Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

Lefty Bicek

BENDYBINN wrote: »

An eleven yr old murdered in limerick yesterday.....Will there be over 6000 posts about whoever is responsible?

If the perpetrator were a teenager or teenagers, I could easily see that there would be.

Sardonicat

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i recall at the time these same psychologist types tried to blame/excuse the Jamie Bolger killers also.
i think they narrowed it down to one kids video (sorry on Ninetendos or Gameboys in those days). such pseudo-science has much to answer for.
i forget the name but i'm sure many of you know what it's called.

*James* Bolger

It was a film. 'Child's Play' IIRC.

salmocab

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

ok "evil genes" is melodramatic, but you have to concede there is definitely something wrong with those little scrotes.

or do you subscribe to "the video game made me do it" school of psychology?

There is certainly something wrong with anyone who would commit a crime like this, I don’t subscribe to any school of psychology. My point was all this hyperbole stifles real debate as it’s the forum equivalent of shouting in anger.

BENDYBINN

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

If the perpetrator were a teenager or teenagers, I could easily see that there would be.

Why not the same hate for adult murderers?

suicide_circus

can people give the violent video game trope a rest? what video game was jack the ripper playing?

Ash.J.Williams

BENDYBINN wrote: »

An eleven yr old murdered in limerick yesterday.....Will there be over 6000 posts about whoever is responsible?

dick post

Guy:Incognito

Charles Leclerc wrote: »

What exactly will that achieve?

It will only serve to put their families in danger as the boys will be just at the start of their sentences.

If one or both of them commits another similar offence against someone they befriend who doesnt know who they are when they get out, will that just be a shoulder shrug and a "hard luck" to the girl?

jiltloop

Marty Xavier wrote: »

Maybe he would but there is a chance that it did affect him also, I am bringing this up because it was mentioned in the case that he was obsessed with violence in gaming and violent porn also. I am not advocating a banning but minors should not have access to this.

The breakfast comment is ridiculous.

He was obsessed with violence in gaming and violent porn because he was predisposed to be, sick people will seek out sick things. Violent people will seek out weapons/knives etc. This doesn't meant that baseball bats and knives are to blame when violent people use them on other people.

I completely agree that children shouldn't have access to violent games and pornography but this tired crap of blaming video games and porn on people's crimes is just ridiculous and has been debunked so many times already. People don't get turned to violence by these things, they are already predisposed to violence or have unhealthy thoughts and seek it out.

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

Evil genes? So maybe their siblings should suffer it too. This is the sort of reactionary nonsense that stops real debate.

Their siblings didn't do this, they did. And it isn't "reactionary nonsense" ... signalling that monsters like these two deserve all kinds of special allowances when no such allowances were given to their victim is "reactionary nonsense".

Robert_Beach

They'll be out and about to enjoy the latter part of their 20s. Great little country Ireland is.

Charles Leclerc

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If one or both of them commits another similar offence against someone they befriend who doesnt know who they are when they get out, will that just be a shoulder shrug and a "hard luck" to the girl?

They'll be in detention when they're 18. Whats the point of naming them then? What will it achieve? By all means name them upon release if they're found to have shown no improvement or remorse. They're kids, they have much more scope in rehabilitation than a fully developed adult.

ZeroThreat

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the UK (if the Tories are re-elected that is) are about to introduce some pretty serious sentencing for killers of children. i really hope we follow their example.

it's one thing killing someone in a fit of drug/drink feuled rage on a Sat night, or a gangland hit over drugs or money, but this murder was on a whole different level. cold, calculating, calice, carried out with a degree of satisfaction, almost pleasure.

Don't know if anyone here has watched Black Mirror on netflix, but there's an episode called 'White Bear' that comes to mind when I think about the sort of punishment that is really deserved in cases like these.

jiltloop

jiltloop wrote: »

He was obsessed with violence in gaming and violent porn because he was predisposed to be, sick people will seek out sick things. Violent people will seek out weapons/knives etc. This doesn't meant that baseball bats and knives are to blame when violent people use them on other people.

