You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Free Him And He Will Kill A Child Again.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Do you even call this evil I know that sounds odd but it appears this is genetic and a genetic compulsion his urge for podophilic abuse is as innate as our urge to go to the toilet or eat.
Does that mean we should excuse this? I think that would be ridiculous he should never be allowed to roam free in society ever. Just should we hate him? that is the natural thing but its just his pure genetics in this case there is only one logical course of action. What would you do if you had an aggressive dog which was constantly savaging people?
the only thing to do here is put the guy down. Hate makes sense from a natural reaction but thinking it through hate isn't the answer execution/euthanasia is.
Yes, he has reoffended after release. In various ways, some of which we have not been told what they were. What we do know involves some fairly serious stuff-but nothing that in any way compares to the horrible events from when he was 10. Compare/contrast with the other killer-who seems to have been successfully rehabilitated.
Many people share your "genetics" argument. I do not. I think a Society that deems it has the power to kill is no better than the killers. Where do you stop with that argument? Destroy everyone who has any meaningful disability? Destroy anyone whose views are not the societal norm?
A life in prison, with no prospect of release - ever - is a far worse punishment than putting someone to death.
Venables committed a truly horrific crime. But when he was a young child. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree, at some stage he is going to be released again.
We all know that it would only be a matter of time before the inevitable.
With respect, anonymity doesn't mean that there aren't people who know fine well who he is in order to monitor him. As has been showed on previous releases, previous monitoring, and his reincarceration for offences/breach of release conditions. Just that the general public do not. Although, against that, I believe he has been stupid enough previously to tell "friends" who he really is.
I don't get why it is "inevitable" that a terrible crime someone does when they are 10 will definitely happen again. Everything he seems to have done as an adult suggests that he is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. But nothing to show it is "inevitable" that he will be a serial child killer.
FWIW I believe that once they have served their time prisoners should, unless they still pose a danger or risk be allowed to rebuild their lives. The fact that Venables is seeking parole means that his sentence is not completed and therefore he does not have that right yet.
Whilst that horrible crime was committed when he was a young child, subsequent crimes have been committed as an adult. Surely a sign that he is neither rehabilitated or capable of change.
1. Deterrence to deter them and or others from committing the same crime.
2. retribution/ revenge for those affected
3. rehabilitation
4. restraint.
Deterrence as mentioned is not just for this individual but so that others seeing their sentence are deterred from the same crime.
retribution/revenge can seem barbaric and people can say that should not be necessary but I disagree with that mentality. Revenge is a perfectly natural part of evolution.
But then why have we evolved the propsensity to seek or want revenge? naturally because it deters others from messing with us.
So really revenge is similiar to deterrence.
We wont rehabilitate this individual there is only so many chances you can or should give someone.
I am Utilitarian myself I believe in the greatest welfare/good for the greatest number as a net total sum.
Now we are not psychic or perfect all knowing beings so we cant get this decision right every time, just like we cannot get this decision right every time in poker. We cant know in advance what cards are going to come. we cant predict future outcomes of our decisions in society and punishment but we can make likley aspersions based on information available to us. Now here we have the welfare of the crimminal to consider and there well being as messed up as that may appear, they would be happier outside and then we have to consider the welfare and well being of those they may harm.
now if someone is always playing fit or fold poker they only ever bet/call if they have it and check/fold otherwise then we can pretty much play any two cards against them and bet as soon as they check but fold if we dont have anything when they bet etc. If someone repeatidly offends we know this is negative ev letting them out.
Now what good does this guy contribute to society other then been a threat and a burden on society?
the only argument I see against the death penalty is powers that be using the death penalty in other cases where it may be corrupt or unjust. Either way this guy should never be let out I think most of us would have to agree with that at least.
Only 1 of the boys at the time of the trial expressed remorse-Venables. Thompson said nothing.
Thompson was almost certainly released over 20 years ago. And has done nothing to make anyone remember him ever since. He also had the advantage of not having the wild eyed look of Venables when he was 10 years old.
People continue to seek to stop 1 of 2 killers being released. And ignore the other one.
And, doubleme, what you are proposing is not "utilitarianism". It is Eugenics. I'm not going to name the leading adherent of Eugenics in recent times. But I strongly suspect that, using his yardsticks of genetics, he would have killed you. And me.
You clearly stated-"it appears it is genetic". What else can be meant by that?
You don't get to decide whether someone is an overall burden-any more than I do. The power is always vested in whoever runs the country. Look around you at who runs loads of countries today.
Then consider if they should be able to decide whether you (or I) live or die. Because it is not us who make the rules.
I think people make many mistakes throughout their lives and condemning them for the entirety of it based on actions when they very young would seem wrong in itself. That even said if they show no signs of rehabilitation and consistently offend then one should think abou the safety of the rest of the population. If I had changed children I would want this guy nowhere near them. Would you be okay with this guy living down the road from your grandchildren if you have grandkids?
Lots and lots of them were sexually abused by a family member while still a young child. That's the genetics part.
And please don't lecture me about how I should react if 1 of my grandkids was groomed by a paedophile. 1 of my kids was, fortunately unsuccessfully. That person is serving Life for what he did to others.