it does show that he has given Bulger a second though CrazyChris, so he clearly does feel at least some sort of remorse for the murder, and it gets to the root of the argument - no matter what reasons he may have for doing so, Venables is unlikely to murder again if he is seeking forgiveness from God, and therefore poses no danger to his future wife or any children they may have.

 

£4m has been spent on keeping their identities secret :manson: a lot of nurses, dentists, police, teachers could be paid for with £4m :manson:

 

They should not be given protection at taxpayers expense, if that means they end up getting done over by vigilantes then $h!t happens but taxpayers money should not be spent protecting them