I completely agree that children shouldn't have access to violent games and pornography but this tired crap of blaming video games and porn on people's crimes is just ridiculous and has been debunked so many times already. People don't get turned to violence by these things, they are already predisposed to violence or have unhealthy thoughts and seek it out.

Just watch Mindhunter on Netflix. Of course it's dramatised but these were real killers and none of them had access to video games and all but the most elementary pornography - if any at all. Yet they carried out these despicable acts.

i have met evil bastard kids back in the 70s when I was that age - not to this level but who derived pleasure from torturing dogs and cats and beating up and inflicting pain on smaller kids for example. No video games or porn were available then.

What video games did Hitler play?

These kids are worthless scum and should be treated as such.

salmocab

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Their siblings didn't do this, they did. And it isn't "reactionary nonsense" ... signalling that monsters like these two deserve all kinds of special allowances when no such allowances were given to their victim is "reactionary nonsense".

Their siblings have the same genes though.

TheMilkyPirate

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

If the perpetrator were a teenager or teenagers, I could easily see that there would be.

What? Why not if it's an adult? People wanting these two lads hanged but their has been much worse committed by adults over the years and I don't remember seeing the vitriol and hate that's been spewed (rightfully so) about this case then.

Letwin_Larry

Sardonicat wrote: »

*James* Bolger

It was a film. 'Child's Play' IIRC.

yep that's the one they tried to use as an excuse for the Bulger killers.

my belief is you can always find an excuse, when in reality these killers are born with something missing or badly wired in them.
not only do they have no empathy, but they actually enjoy killing. (i mean why did Boy B hang around and watch?) it's probably the closest thing they get to emotion.
that's why i'm in favour of naming them. they will reoffend given the opportunity imo.

mariaalice

Donnielighto wrote: »

Is there any correlation between the popularity of videogames and crimes, volent or otherwise. If not then this it's scapegoating an easy target.

Its a bit like taking drugs for the vast majority no lasting effect for some huge negative effects on their life and the lives of those around them. The problem is there is no definitive way of knowing which group someone falls in to.

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

Their siblings have the same genes though.

No they don't, not necessarily. Innocent until proven guilty.

You don't share all your genes with your siblings, in fact you might only share 50% of them. Also there are epigenetic factors that cause genes to be expressed or not.

And it's more from the standpoint that you should lose all rights for life when you do something like this, including reproduction. Or we could just bring back the death penalty - for a clear cut case like this with buckets of evidence I think it's justifiable.

Faugheen

The problem here is there’s far too many other children involved in this. If they can be identified, then everything comes out, where they went to school, and then anyone associated with that school finds themselves in a situation they don’t want to be in, especially those kids in that school who are the same age as the boys.

I fully understand why people are pissed off, but naming them would absolutely not be fair on all those other kids who find themselves part of this through no fault of their own.

Lefty Bicek

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Why not the same hate for adult murderers?

I don't have an evidence-based answer to that.

I don't see youth as innocent and necessarily full of potential.

I think for many people there is an idealisation of youth, at least partly because we all wish we had it back for ourselves. And that it being precious, we would not squander it by doing something that would get us into Oberstown for a long time.

Whereas I think that some people are just bad. To their core. And at whatever age they would kill a child, they would be reviled.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

The problem here is there’s far too many other children involved in this. If they can be identified, then everything comes out, where they went to school, and then anyone associated with that school finds themselves in a situation they don’t want to be in, especially those kids in that school who are the same age as the boys.

I fully understand why people are pissed off, but naming them would absolutely not be fair on all those other kids who find themselves part of this through no fault of their own.

what other kids are 'involved' here?

far more likely that kids not involved will fall under suspicion due to the identities of the murderers being covered up

BarryD2

Charles Leclerc wrote: »

What exactly will that achieve?

It will only serve to put their families in danger as the boys will be just at the start of their sentences.

