• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Corporal Punishment for Venables


  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Just selection, not the pre trial by TV and the mad narcissistic prosecutors during the televised actual trial.

At one stage in the 80's some states were only allowing $1,000 for the defence on a murder trial. Which meant virtually no evidence could be challenged by the defence and lead to dozens of innocent people convicted. Some on the solely on the evidence of a so called expert who it turned out would be a complete fraud.
Going slightly off topic but have you read John Grisham s “ the innocent man”. It’s his only non fiction book. You can guess what it’s about and I appreciate its about a US case. However it highlights how the system can fail again and again and again and how 12 people can find someone guilty of murder based on extremely flimsy evidence. If it was fiction you would say the story was ridiculous . It certainly made me totally against the death penalty as there are so few cases where it is 100 % ( not 99.9% ) clear exactly what happened and under what circumstances. For me keeping 100 murderers alive to ensure one innocent person stays alive is the right thing to do
 
I was quite clear in what I said earlier but some people seem to have had difficulty understanding it. The instances of people I gave are ones who without ANY SHADOW of doubt committed either multiple murders (Brady, Hindley, Sutcliffe etc) or something so grotesque (Lee Rigby's murderers) that, in my opinion, they should have been or be executed.

There is no way that I would ever have advocated that Venables and Thompson should have been executed for a murder they committed as children, which is why Thompson, who seems to have rehabilitated successfully cannot be subjected to the same kind of public condemnation that Venables is.

The cases of miscarriages of justice cited by others here are tragic, Derek Bentley's execution shows why it should only ever have been for the most extreme of cases. Stefan Kiszko's case shows that people can be wrongly imprisoned. One would hope that, with the huge leaps in forensic science since either of these cases, it would be a very rare thing for the wrong person to be convicted of a crime, and at least we're never going to wrongly execute someone for a crime they didn't commit in this country again.

What galls people time and time again, is the cost to the public of keeping people like Venables. Here's a man who clearly has a dangerous perversion - should we bring in long term secure "homes" for people who've served their sentences but are still deemed a threat to society and just lock him up for life so no "new identity" is required?
 
Last edited:
Like many a good British idea such as the NHS it no longer works because of the change in society etc. One quote is 'Who want to be tried by 12 people who are to stupid to get out of jury service'. I myself did weasel out of it once as I was far to busy at the time, although having heard stories recently I would probably do it just to see.

We could never have a trial for murder with a possible death sentence in the UK anymore, people would find a person not guilty because of their own personal beliefs.

To give you an example about 10 years abo A friend of mine was on the jury at the Old Bailey for a murder trial. The defendant admitted he had shot another man 5 times but claimed it was all an accident. His story was that the victim, who he knew had given him a lift. They pulled over and it was the victim who handed him a gun to look at. Being such an innocent little angle he went to push the gun away in fear and it went off twice. The victim fell out of the door and he run round to help and accidently fired again as in a panic he forgot to drop the gun. As the victim struggled on down the road and round a corner, he unfortunately fired two more shots into his back whilst gallantly trying to help the poor man.

The initial vote was 10/2. After a few hours of discussion the 2 women who had voted not guilty announced that although they thought it certainly wasn't an accident they did not want to see a young man locked up for 25 years. The next few days descended into some of the stronger characters trying to persuade the 2 women to change their mind....The judge will be more lenient, what about the poor victims mum sobbing in court etc......Eventually he was found guilty and given life...can't remember the minimum term.

Yes its flawed but not sure what would be the best way to improve it because its obviously very complicated. That said minor assault cases etc like at Southend court don't need the expense and waste of a 12 person jury.

If you want to talk about the NHS, that really belongs on another thread.
I imagine that you're in favour of some sort of privatisation of the NHS?
If so, bring on the debate.If anything to that effect appears in the next Tory manifesto,the Tories will be voted out of government quicker than you can say Brexit.
 
If you want to talk about the NHS, that really belongs on another thread.
I imagine that you're in favour of some sort of privatisation of the NHS?
If so, bring on the debate.If anything to that effect appears in the next Tory manifesto,the Tories will be voted out of government quicker than you can say Brexit.
Let’s not go totally off topic just because of one small line in one post. If YOU want to talk about the NHS please feel free to start a new thread
 
It certainly made me totally against the death penalty as there are so few cases where it is 100 % ( not 99.9% ) clear exactly what happened and under what circumstances. For me keeping 100 murderers alive to ensure one innocent person stays alive is the right thing to do

I don't think many people would argue with that sentiment, as its fairly logical.

But let me play devils advocate for a minute, with your Keeping 100 alive to ensure you save one, statement.

Venables will be free one day. It might be two years, it might be four, it might be six, we don't know yet, but he will be free one day, that we do know. Now, hypothetically, what if he went on to reoffend, only this time it was someone close to you. Doesn't neccessarily have to be family, but someone you know. And through his new hypothetical crime, (which for all intents & purposes I'm going to say is extreme peadophilia & murder) he'd now affected & changed 100 innocent lives, including your own. Aren't those 100 innocent lives worth more than one murdering, nonce scumbag?

