|
Post by trubble on Jun 28, 2011 6:43:31 GMT -5
from www.thejournal.ie : Jamie Bulger killer denied parole over child porn convictionONE OF THE TWO boys convicted of murdering two-year-old Jamie Bulger has been refused parole after he was jailed last year over child pornography charges.
At his trial at the Old Bailey last summer, Jon Venables, 28, admitted downloading and distributing indecent images of children and was sentenced to two years in prison.
He and Robert Thompson were both 10 years old when they abducted and killed Bulger. After being released in 2001, they were given new identities. The media is prohibited from publishing details about their appearance now or where they live.
The pornographic images were discovered when Venables contacted police himself, fearing his real identity had become known. When an officer arrived at his home to help him move out, he discovered Venables attempting to delete files from his computer.
Application for release
The Telegraph reports that having applied for release halfway through his sentence, Venables’ request was turned down by a parole board. The board said it believes he still poses a risk to the public and would not release him.
Venables’ conviction for the child pornography charges means that he must serve out the remainder of the life sentence he received for Bulger’s death. He had served eight years of that sentence, at a secure children’s home, before his release on licence in 2001.
He is entitled to apply for parole every two years.
Bulger’s father has criticised the board for its lack of transparency and accountability, the BBC reports. Ralph Bulger said in a statement that he was relieved at the board’s decision, but said the reasons for its decisions and the evidence it considered should be made known.
The board said it acted according to the provisions laid down by parliament.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jun 28, 2011 7:47:04 GMT -5
i am happy he was denied parole...he obviously isnt fit to be on the streets
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 9, 2011 13:08:53 GMT -5
It never ceases to amaze me how it takes a personal involvement in a murdered innocent, to even remotely understand why we execute murderers here in Texas. I believe it is because it is always so unthinkable. If something is "unthinkable" it is hard to see the need to protect other innocents. Untill it is made totally thinkable, or real...in a personal way. Waaay to dangerous to be turned loose....ditto his fellow child killer... Who is walking around, without the neighborhood even knowing, who (or what) is around their children....every day
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 13, 2011 10:57:58 GMT -5
Thought y'all might find this one interesting... Jesse Pomeroy the child serial killer of Mass. USA. Reminds one of the child killers Thompson & Venables who murdered 2 year old James Bulger. Jesse Pomeroy killed a 4 year old & a 10 year old, and attacked several others in Massachussetts in 1871. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_PomeroyPomeroy was sentenced to hang, at the age of 15. His sentence was commuted to "life in prison in solitary confinement"... He died in failing health in an insane asylum at the age of 73. The difference between Pomeroy was that he was successfully detained & never killed another child...very risky, but OK as it turned out, he seemed to be too nuts to escape. Whereas Jon Venables in England got out after 8 years...(they had been "rehabilitated") and Jon Venables has been found with child-porn on his computer.... They don't change....they just don't change.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Sept 13, 2011 11:05:31 GMT -5
Denied parole?
Christ, this piece of filth is lucky he's still alive!
Turn him loose in the centre of Liverpool and see how long he lasts!
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 13, 2011 11:25:16 GMT -5
Denied parole? Christ, this piece of filth is lucky he's still alive! Turn him loose in the centre of Liverpool and see how long he lasts! Hi there amiga... The sad part is that hundreds of thousands of families must live in their communities, not knowing if these killers of a 2 year old are actually living next door, with shocking access to their children.... Any responsible mother or father must feel that he could be right next door.... This...is wrong. It would be difficult to hide his looks...everyone knows what he looked like 8 years ago.... I wonder if Venables does walk/stalk the streets of Liverpool....or any other city in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 13, 2011 13:16:09 GMT -5
I doubt it, he's in prison. The system has worked, hasn't it. Venables is in prison. Thompson is out and we have no reason to believe that he isn't watched carefully or isn't 'rehabilitated'. We also have Mary Bell who has been a free woman since 1980 without 'stalking' the streets. Truth is, we don't have a definitive answer to dealing with children who kill. We are learning as we go. So far, it's going quite well, I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 13, 2011 13:23:14 GMT -5
That's a horrible tale all around. Obviously murder is barbaric. But then added to that, the suspect is considered mentally defiicent and allowed no counsel.... death sentence finally changed to life in solitary but at the age of 16... the whole thing is barbaric really. I don't think it is a very good example of anything, although it certainly is interesting.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 13, 2011 13:27:54 GMT -5
That's a horrible tale all around. Obviously murder is barbaric. But then added to that, the suspect is considered mentally defiicent and allowed no counsel.... death sentence finally changed to life in solitary but at the age of 16... the whole thing is barbaric really. I don't think it is a very good example of anything, although it certainly is interesting. As long as he didn't kill any more children.....it was a good example of protecting the innocent. They're just lucky he wasn't released, or escaped to continuing preying on children, like Venebles was.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 13, 2011 14:01:38 GMT -5
Venables, Thompson, Bell, Pomeroy.
