James Bulger mum wants "justice"
The mum of murdered toddler James Bulger has said that she still "wants justice" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-21405673. I don't quite understand what she means by that. They were sentenced in the UK courts and have served their sentence. One of them has been recalled for a unrelated non-violent offence. There's just a whiff of vigilante and mob justice about the whole thing. Would someone explain to me what this "justice" that she craves is?
Whatever you think of the sentence they received and whatever you think of the crime, no one has the right to take justice into their own hands, the whole system would crumble. She's said before that she's convinced they'll re-offend and shouldn't be let out, I think that's just a front for the fact that she doesn't want them out at all, irrespective of whether they'll offend or not.
Here's what she said in 2001 on the prospect of a vigilante attack "What I'm frightened of is someone innocent getting mistaken for them and I do fear that. Now I don't want anyone else under mistaken identity to be hurt or worse. So what I'd say is be sure. Don't think or assume, be sure." Earlier in the article she says "I think no matter where they go, anyway, we're going to find out; and here's my advice to everyone out there listening to this: just don't kill them. Just let them know that we'll still be here and we won't go away." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jun/29/broadcasting.bulger. She disclaims violence. Then she says be sure it's them before you do anything. She also says just don't kill them. Mix this in with her claim that she'll find them, I find it troubling.
I have every sympathy with what happened to her and more importantly to her son. But we have a justice system. Anyone, no matter who they are, if they say anything which can be perceived to incite violence, that person should be charged and remanded into custody as they pose a danger.
Whatever you think of the sentence they received and whatever you think of the crime, no one has the right to take justice into their own hands, the whole system would crumble. She's said before that she's convinced they'll re-offend and shouldn't be let out, I think that's just a front for the fact that she doesn't want them out at all, irrespective of whether they'll offend or not.
Here's what she said in 2001 on the prospect of a vigilante attack "What I'm frightened of is someone innocent getting mistaken for them and I do fear that. Now I don't want anyone else under mistaken identity to be hurt or worse. So what I'd say is be sure. Don't think or assume, be sure." Earlier in the article she says "I think no matter where they go, anyway, we're going to find out; and here's my advice to everyone out there listening to this: just don't kill them. Just let them know that we'll still be here and we won't go away." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/jun/29/broadcasting.bulger. She disclaims violence. Then she says be sure it's them before you do anything. She also says just don't kill them. Mix this in with her claim that she'll find them, I find it troubling.
I have every sympathy with what happened to her and more importantly to her son. But we have a justice system. Anyone, no matter who they are, if they say anything which can be perceived to incite violence, that person should be charged and remanded into custody as they pose a danger.
Scroll to see replies
They should have been given a tougher sentence, although I guess they were real young, can't really blame a mother for wanting two chavvy little scumbags to die for killing her 2 year old son, regardless of age.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
If somebody murdered my children, I guess I'd want revenge. We talk about being moral upstanding people, but where you're talking about your own kin, it is (and it really is) a totally different ball game.
Original post by BradWills20
They should have been given a tougher sentence, although I guess they were real young, can't really blame a mother for wanting two chavvy little scumbags to die for killing her 2 year old son, regardless of age.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
"chavvy little scumbags"? Two children,who yes, committed a horrific crime, but two children who were also victims of abuse?
Original post by The_Dragonborn
If somebody murdered my children, I guess I'd want revenge. We talk about being moral upstanding people, but where you're talking about your own kin, it is (and it really is) a totally different ball game.
Yeah, I'd want revenge too. Doesn't mean I should get it.
I think she's entitled to want revenge, and I'd be very surprised if she didn't.
Also, giving the killers new identities is just papering over the problem. They would be at risk of attack, but only because the public don't have faith in the legal system's rehab abilities, and rightly so given reoffending rates. Don't whack her for wanting what is natural, fix up the legal system so people can have faith in it without having to be deluded.
Also, giving the killers new identities is just papering over the problem. They would be at risk of attack, but only because the public don't have faith in the legal system's rehab abilities, and rightly so given reoffending rates. Don't whack her for wanting what is natural, fix up the legal system so people can have faith in it without having to be deluded.
I agree with you. I sympathise with her, and I can't even begin to imagine what she must have been going through these past couple of decades always asking 'what if'. But they've served their sentence, they were only children at the time, and it sounds like their murderous ways have been diminished if not entirely rubbed out. She can't be allowed to have them incarcerated for the rest of their lives for something they did when they were children.
I feel really sorry for her. I can understand her wanting justice - they served 8 years in prison, been given new identities, etc and have been left to get on with their lives. She on the other hand, is having to live with guilt every day about leaving her son for a few minutes.
There was a piece in The Mail yesterday or Saturday where one of Denise's sons (he was born about 10 months after James' murder) hasn't been out of Liverpool or something because she's so scared of what might happen to him.
There was a piece in The Mail yesterday or Saturday where one of Denise's sons (he was born about 10 months after James' murder) hasn't been out of Liverpool or something because she's so scared of what might happen to him.
Original post by ameritus
I agree with you. I sympathise with her, and I can't even begin to imagine what she must have been going through these past couple of decades always asking 'what if'. But they've served their sentence, they were only children at the time, and it sounds like their murderous ways have been diminished if not entirely rubbed out. She can't be allowed to have them incarcerated for the rest of their lives for something they did when they were children.
Isn't one of them a paedophile, and got taken back to prison for being involved in child porn? To be that ****ed up when young, combined with our legal system's appalling rate of stopping reoffending would lead anyone to conclude they'll still be a serious risk to the public.
