Death Wish

Is vigilante justice ever justified?
If society feels that the government is not protecting them enough, can they ever have a reasonable excuse for taking the law into their own hands?
What I'm leading to here is the question of Jon Venables, the monster who - at just ten years old - with his friend Robert Thompson, murdered two-year-old Jamie Bulger in one of the most horrific killings this country has ever seen.
After serving only 8 years for their appalling crime, and despite public outrage, the two were released under licence. This meant they were given new identities, a home and an income, but with certain conditions imposed on them. Now Venables has been called back to jail, and the newspapers are suggesting that he has committed a very serious crime, perhaps even a sexual one.
So, the twisted monster that is Jon Venables has claimed another victim. Will Jack Straw now admit that he was wrong and incompetent and step down? I doubt it. He's on to a good thing with his salary and generous expenses. I'm sure he will blame someone else and slime his way out of it like a slug in a cabbage patch.
Anyway, the point is that the government is failing in its duty to protect the public by releasing this animal, and refusing to identify him . They say they worry for his safety.
Tough shit!
The bastard wasn't worried for Jamie's safety when he and his sick friend stoned the poor kid to death. And, of course, the fact that he has been called back to jail shows that he was neither rehabilitated nor sorry for what he had done. He just went back out into society, knowing that he could do anything he wanted and the government would protect him - and that's exactly what he did.
Under normal circumstances, I would condemn violence, but I think in this case, bearing in mind the fact that he has committed a serious re-offence, it may be justified. His identity should be revealed, and he should be left at the mercy of the other prisoners. He certainly wouldn't cause anyone else any misery if that happened, and if he got himself killed, then it serves him right. He should think about this before he goes out destroying people's lives.
What kind of message is it sending out to these sickos that the government is protecting him? "Oh, don't worry, you animals - if you commit a sick, abominable crime against a child, you'll be out in 8 years, and we'll give you a new identity, a home and an income, and we'll protect you. So, go on out there and have some fun."
It's sickening. It's time the government and the PC lobby realised that their stupid, liberal ideas are not deterring violent criminals. Crime, and society in general, is becoming harder and more violent. But it seems as crime gets more violent, the punishment gets more lenient. These people need to take a step into the real world, have one of their relatives kicked to death in the street, and see if they still want to take the softly-softly approach to these bastards.
I saw a video on television the other night showing a woman with her friend on a night out, minding her own business and doing no harm to anyone. Then a yob came walking along, and for no reason whatsoever headbutted her in the face. There was no provocation, no reason for it, he just did it. I think this illustrates just how bad it's getting out there. Not only are these thugs attacking without reason, but also they have absolutely no honour. Whatever happened to a man should never hit a woman?
That dick should be kneecapped for such an attack. Cripple the bastard and don't give him any disability benefits. I'll bet anything that if that happened a few times then the number of these violent attacks would drop like a stone.
But it's not going to happen, is it. Why should it? The people who make our laws have got security; they're protected, so it doesn't affect them. As for the rest of us - well, we're just going to have to do the best we can.