Now I accept that we don't know exactly what Venables will or won't do in the future, but his psychiatric evaluations, coupled with his past/present crimes, paint a picture of someone who will forever be a danger to society, especially young children. It is NOT beyond reason to assume that this person WILL reoffend, and given half a chance, would be willing & capable of another heinous, violent & shocking crime.

So, a simple question... Does his life mean more than 100 innocent lives?
 
What galls people time and time again, is the cost to the public of keeping people like Venables. Here's a man who clearly has a dangerous perversion - should we bring in long term secure "homes" for people who've served their sentences but are still deemed a threat to society and just lock him up for life so no "new identity" is required?

You've answered your own question Kay. Secure homes are the same as prison, it's just a different setting, costing the taxpayer money, and draining funds.

It'd be "easier" to change legislation, and slap him with an American style sentence that states he is in clink for the rest of his life & he won't get a chance of parole. People just want to feel safe, and know that this type of evil can't do any more harm. If the idea of an execution isn't to everyone's liking, then the very next best thing would be to ensure that he is locked away forever, without any chance of freedom ever again.
 
I don't think many people would argue with that sentiment, as its fairly logical.

But let me play devils advocate for a minute, with your Keeping 100 alive to ensure you save one, statement.

Venables will be free one day. It might be two years, it might be four, it might be six, we don't know yet, but he will be free one day, that we do know. Now, hypothetically, what if he went on to reoffend, only this time it was someone close to you. Doesn't neccessarily have to be family, but someone you know. And through his new hypothetical crime, (which for all intents & purposes I'm going to say is extreme peadophilia & murder) he'd now affected & changed 100 innocent lives, including your own. Aren't those 100 innocent lives worth more than one murdering, nonce scumbag?

Now I accept that we don't know exactly what Venables will or won't do in the future, but his psychiatric evaluations, coupled with his past/present crimes, paint a picture of someone who will forever be a danger to society, especially young children. It is NOT beyond reason to assume that this person WILL reoffend, and given half a chance, would be willing & capable of another heinous, violent & shocking crime.

So, a simple question... Does his life mean more than 100 innocent lives?


Its much worse than that. Some recent figures proved that around 80 murders have been committed by people who have already served a life sentence for murder. Just last week we had someone sentenced for his third life term. If you remember only a couple of years ago someone else did the same thing. His second murder was on a 24 day release from prison, yet he was even released after that sentence and killed for a 3rd time.

Now add on all the women and children who have been raped or murdered by people who have previous convictions for violence and sex offences and the victims run into the 1000's. Rehabilitation has failed every single one of those victims 100%

So to switch the UWS stats around....Surely its better to keep all 100 lifers in for life, rather than risk just one of them killing again. Because one is one to many in any logical conclusion.
 
So to switch the UWS stats around....Surely its better to keep all 100 lifers in for life, rather than risk just one of them killing again. Because one is one to many in any logical conclusion.

I wholeheartedly agree with all of what you said mate.

Like I said earlier in the thread, a custodial sentence is two-fold. Punishment & rehabilitation. It seems in most cases these days, that the rehabilitation part has taken precedent, which is fine when it's successful. Unfortunately, the reoffending rates are still shockingly bad.... http://open.justice.gov.uk/reoffending/prisons/

As you've pointed out, the justice system totally fails thousands of innocent people, and should be accountable. Im not sure if there is any type of review council for parole boards, but there should be, and they should also be held to account.

I'd be happy to see our government introduce an American style Murder categorisation; First degree, second degree, voluntary manslaughter & involuntary manslaughter. And subsequently revise the sentencing guidelines for each crime. For example, murder in the first degree, should be life without parole. No debate, no discussion, no rehabilitation, simply locked away forever.
 
Think it would be a far more interesting thread than this one,which basically consists of the "hang em high" brigade talking to each other.

Really? I wonder how it'd go. Presumably something like this... Guardian link, we need more immigrants, the Tories are Nazi's in disguise, Trump out Trump out, anecdotal story featuring your dog walkers' sisters' mother-in-law who once did something of absolutely no interest to anyone, but is very tenuously linked to the thread title
 
Really? I wonder how it'd go. Presumably something like this... Guardian link, we need more immigrants, the Tories are Nazi's in disguise, Trump out Trump out, anecdotal story featuring your dog walkers' sisters' mother-in-law who once did something of absolutely no interest to anyone, but is very tenuously linked to the thread title

I'll test your theory as soon as the NHS is in the news again (which won't be long).:smiles:
 
As we are going of topic I will but it is relevant to this thread. I watched a clip on YouTube a few days back about US university campuses and where the right for free speech or even debate has gone.

Basically the theory is that those that would be labelled right wing all seem to be able to logically put their point across where as those who are from the left don't. In fact they use any tactic to end any debate about any subject they can't control. Worth a watch just to see the screaming crying, safe space millennials in action.

