James Bulger's killers - Should they be protected? Watch

ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#161
Report 9 years ago
#161
(Original post by fallen angel9)
I did the same.


OP, I discussed this in my Ethics class today and as much as I think what they did was horrible they were only ten and obviously didn't know right from wrong so perhaps protection is appropriate.
aye it was terrible.

and hmm if they are not protected then you may as well sign thier death certificates
0
reply
Future Doc
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#162
Report 9 years ago
#162
I trust the law to do it's job, not groups of vigilantes.
0
reply
LadyJaneGrey
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#163
Report 9 years ago
#163
(Original post by tom//)
not really, no, its like saying everyone should know their partners medical past, and financial past incase they get them bankrupt
You're comparing bankrupcy with the murder of a 3 year old? Also...it is technically possible for people to find out their partner's medical and financial past whereas there is no way Venables's or Thompson's partners can find out that these men are murders.
0
reply
thisisyesterday
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#164
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#164
(Original post by Antonia87)
They are mainly cases that demonstrate the flaws in the law surrounding murder, in particular, the flaws in the defence system. And the Law Commission is very keen to eradicate these flaws.

Looking at the defence of duress - it is not available for murder, or attempted murder. This, at first, may seem completely irrational. We can't have the defense being abused with truly dangerous criminals being acquitted.

But look at the case of Gotts (1992). This involved a young teenage boy being threatened with death by his father, if he did not stab his mother. The boy attacked his mother, but did not kill her. The courts refused to take into account the death threats made by the boy's father, despite the fact that the threats were of death and were imminent. The boy, as a result, was convicted of attempted murder.

The reason this precedent exists is because the law expects the public to exercise "heroism" - as stated by Lord Hailsham. If a woman had to choose between the life of her child and the life of a stranger, the law expects her to measure the two lives with equality - which few mothers are willing to do. And even more bizarre, the defence of duress is available to those who inflict serious bodily harm (which can result in death).
I don't follow your argument here, what is the relevance of this to the rest of what you are saying? Just because the defence of duress has produced some unjust outcomes, does this mean we ought to tighten up on the other available defences? What would that possibly achieve?

(Original post by Antonia87)
Oddly enough, provocation is a defence to murder. And according to the Homicide Act of 1957, homosexual advances are included in this defence. This means that, if a straight man were to be subjected to sexual advances by a gay man, the straight man can murder the gay man and claim that he was "provoked". This, effectively, would be a homophobic killing. Despite the fact that exercising homophobia is against the law, you may still claim the defence and escape a charge of murder.
Interesting. Can you refer me to the section that this is in?

(Original post by Antonia87)
Another startling case is the case of Doughty (1986). This involved a man who murdered his 19-day old baby, because he wouldnt stop crying. The defendant claimed provocation and the case ruled that a baby crying was enough to provoke him to murder. This is actually recognised as precedent, despite the fact that it was recognised that a 19-day old baby could not possibly intentionally provoke someone.

Startling enough if you put it like that. But he didn't 'murder' his baby, because to murder another human being you have to be acting with 'malice aforethought'- which he was not. He was merely trying to silence the child, not kill it or cause it any harm. He was subsequently conviceted of manslaughter, which means the judge had the discretion to sentence him to life imprisonment anyway. Hardly an unjust outcome when you consider it that way, unless you're suggesting we lower the mens rea requirement for murder?

(Original post by Antonia87)
the case ruled that a baby crying was enough to provoke him to murder
No, it did not. The trial judge didn't leave provocation for the jury to consider, and it was decided on appeal that this was wrong. Noone decided that the baby's crying was enough to provoke him.

Plus it's not as easy as you're implying to 'claim' provocation. There are a number of elements which must be satisfied first, and the cases of Holley and Karimi suggest that the courts are tightening up on such defences.

Are you suggesting that you believe that such defences should not be available or..?
0
reply
142838
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#165
Report 9 years ago
#165
If you say they shouldn't have protection you are condoning the death sentence.
That's the truth of it because I'm sure they would be murdered.

The thing about them marrying and having kids does disturb me as a woman. It's not ideal but I don't see the choice the justice system has here.
0
reply
Nishil
Badges: 2
#166
Report 9 years ago
#166
No they should not. They must now feel the consequences of their actions. With a bit of luck somebody will shank them. I know if that was my child I would find these people and make them swim into the English Chanel with 2 breeze blocks chained to them.
0
reply
thisisyesterday
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#167
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#167
(Original post by CHAMON)
The system is immune to making mistakes is it? No.


In a case like this, with such high publicity, I would expect that they are acting under a high degree of vigilance.

And do you believe you are a better judge on whether or not they are rehabilitated, just because you think it's simply not possible? And you said you study psychology? Amazing...
0
reply
thisisyesterday
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#168
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#168
(Original post by cats_have_teats)
If you say they shouldn't have protection you are condoning the death sentence.
That's the truth of it because I'm sure they would be murdered.



