The unmistakable and unforgettable picture of Jon Venables' police mugshot has been staring out at us once again from daily newspapers and television sets over the past two weeks as the story of his recent re-arrest continues to be headline news. From a media perspective, it will always be newsworthy because the horrific murder of James Bulger will always be an emotive issue, no matter how many years pass.
Venables and fellow murderer Robert Thompson abducted two year-old James Bulger from a shopping centre in Merseyside on 12th February 1993. The CCTV images of baby James being led away to his death, like the pictures of his killers, are instantly recognisable for British people above a certain age. James was senselessly tortured and the discovery of his half-naked, battered body on a railway line, halved by a train, sparked a manhunt that ended with the arrest and subsequent conviction in an adult court of Venables and Thompson, then aged ten. It was a crime that shocked the nation and there were calls from most quarters for the guilty pair to be locked up forever. However, this was not to be. Convicted of murder and sentenced to compulsory life sentences, they were freed at the first opportunity on life licences in 2001, aged 18, without having spent even one night in an adult prison.
The picture of Venables that has recently been in front of us once again is the same one that we first saw when his identity was revealed seventeen years ago. That is because two of the most notorious killers Britain has ever known were granted life-long anonymity on their release, which means that they are two of only four people who have ever been given this level of protection. The others are Mary Bell and Maxine Carr. Creating new identities and setting up new lives for Venables and Thompson, and their families, has cost millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. With the news that Venables has been sent to jail after breaching the terms of his parole, it has been strongly suggested that this money - much of which went towards rehabilitation programmes - has been wasted.
In addition to the outcry over Venables' apparently failed rehabilitation, lots has been said and written about how much, or indeed how little, information should be released into the public domain. I disagree with the public clamour for information. We do not need to know every detail of the current case. There is a big difference between curiosity and necessity. The same tabloids who are demanding to know exactly what he has done, and for his new identity to be revealed, would be outraged and equally critical if he were to be acquitted because of the impossibility of a fair trial. Bloodlust and vengeance, understandable in this instance, must not be allowed to outweigh the importance of a proper judicial process. I do believe, however, that James' parents Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger are entitled to know every detail about how their son died and about the two people who killed him. Certainly, they have a right to be kept fully informed about Venables' current situation. They deserve full disclosure. Current Justice Secretary Jack Straw - who has struggled to remember James' mother's name - and current Home Secretary Alan Johnson should be ashamed of their dithering and their lack of continuity over the issue. Their hopelessness is overshadowed only by the idiocy of children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson, who recently described James' death as "unpleasant." She should be sacked before she has the chance to resign.
She is not the only person who has been involved with, or who has commented on, this case who should be officially investigated for stupidity. Someone, or some persons, within the parole board are very much at fault. The revelations that Venables breached his licence conditions on several occasions by returning to Merseyside without authorisation, taking drugs and getting involved in public brawls and stabbings before finally being taken into custody for alleged child ponography charges, must lead to some level of formal inquiry. Why was he not immediately remanded in custody once he had taken the decision to breach his conditions? Why was he given several chances before his licence was revoked? Why were James Bulger's parents not notified immediately of his re-arrest? Also, it defies belief that he was prepared and able to access pornographic images of children while supposedly under close supervision. How could this have been allowed to happen? These are some of the serious questions that must be answered.
As for the allegation itself, it is of course shocking and serious. The murderous pair were never fully, properly questioned about the possibility that James' abduction and killing were sexually motivated. They reacted angrily and hysterically when this possibility was raised by the investigating officers. When James' body was discovered, his trousers, pants and socks had been removed - before he was beaten to death - and there were physical signs that suggested he was sexually abused. These facts were mentioned at the trial but have rarely been reported in detail in the media. In light of the most recent allegation against Venables, it is inconceivable that he should not be considered as a serious risk to children if re-released.
The suggestion that Venables could be re-released without charge and then given another new identity is as disgraceful as it is horrifying. In my opinion, he literally got away with murder in 1993 and, arguably, was rewarded for killing James Bulger. He spent eight years at Red Banks Children's Home, only thirteen miles from where his young victim lived with his family. In addition to structured rehab, private tuition, cookery lessons, trips to watch Manchester United and a holiday abroad, among other things, taxpayers' money paid for him to have a TV, a computer and cash gifts for birthdays and Xmas. After eight years of pampering - the likes of which neither he nor Thompson would have dared to dream about while still living with their dysfunctinal families prior to committing murder - he was released, as I have said, without having to endure any time in an adult jail. This was a mistake. Maybe if he had been sentenced to even a minimal amount of time in proper prison, the experience would have deterred him from committing further crimes? Instead, he was released into a world that he did not know and, it seems, where he was not properly supervised. Once again, this raises several unanswered questions.