The word "justice" is a strange one. I think it's overused, to the point where it loses meaning.
I'm not trying to be controversial but every time I read it in a paper or online I struggle to define what the people asking for justice actually want.
I'm not trying to be controversial but every time I read it in a paper or online I struggle to define what the people asking for justice actually want.
Original post by mmmpie
What she wants is vengeance, which is something she can't be indulged in. Sad, but there it is.
Vengeance, there's the word I was looking for.
Original post by Hopple
Isn't one of them a paedophile, and got taken back to prison for being involved in child porn? To be that ****ed up when young, combined with our legal system's appalling rate of stopping reoffending would lead anyone to conclude they'll still be a serious risk to the public.
It was Jon Venables who was arrested and jailed for downloading child pornography images. But actually, I think he was only an "accomplice" to Robert Thompson, who never showed any remorse. By contrast, Venables was crying the whle way through the court case and apparently asked the prosecutors to apologise to James Bulger's mum before he was jailed.
I'm not saying they weren't ****ed up children, who came from really terrible families who didn't instill any moral values in them, but by all accounts of those who were involved in their rehabilitation, they sound determined to change, go to university, aspire to careers etc. Should the state deny them that opportunity? It's a really hard question.
Original post by Kibalchich
"chavvy little scumbags"? Two children,who yes, committed a horrific crime, but two children who were also victims of abuse?
yes chavvy little scumbags
Original post by clarusblue
The word "justice" is a strange one. I think it's overused, to the point where it loses meaning.
I'm not trying to be controversial but every time I read it in a paper or online I struggle to define what the people asking for justice actually want.
I'm not trying to be controversial but every time I read it in a paper or online I struggle to define what the people asking for justice actually want.
I suppose there can't be an objective meaning. You've got a mix of rehab, prevention, deterrent and revenge, and everybody's going to want a different amount of each.
Original post by Kibalchich
"chavvy little scumbags"? Two children,who yes, committed a horrific crime, but two children who were also victims of abuse?
You're completely right here. I'm not defending Jon Venables and Robert Thomspon - well, perhaps I am a bit - but they're often compared to an adult who commits the same crime, equally as culpable and equally as evil. The comparison really can't be made: they were young and they had an unfortunate upbringing. It's by no means an excuse, but it certainly counts for something.
What worries me is that when I went on Twitter earlier, the 42% of the population without even 5 GCSE's were throwing their tuppence in "its discusting 'ang em!!!!" hang them when exactly, now, 20 years after the crime lol. Or should we have hung a couple of 10 year olds at the time? Even the most barbaric regimes don't do that and I am in favour of the death penalty in some cases.
A more general point is that it does alarm me the number of bloodthirsty uneducated chavs with a criminal record that we share this country with who seem to have no ability to use reason and critical thinking. The same thing happened when the London Riots were going on the same lot we calling for "get army in and shoot 'em all", shooting people dead for nicking trainers from JJB Sports haha.
A more general point is that it does alarm me the number of bloodthirsty uneducated chavs with a criminal record that we share this country with who seem to have no ability to use reason and critical thinking. The same thing happened when the London Riots were going on the same lot we calling for "get army in and shoot 'em all", shooting people dead for nicking trainers from JJB Sports haha.
Original post by ameritus
It was Jon Venables who was arrested and jailed for downloading child pornography images. But actually, I think he was only an "accomplice" to Robert Thompson, who never showed any remorse. By contrast, Venables was crying the whle way through the court case and apparently asked the prosecutors to apologise to James Bulger's mum before he was jailed.
I'm not saying they weren't ****ed up children, who came from really terrible families who didn't instill any moral values in them, but by all accounts of those who were involved in their rehabilitation, they sound determined to change, go to university, aspire to careers etc. Should the state deny them that opportunity? It's a really hard question.
I'm not saying they weren't ****ed up children, who came from really terrible families who didn't instill any moral values in them, but by all accounts of those who were involved in their rehabilitation, they sound determined to change, go to university, aspire to careers etc. Should the state deny them that opportunity? It's a really hard question.
I would argue they're likely still ****ed up given their starting point and our legal system's incompetence, especially with this child porn stuff. How is aspiring for personal gain any indication that they've changed to be safe?
Original post by BradWills20
They should have been given a tougher sentence, although I guess they were real young, can't really blame a mother for wanting two chavvy little scumbags to die for killing her 2 year old son, regardless of age.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
They were actually tryed in an adult court. Something, which years later, was agreed that they shouldn't have been.
It's a difficult situation. I can imagine that as a mother, you would want all the justice you can get. But you can't expect to lock up some children for the rest of their lives, just because the state didn't look out for them in the first place.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- james bulger case 1993. Oscola referencing
- Full marks in English literature GCSE (130/130) AMA
- I need help with an assignment about Law society and contraversy
- sign of four
- Politics 25 mark extract question structure
- how can i get a grade 9 on this english literature essay?
- Different english question form
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
- St James Accomodation
- AQA English Lit paper 1 - Hamlet
- PLS MARK THIS FOR GCSE'S: How is theme of supernatural presented in Macbeth
- Losing confidence when writing essays
- Golden Threads 2023: Get a £50 Amazon Voucher just for posting on TSR!
- Dolls' House compared to Bell Jar?
- OnCampus Southampton Foundation Year
- Lse economics
- Durham or Queen Mary
- Brianna Ghey killed in quiet village
- my mum hates my boyfriend …
- Can someone correct my Macbeth essay
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