The thing about them marrying and having kids does disturb me as a woman. It's not ideal but I don't see the choice the justice system has here.

That's an interesting way of looking at it..
0
reply
tom//
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#169
Report 9 years ago
#169
(Original post by LadyJaneGrey)
You're comparing bankrupcy with the murder of a 3 year old? Also...it is technically possible for people to find out their partner's medical and financial past whereas there is no way Venables's or Thompson's partners can find out that these men are murders.
no im comparing you saying "oh they should know about his criminal past" with how if that should be the case then so should medical and financial. the only way im aware of is if theyre under 16, which is right because its their child


but otherwise its an idiotic idea
0
reply
shantaram2
Badges: 0
#170
Report 9 years ago
#170
They are not fit to be called human beings. I know loads of people who had "troubled" childhoods but they have never inflicted such vile attacks upon another human being. A troubled childhood is no excuse, they should never have been let out of prison.
0
reply
CHAMON
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#171
Report 9 years ago
#171
(Original post by thisisyesterday)
In a case like this, with such high publicity, I would expect that they are acting under a high degree of vigilance.

And do you believe you are a better judge on whether or not they are rehabilitated, just because you think it's simply not possible? And you said you study psychology? Amazing...
Just because I do, does not mean I'm not allowed to form my own opinion. Unlike you, I can think for myself. You just spew what you've read.
0
reply
Allthewayhome
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#172
Report 9 years ago
#172
It was monstrous act, truly evil.

However, as much as it pains people to acknowledge it, they must be protected.

To let them be subject to the vehemence of people seeking revenge would be wrong.

It's not a sign of weakest to protect them, nor callous, by any means.

We have the rule of law and the law is there for the benefit of all.
0
reply
Joel-M
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#173
Report 9 years ago
#173
No they shouldnt be protected.

I think we should put them in a field hand cuff them and let hundreds of people kick **** out of them, let them see what it feels like to be scared and defenceless.
0
reply
Celtic_Anthony
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#174
Report 9 years ago
#174
(Original post by Allthewayhome)
It was monstrous act, truly evil.

However, as much as it pains people to acknowledge it, they must be protected.

To let them be subject to the vehemence of people seeking revenge would be wrong.

It's not a sign of weakest to protect them, nor callous, by any means.

We have the rule of law and the law is there for the benefit of all.
I agree with all of that, just wanted to add...

I'd say it would be weak to bend to public opinion and to leave them to the baying wolves. It shows strength to protect them.

Then, there's the argument that there should be a second chance for them, which rings especially true considering the circumstances of this case.


Check my sig, by the way
0
reply
rockrunride
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#175
Report 9 years ago
#175
(Original post by Joel-M)
No they shouldnt be protected.

I think we should put them in a field hand cuff them and let hundreds of people kick **** out of them, let them see what it feels like to be scared and defenceless.
It's times like these that make me actually appreciate the government we have.
0
reply
thisisyesterday
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#176
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#176
(Original post by CHAMON)
Just because I do, does not mean I'm not allowed to form my own opinion. Unlike you, I can think for myself. You just spew what you've read.

'Even now I'm not really sure which parts of myself are real and which parts are things I've gotten from books'

Surely basing an opinion on FACTS I have read is a natural thing to do? Or do I disregard this information and form a completely unique, yet unsubstantiated opinion on something that I think, but that has absoloutely no basis?

Also, are you capable of engaging in a discussing without slinging subtly personal comments? It really is quite annoying. :/
0
reply
#Limabean1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#177
Report 9 years ago
#177
(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)


Check my sig, by the way
:cool:
0
reply
numb3rb0y
Badges: 3
#178
Report 9 years ago
#178
They committed a crime as minors, unable to fully comprehend the gravity of their actions. To deny them anonymity post-release would be to guarantee punishment further than the extent of their lawfully rendered and served sentence, which would not be any form of justice under which I would want to live.
reply
dannicottell
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#179
Report 9 years ago
#179
no no no no no! *******s who kill children deserve to be thrown to the crowds and be tortured like that poor little boy. i dont even understand how people can say that those people deserve a life. they lost their right to any kind of life when they took away that little boys life!
0
reply
CHAMON
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#180
Report 9 years ago
#180
(Original post by thisisyesterday)
'Even now I'm not really sure which parts of myself are real and which parts are things I've gotten from books'

Surely basing an opinion on FACTS I have read is a natural thing to do? Or do I disregard this information and form a completely unique, yet unsubstantiated opinion on something that I think, but that has absoloutely no basis?

Also, are you capable of engaging in a discussing without slinging subtly personal comments? It really is quite annoying. :/
It's possible, but less fun. :p:

What you perceive to be facts are not facts to others. Do you have the actual report on the state of the killers mind?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (49)
18.42%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (107)
40.23%
Nope, not that interesting (110)
41.35%

Watched Threads

View All