Venables is no longer a ten year-old boy. He is a twenty-seven year old man. It has been suggested that he is a drug user and a heavy drinker with a violent temper. He is a convicted murderer and a suspected paedophile. He knew the broad consequences of breaching his licence conditions and, in spite of this, chose to do so. He made these decisions as an adult. Therefore, he must face the consequences and, if convicted of the alleged charges against him, should spend the rest of his life locked up in a cell, known to guards and fellow prisoners by his orignal name of Jon Venables.
33 comments:
Mr Teacher, you are 100% on the mark. Bravo! Here's to hoping the justice system follows your logic
The commitment to secrecy for the legitimate purpose of avoiding murder from taking place has created an information vacuum. It's no surprised that this object of mass hatred would be accused without evidence of one of the favourite accusations made to sully someone's reputation - accused of possessing child pornography, which is used to imply that the individual himself is a molester.
So far all we know is that no one has been killed or seriously injured. I also doubt that there has been a sexual assault either.
It's not the fault of people who are imprisoned that the state does such a poor job in helping children in general - after all, to do such things would be rank socialism and that will never do.
It would seem to me that you people would trade a childhood not in lockup but without the state providing for you in return for just what Thompson and Venables received. You people are a disgrace to the national gods of Hayek and Milton Friedman, those who Thatcher declared as the new guiding lights of Britain!
Anonymous 2- Firstly, I apologise if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say but your comment is badly written, incoherent and dificult to follow so I may have missed your point.
Assuming that I have managed to correctly decipher what you have written, allow me to say that, based on the points you have made, you have failed to come across as intelligent and seem to be quite stupid.
Nobody has been hurt or seriously injured. This was confirmed several days ago by the current Justice Secretary, Jack Straw. You must havemissed that. It has been reported in the media that indecent images of children were found on Venables' computer. This has yet to be officially confirmed but it is highly likely that it will turn out to be true. There has been no suggestion of sexual assault.
How would you define "you people"? It is ridiculous and very offensive to suggest that I would have traded my childhood for that of either Venables or Thompson,convicted murderers and two of the most hated people the country has ever known. How dare you?! You, Anonymous 2, are the disgrace.
Lastly, your so-called political references are misplaced and irrelevant and do nothing but add to your stupidity.
Your blog is well written and I cannot find a thing wrong with it. I have a degree in Psychology, so I can appreciate the different aspects of looking at this situation-which you have obviously done. Venables has forfeited his privilege of anonymity at huge taxpayer expense and waste, and now must face the music as a man approaching thirty. I can appreciate that the government chose to rehabilitate both him and Thompson, in light of their abusive childhoods and obvious pathological mindsets. However, it is now clear that Venables can only remain on the straight and narrow when he is being made to walk in a straight line. So be it. I believe that he should spend at least 20 years in prison and then closely monitored for the rest of his life, under his real identity. As such, if Thompson is also not walking on the straight and narrow path at this time, he may stop and think about his actions when he sees what has happened to Venables. I am left wondering whether Thompson has also committed crimes that have been swept under the rug. As I have told other bloggers, if Venables and Thompson deserve special treatment, then James'parents deserve even more special treatment and they, as well as the public, have the right to know what has happened. If it were anyone else, details would be plastered all over the media-as it should be. The public has paid for the so-called rehabilitation and new identities, and it therefore should be told what exactly is happening with its money. Case closed.
As soon as people call a spade a spade, as Mr Teacher bravely does, they're taxed as rabid right wingers by the upholders of "rank socialism". Whatever the reasons for Venables' horrific crime, do you honestly believe that rehab was going to be successful? Or are you so wedded to political correctness that you are unable even to consider the question?
I think the problem I have with this is partially the media hyping. Yes the crime was terrible and these subsequent charges sound terrible but in all seriousness what can we do with a ten year old child who commits this crime? Can they have total responsibility at that age and if the decision is made that they should be released (and I genuinely wouldn't presume to know if this is right or wrong) then they need to protected from vigilantes. I suppose my concerns are cas someone who has been locked up for eight years will they ever be normal. From the recent reports that he has been disclosing his identity to fellow prisoners I wonder if he is suicidal. However no solution can ever fully deal with children commiting murder as it feels so unnatural - how can we hope to deal with something we cna never understand.