None went on to kill more children.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 16, 2011 7:07:54 GMT -5
Venables, Thompson, Bell, Pomeroy. None went on to kill more children. So far.... Venebles WAS caught with & dealing in...kiddie porn. *************************************************************************************************** Official Stat's on recidivism... Of the 108,580 persons released from prisons in 11 States in 1983, representing more than half of all released State prisoners that year, an estimated 62.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.8% were reconvicted, and 41.4% returned to prison or jail. Before their release from prison, the prisoners had been arrested and charged with an average of more than 12 offenses each; nearly two-thirds had been arrested at least once in the past for a violent offense; and two-thirds had previously been in jail or prison. By yearend 1986 those prisoners who were rearrested averaged an additional 4.8 new charges. An estimated 22.7% of all prisoners were rearrested for a violent offense within 3 years of their release. ************************************************************************************************* Child molesters are simply the most likely, by far, to continue attacking children. Venebles & Thompson should never have been allowed to walk free among those that they prey upon....the odds are....they will do it again. Just too dangerous...IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 16, 2011 7:45:16 GMT -5
they were not child molesters in the acepted sense and they were children them selves...who had very bad backgrounds and were from disfunctional families..one sexually abused by his brothers and one watching porn and aduklt video,s this does not excuse what they did...BUT it does explain what they did what we dont dont know is WHY ..the reasoning behind why they wanted to abduct a child..any child...we can only assume that the sick worlds they had been reared in had affected both of them and together they were a deadly combination there was another case of two young brothers who tied up and assulted another boy..again the family background was dire and they saw and were allowed to see things that not child should see..and then society holds up its habds in horror when children who have been so abused in turn become abusers but w3ith child murders there is always a possibility of reform in the vanables case not a great deal of rehabilitation was done..from all acounts..but he is no an adult and i would hope has had his last chance and should remain locked up on the other hand...many people so the stats prove look at and enjoy[urgh] child porn...but society doesnt lock them aqll away and yet every picture of child porn is of an abused child some where in the world we cannot lock up every siko so what is the answer
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 23, 2011 11:56:22 GMT -5
they were not child molesters in the acepted sense and they were children them selves...who had very bad backgrounds and were from disfunctional families..one sexually abused by his brothers and one watching porn and aduklt video,s this does not excuse what they did...BUT it does explain what they did what we dont dont know is WHY ..the reasoning behind why they wanted to abduct a child..any child...we can only assume that the sick worlds they had been reared in had affected both of them and together they were a deadly combination there was another case of two young brothers who tied up and assulted another boy..again the family background was dire and they saw and were allowed to see things that not child should see..and then society holds up its habds in horror when children who have been so abused in turn become abusers but w3ith child murders there is always a possibility of reform in the vanables case not a great deal of rehabilitation was done..from all acounts..but he is no an adult and i would hope has had his last chance and should remain locked up on the other hand...many people so the stats prove look at and enjoy[urgh] child porn...but society doesnt lock them aqll away and yet every picture of child porn is of an abused child some where in the world we cannot lock up every siko so what is the answer
Just don't believe in "reform" mouse. Also, since my reason for incarcerating them is to protect the innocent... I really don't care why they killed Jamie Bulger... any more than I care why they probably will do it again.... They may be totally insane. You don't just get up one morning & say, "I think I'll slaughter a little boy" for the sheer fun, or thill of it". They may have not been given a "little red wagon" as children... I don't know & it really isn't cogent to why we should want them to be permanently removed from other little boys. Concerning the sexual connection to the crime: ******************************************************************************************* Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, stockings, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report read out in court stated that Bulger's foreskin had been forcibly retracted. ********************************************************************************************* Match this with the finding/sale of kiddie porn by Venebles....it would take only the most naive to say they didn't see a connection...and extreme danger.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 24, 2011 13:18:59 GMT -5
they were not child molesters in the acepted sense and they were children them selves...who had very bad backgrounds and were from disfunctional families..one sexually abused by his brothers and one watching porn and aduklt video,s this does not excuse what they did...BUT it does explain what they did what we dont dont know is WHY ..the reasoning behind why they wanted to abduct a child..any child...we can only assume that the sick worlds they had been reared in had affected both of them and together they were a deadly combination there was another case of two young brothers who tied up and assulted another boy..again the family background was dire and they saw and were allowed to see things that not child should see..and then society holds up its habds in horror when children who have been so abused in turn become abusers but w3ith child murders there is always a possibility of reform in the vanables case not a great deal of rehabilitation was done..from all acounts..but he is no an adult and i would hope has had his last chance and should remain locked up on the other hand...many people so the stats prove look at and enjoy[urgh] child porn...but society doesnt lock them aqll away and yet every picture of child porn is of an abused child some where in the world we cannot lock up every siko so what is the answer
"why" a murderer kills has no relevance. there is NO social or environmental factor, regardless of how much the looney tune thug huggers might want to pretend there is. a murderer kills because he makes the conscious choice, all by himself, to do so. there is NO other reason, EVER the answer is quite simple. you need the moral backbone to guarantee that they will never abuse another child. obviously, they cannot abuse anyone if they are not alive
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Sept 24, 2011 13:41:14 GMT -5
I doubt it, he's in prison. The system has worked, hasn't it. Venables is in prison. Thompson is out and we have no reason to believe that he isn't watched carefully or isn't 'rehabilitated'. We also have Mary Bell who has been a free woman since 1980 without 'stalking' the streets. Truth is, we don't have a definitive answer to dealing with children who kill. We are learning as we go. So far, it's going quite well, I reckon. Quote: "Venables is in prison. Thompson is out and we have no reason to believe that he isn't watched carefully or isn't 'rehabilitated'." I seem to remember that Venables was being carefully watched and rehabilitated. So well that he regularily visited his old haunts and was going where he liked. Compare if you will the others mentioned that have not reoffended, then compare Venables crimes to theirs.
|
|