In certain cases they are Joey. Criminologists know with certainty that here in the US 7% of the criminal population commits 80% of the violent crime. Lock that population up forever and the violent crime rate plummets. That is pretty black and white!

If you can’t see grey then I cannot comment further other than to say that to see black and white is only to see extremes. Life is made up of complexity and enigma and however beautiful or however terrible an experience or an act, it is never just black or just white.

And please look at any journal and you will see that sociopaths start early. Children in name only. These are dangerous animals that when given the chance will once again kill for their entertainment. You are a very nice reasonable person who has never been exposed to a creature who looks at you like a cat looks at a mouse. If (and I hope this never occurs) you are ever in that horrible situation I hope you are able and capable of defending yourself.

Contentment ? Explain that please ?
I am not ,emphatically NOT,presenting their crime as that of actions of normal children.
I am merely stating the fact,whether you like it or not,that at the time they did this,they were ten years old and therefore still INDISPUTABLY children.

Sociopaths are wired differently from you or me. Environment makes no difference to them. Their upbringing for the most part makes no difference. I find it amusing that people really try to understand the non-understandable. Countless millions of dollars is wasted by psychologists and social workers trying to figure out why sociopaths do what they do. They are human in name only. Look at them as vampires. They are an evolutionary mutation that failed. In the past when found out they would have been summarily killed which is why you only hear of a very few ancient serial killers. At least vampires killed (in fiction of course!) for food. Sociopaths kill for entertainment.

I absolutely agree that no normal ten year old would do these things,which prompts the question,what caused these two to do so ?
And that’s not a question of looking for excuses,as has been suggested.
Just heard on the news that it was an allegation of a serious sexual offence that led to Venables being re-imprisoned.God knows what he was doing out already in the first place.

Absolutely!

I’d like to put another question into the discussion,and before anyone starts having a go at me I’m NOT trying to excuse,explain or apologise for what those boys did.I think it’s scandalous that they’re already out of prison,and with Venables working as a bouncer in a night-club.No way can you call that justice.
Right then,we can all imagine in some small way how Jamie’s mother must feel.To everyone who’s posted : Would you stand by your opinion if you were Venables’ mother or father ?

Where has anyone said this? I am talking about basic fairness. If she lives someone else dies. Selective breeding can work but it has many, many problems as well. Far better to go in after the fact and use gene therapy to fix whatever is wrong. The work can even be done in-utero. Of course there are some serious ethical questions that arise with that technology. So your child is going to have a below average IQ hmm. Well we can fix that! In fact lets give him/or her a genius IQ. Also lets improve this gene here, there now the child will have a better tolerance to carcinogens, and really who needs to have a weak constitution anyway. The possibilities are endless.
The problem is it will be expensive and only the wealthy will able to afford it (maybe they allready are?) furthering the gap between rich and poor. Eventually with enough research you really could create the perfect person leaving all the rest of mankind behind. I wonder what they’ll do with us…

I agree it’s depressing but as has been said before what about the people out there who havn’t made stupid self destructive choices. Please note I used the term self destructive. She has been commiting suicide for years. Why lengthen the process and penalise others who aren’t intent on commiting suicide?

In a perfect world everybody would be saved and no one would have to pay for anything. Unfortunately we live in the real world and eventually the piper has to be paid.

And if I didn’t have the money to pay it I would do the best I could to make her comfortable and try to figure out some way to pay. But I have a sense of ethics that precludes me taking from those who are more deserving.

Gary

This thread is the most depressing item I’ve read in the year since I discovered the forum.
I’ve always felt at ease with people who ” like aeroplanes ” ( especially flying-boats,God bless ’em ), but I’m totally at odds with most of the opinions expressed here.Poster after poster has lined up to say let her die,she’s too stupid to live,she had her chance and shouldn’t get another one,etc.etc.
Firstly : She’s not in competition with another,more ” deserving ” person,for a donated liver. She only has the offer of her father’s liver,which wouldn’t have been on offer to anyone else.
Secondly : She’s only twenty-four. All right,she’s an adult and grown-up enough to have had two children,but she’s still very young,and if I can remember from that long ago,when you’re in your twenties you tend to think you’ll live forever ( now I’m 62 I’m not so sure ).
Thirdly : If you’re considering this simply as a question of right and wrong,then I do agree with the view that she’s ” wrong “. She had the most wonderful opportunity given to her,and whether through ignorance,arrogance or whatever you want to call it,she wasted it.So yes,in black and white terms,she’s wrong.But this isn’t just a moral question,it’s a person’s LIFE.
I keep saying this over and over – we all make mistakes.Maybe I wouldn’t be saying this if I were younger,but to me there’s no question , she definitely deserves another chance.
And Gary – what if you couldn’t afford to pay for your daughter’s treatment ?

Well,I’m so depressed now that I’ll just have to eat a whole bar of bubbly peppermint chocolate.

You are very wrong my friend. Look up the research into sociopaths in any reputable journal and you will see that these two exhibit classic sociopathic behavior. All serial killers start young. Their prey is allways that creature which is most vulnerable (usually small animals in the beginning) and the prey
grows in size as the children do. They are stone cold killers who should remain in custody for all of their lives because if given the chance they absolutely will kill again, because they enjoy it.

Gary

I agree totally. But being aware of something when you are 10 is entirely different from being aware as an adult. Children simply have not developed the maturity to understand the ramifications and consequences of their actions.

We would all agree that what they did was so appalling and beyond normal behaviour that the children cannot have been “normal” children. So, of course they had to be punished but also helped. Did anyone take the trouble to try to find out why they did it or were they just locked away in an institution to grow up as forgotten child murderers?

Yes in certain instances you can. When children exhibit this level of calculated violence they know what they are doing. Every serial killer that has ever been caught was found to have started very young. Most often they would torture and kill animals (because they are vulnerable) then when they get larger and able to handle bigger prey they start on people. These two are the definition of sociopath. They have no empathy for other people and will ALLWAYS be a threat.
Should they have been executed for their crime? IMO no, but, they should never have been released from prison either. They will kill again. Just give them some time.

Gary

They didn’t execute him kev,they murdered him in a most sickening manner,and I’m absolutely not making any excuse for that,it was evil beyond belief.If I remember rightly,Venables was described at the time of the trial as being the more evil of the two.
But surely you can’t treat a ten year old as being as morally responsible as an adult ?