As for the family of James the handling is terrible. All involved should be looking to limit any additional pain after what they suffered.
In case you are wondering my opinion as this comment is quite rambling it is that I have no idea of what is right regarding these two.
Kate x
Hello Mr Teacher.
I do think that it is possible, as has been suggested elsewhere, that JV has, as an adult, been motivated by well-justified self hatred.
As a once teacher, I am aware of how many damaged, and seriously damaged, 5 year olds enrol at school, and how there is really no bureaucratic interest in this. Easier to pay for gaols down the track than to pay for prevention.
Isn't/wasn't it the Jewish system, that parents were answerable for the crimes and misdemeanours of their children under the age of 12?
What's wrong with that?
nonsense
Mr Teacher: I wonder if you have read Andrew O'Hagan's book "The Missing"?
Irrespective: our reaction to this ghastly case suggests that we would have been less appalled if it had been committed by an adult man. That it was children is one of the most chilling and repellant aspects.
Which suggests that we have some kind of expectation that "living" corrupts.
Anonymous-
"Venables has forfeited his privilege of anonymity."
I agree. The suggestion that he may be given yet another new identity if released is scandalous. It makes a mockery out of the judicial system and of taxpayers in this country.
"I believe that he should spend at least 20 years in prison and then be closely monitored for the rest of his life, under his real identity."
This is a good point and it is difficult to find fault with it. If he is guilty, I would, however, prefer to see him behind bars for the rest of his life because he would have wasted his chance at a second chance at life. Can you imagine the outcry if he were to be re-released and then he goes on to commit more crimes?
"I am left wondering whether Thompson has also committed crimes that have been swept under the rug."
This is a genuine concern because Venables seems to have breached several of his licence conditions before finally being re-arrested.
Kate- "...what can we do with a ten year old child who commits this crime?"
I don't know the answer to this question. Perhaps putting them in to the rehab/juvenile centres, as they did, was the correct thing to do. As far as we know, this option worked for Robert Thompson. The most obvious answer is that they should have been locked up for life. I must admit that I am not sure if I agree with this as a solution, but I firmly believe that they should have spent some time in an adult prison.
"Can they have total responsibility at that age?"
In my opinion, yes. In general terms, ten year-olds know the difference between right and wrong. Of course this will often vary from child to child depending on their upbringing, the strictness of their family unit, their values etc. But, as for abduction and murder, ten year-olds know that this is wrong and should therefore be forced to face the inevitable consequences.
"However no solution can ever fully deal with children committing murder as it feels so unnatural - how can we hope to deal with something we can never understand."
This is true. It is very difficult to find an absolute solution to a problem that is so rare.
Frances- Are you making the point that their parents are partly responsible for what happened? If so, I completely agree with you. There are far too many feckless parents in this country who fail to properly raise their children, leading to inevitable negative consequences. This is a massive problem in this country and, I agree, something needs to be done to stem this tide.
Anonymous- "nonsense"
Please explain....
UST you talk clearly and sensibly. I wonder though why you think the parents of James Bulger have the right to know the details of the current crimes.
You show clearly why we as a public do not have these rights and surely this applies too to the parents. Unless they are personally involved, are direct victims of these new set of crimes, then surely they have no more right than you and I.
Perhaps I misread or misunderstood your blog ...
Teacher, I haven't got the energy to debate with you, but I don't think you have really looked at the case in all the detail it requires. Nor do I think you have sufficient facts to judge anyone. You are basing your conclusions on media information which is at best inaccurate and at worst liable only to insight further hatred. You used loaded language in your opening post which made it clear that you are no better than a witchfinder general.. so light up your torch and go out on the street to find yourself a witch. I think it's disgusting someone who works with children should not believe in someone having a second chance in life, or that you don't believe that going to a prison would have undone all the work that the institutions had done to rehabilitate JV.. It's easy to sit here and blog about what should happen. It's far harder to come up with viable alternative. Bleeting on about how much the tax payer has paid is a complete distraction. How many other criminals that have killed children/adults/raped etc etc are locked up at tax payers expense? how many are let back out and repeat offend.. and yet all the media are concerned with is JV!
Mr T.
Whether or not the parents are, as you suggest, "partly responsible" for what happened, I am rather inclined to think that they should legally be fully resposible for it.