The thing is as they went through the debate ending tactics I chuckled and thought of some of the usual suspects on here and what they do

So far....Try to close the debate full stop....
Insult speaker/poster..... (he later removed it)
Use fake stats.....or ignore any point you can't deal with
Use a 'straw man' argument
Try and divert the topic onto something completely irrelevant.

Of course we haven't had the big one just yet....Faux outrage at something you find offensive and get the debate closed.

P.S for what its worth I'm disappointed with Tangled as he can normally put a reasonably presented point across.....Even if it is totally wrong.
 
I know that if someone murdered a family member of mine, I'd want them dead. If the punishment for murder was a painful and harrowing death, perhaps we would have a few more loved ones walking among us instead of 6 feet under. Same with cutting hands off for theft.

Save us all a bit in HMP lodging too.
 
I don't think many people would argue with that sentiment, as its fairly logical.

But let me play devils advocate for a minute, with your Keeping 100 alive to ensure you save one, statement.

Venables will be free one day. It might be two years, it might be four, it might be six, we don't know yet, but he will be free one day, that we do know. Now, hypothetically, what if he went on to reoffend, only this time it was someone close to you. Doesn't neccessarily have to be family, but someone you know. And through his new hypothetical crime, (which for all intents & purposes I'm going to say is extreme peadophilia & murder) he'd now affected & changed 100 innocent lives, including your own. Aren't those 100 innocent lives worth more than one murdering, nonce scumbag?

Now I accept that we don't know exactly what Venables will or won't do in the future, but his psychiatric evaluations, coupled with his past/present crimes, paint a picture of someone who will forever be a danger to society, especially young children. It is NOT beyond reason to assume that this person WILL reoffend, and given half a chance, would be willing & capable of another heinous, violent & shocking crime.

So, a simple question... Does his life mean more than 100 innocent lives?
I understand your point and to a large extent agree, however I would want the culprit to have life in prision rather than be executed. Slightly off topic but I would like EVERYONE including anyone visiting the country to have to give their DNA. Using your example at least the criminal is more likely to be caught after the first offence. To those that think it’s a crap idea, how would you feel if your wife/partner/ child etc was the victim of a multiple rapist who under my idea could have potentially easily been caught after his first offence. For me personally I haven’t heard an argument against this idea that ( in my head) is more important than the example I gave.
 
I understand your point and to a large extent agree, however I would want the culprit to have life in prision rather than be executed. Slightly off topic but I would like EVERYONE including anyone visiting the country to have to give their DNA. Using your example at least the criminal is more likely to be caught after the first offence. To those that think it’s a crap idea, how would you feel if your wife/partner/ child etc was the victim of a multiple rapist who under my idea could have potentially easily been caught after his first offence. For me personally I haven’t heard an argument against this idea that ( in my head) is more important than the example I gave.

I would happily agree to that, although my DNA is already on police file, so I'm just waiting for the rest of you's to catch up :winking:
 
I understand your point and to a large extent agree, however I would want the culprit to have life in prision rather than be executed. Slightly off topic but I would like EVERYONE including anyone visiting the country to have to give their DNA. Using your example at least the criminal is more likely to be caught after the first offence. To those that think it’s a crap idea, how would you feel if your wife/partner/ child etc was the victim of a multiple rapist who under my idea could have potentially easily been caught after his first offence. For me personally I haven’t heard an argument against this idea that ( in my head) is more important than the example I gave.

I have a friend who has 2 sets of DNA...
 
The case was featured in one of those crime documentaries which I believe is on YouTube. Its on the deadly Women series perhaps you could post it for me as I cant. A classic case of our flawed justice system and when life should mean life.

I recall this case. It was in Essex, over Braintree way, IIRC.

This will be the documentary, I think :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryI262Cdil8
 
I understand your point and to a large extent agree, however I would want the culprit to have life in prision rather than be executed. Slightly off topic but I would like EVERYONE including anyone visiting the country to have to give their DNA. Using your example at least the criminal is more likely to be caught after the first offence. To those that think it’s a crap idea, how would you feel if your wife/partner/ child etc was the victim of a multiple rapist who under my idea could have potentially easily been caught after his first offence. For me personally I haven’t heard an argument against this idea that ( in my head) is more important than the example I gave.

Before people harp on about the infaliability of DNA and some huge database with us all on it, pehaps they may like to read this: https://science.howstuffworks.com/why-dna-evidence-can-be-unreliable.htm

Also, identical twins have identical DNA. Which one is the murderer and which one are you going to execute, knowing that possibly you could have a completely innocent twin?
 
I recall this case. It was in Essex, over Braintree way, IIRC.

This will be the documentary, I think :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryI262Cdil8

Thanks AndyT. The ring leader only got 5 years for this hideous crime. Which was just a further cruel blow to the victims parents. Like I said at the start of the thread had Debra been the daughter of an MP or judge etc then we would have had a different outcome.
 
Back
Top