You keep putting out this line. You haven't addressed as far as I can see, the simple fact that people are routinely identified in court cases, up and down the country. It's part of the public justice system.

We used to put people in stocks and throw rotten food at them or organise lynch mobs, the public system was to hang people and leave their bodies/ heads on public display to deter others. We've moved away from the excesses of those times but an integral part was and is public identification.

If public identification is good enough for shop lifters or people who abuse their spouses, then it's good enough for these murderers when they are 18. Why should the norm be public identification but not in this case. Something is rotten with this aspect.

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

No they don't, not necessarily. Innocent until proven guilty.

You don't share all your genes with your siblings, in fact you might only share 50% of them. Also there are epigenetic factors that cause genes to be expressed or not.

And it's more from the standpoint that you should lose all rights for life when you do something like this, including reproduction. Or we could just bring back the death penalty - for a clear cut case like this with buckets of evidence I think it's justifiable.

i am not in favour of the death penalty, except in cases where there is clear evidence of cruelty to the victim(s).
however sterilization would "remove" them from the gene pool.

Charles Leclerc

BarryD2 wrote: »

You keep putting out this line. You haven't addressed as far as I can see, the simple fact that people are routinely identified in court cases, up and down the country. It's part of the public justice system.

We used to put people in stocks and throw rotten food at them or organise lynch mobs, the public system was to hang people and leave their bodies/ heads on public display to deter others. We've moved away from the excesses of those times but an integral part was and is public identification.

If public identification is good enough for shop lifters or people who abuse their spouses, then it's good enough for these murderers when they are 18. Why should the norm be public identification but not in this case. Something is rotten with this aspect.

Minors are not routinely named up and down the country. As for your second paragraph, thankfully those days are long gone.

Shoplifters families won't be subject to vigilantism.

Lefty Bicek

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

What? Why not if it's an adult? People wanting these two lads hanged but their has been much worse committed by adults over the years and I don't remember seeing the vitriol and hate that's been spewed (rightfully so) about this case then.

Why not if it's an adult ?

I don't know. I'm just acknowledging that this case has generated 6.3k posts, and many other murders do not.

I believe that part of that discrepancy is explained by the fact that the killers here were teenagers and not adults. Partly too by media coverage. Ad by the youth of the victim.

And I think if another murder occurs in the land, is committed by a teenager or teenagers, and gets the same media coverage as this one, then it will be another 'X' thousand-post thread here.

Whereas another murder might not necessarily. I speak as someone who remembers when a murder in Ireland was big, big, big news. It isn't anymore, to consumers of media. It's a daily event.

BarryD2

Charles Leclerc wrote: »

Minors are not routinely named up and down the country. As for your second paragraph, thankfully those days are long gone.

It is accepted that their identities are protected as minors. The question at hand though is why further protection is being handed to these people, beyond the age of minority..............

BENDYBINN

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i am not in favour of the death penalty, except in cases where there is clear evidence of cruelty to the victim(s).
however sterilization would "remove" them from the gene pool.

Sweet Jesus..
Are you in favor of all murderers been castrated?

Charles Leclerc

BarryD2 wrote: »

It is accepted that their identities are protected as minors. The question at hand though is why further protection is being handed to these people, beyond the age of minority..............

Because in this case both will be in detention once they turn 18 therefore no threat to the public will exist. There is no reason to name them in this instance.

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

what other kids are 'involved' here?

far more likely that kids not involved will fall under suspicion due to the identities of the murderers being covered up

You ask me a question that indicates you don’t know what I’m talking about then follow it up with a statement that indicates you do know what I’m talking about.

Stop wasting my time, please. You know exactly what I was trying to say.

BarryD2

Charles Leclerc wrote: »

Because in this case both will be in detention once they turn 18 therefore no threat to the public will exist. There is no reason to name them in this instance.

Well let's hope that the media have the guts to name & shame them publicly when they've both turned 18. And fulfill this aspect of public justice on behalf of the people.