We have now a system where children are deemed too young to be responsible for their actions - so who is resposible for their actions?
Teachers? The state? Limited powers, both. Nemesis?
Adults have responsibilities. If their dog molests someone, they have to take responsiblity and suffer the consequences.
How much more responsibility they shoud feel for a child, rather than for a dog.
But some don't. Unless there are real, ie legal consequences.
Fact: these boys admitted to most of what they did and were tried and found guilty. Murderers, when found guilty and with so much evidence including confessions that indicate premeditation, are usually locked up for life (life meaning 20 years with or without parole. Why did anyone other than their families feel responsible for their behaiour and the choices that they made, and therefore feel that the state had to, at great expense and social quandary, try to "fix" them and treat them so differently than other juvenile murderers?
I understand that at the time it was impossible to put them in adult prison, but they should have completed their ful sentence, and have been transferred to prison for murder after they turned 18.
If that had been the case then none of this would have happened in the years since their trial, and justice would have been seen to have been done, a basic tenet of law.
"I think it's disgusting someone who works with children should not believe in someone having a second chance in life, or that you don't believe that going to a prison would have undone all the work that the institutions had done to rehabilitate JV.."
I do believe in second chances and, I repeat, if Venables is guilty of breaching the conditions of his life licence then he, as an adult, has chosen to waste the second chance that he was given and therefore should face the consequences. In addition, there are of course some people who do not deserve a second chance.
If the institutions have done such a good job at rehabilitating Venables, why is he in trouble with the authorities again?
Frances- You make some excellent points and it is difficult to disagree with your opinions. Perhaps their parents should have been made to shoulder more of the blame for what happened.
BUT- what action would you have taken against them?
Canadian perspective- I agree that they should have spent some time in an adult prison and I agree that the burden of responsibilty is too often misplaced.
Hi Mr T.
Unsuprisingly the content of this blog has provoked considerable reaction and emotion and i feel that i need to comment on your statement that:
"Maybe if he had been sentenced to even a minimal amount of time in proper prison, the experience would have deterred him from committing further crimes?"
There is not the slightest hint of evidence to suggest that young people who spend time in prison are put off committing further crimes in future. In fact the opposite tends to happen in that young men learn from older more experienced criminals develop networks and go on to further offending.
"Why were James Bulger's parents not notified immediately of his re-arrest? Also, it defies belief that he was prepared and able to access pornographic images of children while supposedly under close supervision."
Why should the victim's parents be notified of his re-arrest? Unless there is a clear risk to them or exended family what possible good would come of this? Where do we then draw the line on individual's rights...would you expect to know the movements of someone who stole your car or who mugged you on the street? Secondly, he was under close supervision but this would not mean that someone is with him 24/7 and i think there needs to be recognition of what is realisitic in terms of probation services etc ability to monitor offenders behaviour and actions!
Teacher.. IF if and if, we don't know what he's done.
As for him spending time in a prison.. It might be worth checking out what's happened to Ian Huntley, and how many times he's been attacked, stabbed and had hot water thrown over him whilst in prison. Considering the nations need for revenge, I really don't believe that prison was the best place for JV.
As for how well the institutions have done in rehabilitating. Robert Thompson seems to be doing ok after the same treatment. We are all individual, we don't know what kind of stress living with that guilt and that lie does to someone, I couldn't imagine keeping that kind of thing from work friends nevermind a wife/partner or child. He might be seen as evil in the media and to some of the public, but he's still human.
Anonymous- "Why should the victim's parents be notified of his re-arrest?"
As I said in the original post, I believe that James Bulger's parents have the right to be kept fully informed of what is happening to the two people who killed their son. Firstly, after what they suffered and continue to suffer, they have the right to know if the killers are in their area, are a danger to them, etc. There is a massive difference between being aware of the movements of a burglar or a car thief and being given information about the two people who murdered your child. Secondly, the authorities promised them that they would be fully informed if/when Venables and/or Thompson breached their licence conditions.
"He was under close supervision but this would not mean that someone is with him 24/7 and i think there needs to be recognition of what is realisitic"
I would not expect him to be monitored every minute of every day but there are errors in the system if someone who murdered a small child can, if the allegations are true, access and store child pornography. Surely his internet usage, storage devices etc should have been checked on a regular basis?
Anonymous- "It might be worth checking out what's happened to Ian Huntley"
I couldn't care less about what has happened to Ian Huntley, including the most recent incident. He murdered two children and he is in prison, where he should stay forever. Rightly or wrongly, it is unsurprising that he is attacked by other people who have already broken the law, many of whom are lifers with nothing more to lose. I am not saying that I agree with such revenge attacks and I am certainly not encouraging it but, quite frankly, it doesn't bother me at all if he suffers at the hands of others. He deserves to suffer after what he did.
"We don't know what kind of stress living with that guilt and that lie does to someone, I couldn't imagine keeping that kind of thing from work friends nevermind a wife/partner or child"
I agree that it must be very difficult and very stressful to live with lies and guilt on such an enormous scale. However, it is not my problem. It is his fault- he killed a child and must face all of the consequences. I don't care if he finds it difficult.
A well rounded response if ever there was one..
"I couldn't care less"
"It doesn't bother me at all if he suffers at the hands of others"
"It is not my problem"
"I don't care"
Yes. I think I've got the message.
Anonymous-
"A well rounded response if ever there was one..
"I couldn't care less"
"It doesn't bother me at all if he suffers at the hands of others"
"It is not my problem"
"I don't care"
Yes. I think I've got the message."
If I were talking about child protection or world poverty, for example, then I could understand a lazy, sarcastic response to my comments. However, I am talking about child killers and therefore, in my opinion, it is absolutely acceptable not to give a damn about them. Their welfare isn't my problem and I couldn't care less about thier safety, stress levels, feelings of guilt etc.
I don't consider MY comments to be lazy at all.
I think the problem is Mr. Teacher that no one has really cared, been bothered about them, their stress levels or feelings. That's partly why they commit these crimes.
I've never heard of a ten-year-old becoming a pedophile in a vacuum. Was there ever an investigation into the adults in Venables' life?
http://studenthandouts.blogspot.com/
lilytrotter
Prison is not a deterrent to criminal activity, where as the risk of "being caught" is the prime deterrent.
the "I don't care what happens to him prison" remarks.
The sentence is the punishment. This is how it works "removal" from society and all the quirks of freedom are removed. That and that alone is supposed to the punishment. Anything else is "second and more" punishment
...hard labor for live, and worst of all, legitimization of violence as a credible form of human communication, which means of course that all in forms of violence in the situation of inceration...become ENDORSED..the very reason they are put in prison in the first place....I have a real problem with this...does anyone else ?
lilytrotter
Prison is not a deterrent to criminal activity, where as the risk of "being caught" is the prime deterrent.
the "I don't care what happens to him prison" remarks.
The sentence is the punishment. This is how it works "removal" from society and all the quirks of freedom are removed. That and that alone is supposed to the punishment. Anything else is "second and more" punishment
...hard labor for live, and worst of all, legitimization of violence as a credible form of human communication, which means of course that all in forms of violence in the situation of inceration...become ENDORSED..the very reason they are put in prison in the first place....I have a real problem with this...does anyone else ?
Incarceration is not a deterrent to criminal activity. This view has been qualified many times over.
Getting "caught" is the major deterrent.
The prison sentence is the punishment, not "hard labor" such as the abuse sustained while incarcerated.
Most unfortunately a great deal (not all) of the prison population have had the notion of violence, secrecy, predatory hate reinforced as a legitimate form of human communication...I think there are too many blind eyes in that system.
Without learning the daily rigidity of respect, really what else can we expect the outcome to be.
If we abdocate our social responsibility to the new victims in this manner, well now, doesn't that too make us "offenders" worthy only of cold indifference too.
I have a problem with these "don't care" views, does anyone else ?
the justice system is not and has never ever been about moral justice, they are two exceptionally different concepts.
What is profoundly clear, is that legality and morality never mix, the law is about definition according to legal sanctions, justice is about moral issues. They must never, ever be confused nor integrated.
Justice and the "law" never meet.
That is how it is, and I don't like it one bit,not one, and neither does anyone else, but we put up with it don't we, because we haven't got a comeback...now how tragic is that !
wake up..Jones town took out over 900 people and the mothers and fathers fed their "babies" cyanide and (the old Zyklon B used by the Natzi's) so what do we do now.....we grab a 10 year old and hang him...ohh for christ's sake....grow a brain.
Germany took 12 million people, burnt them alive, kids and all, what words do we use for this.... England people Jamie died no different from the jewish little kids...thousands of them, upon thousands, I don't hear you crying out about that....now do I.
To your disgrace.. I might add !
Post a Comment