James Buldger killer back in prison

[Lady Whistledown]

Some people (thought not on here, so I may not get an explanation here) are demanding the home office release the details of these events, how he broke the conditions of his release, etc.

Can someone explain to me why we, the press, or Jamie Bulger's parents have a right to know?

I was going to say exactly the same thing. I realise this particular case was more emotive than most, but equally I cannot understand why the tabloid press in particular seem to think we all have a RIGHT to know why and when, etc.

IF he's committed another criminal offence (not saying he has BTW) and there was a trial pending as a result, it would be highly prejudicial to the case if it was public knowledge that he was the defendant. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Bulger case, Venables has, by the law of the land, as much right to a fair trial as anyone else. What jury would acquit him, even on a minor assault charge?

And secondly, do we demand to know what every other life licence prisoner does or doesn't do for the rest of his life? Clearly we don't, therefore, unfortunately for the would-be lynch mob candidates, it is absolutely nobody else's business whatever Jon Venables has done to warrant being recalled to prison.

Yes, he's a convicted murderer. But- insofar as it's possible to determine degrees of wickedness in these matters- you can't call him any worse or better than the hundreds of other convicted killers in our system and thus he should be accorded the same rights.

Frankly, it smacks of a blatant bit of bandwagon-jumping by The Sun, to suck up to the people of Merseyside, yet again.

 

[Nibble]

The whole case was a tragic affair from beginning to end for everyone concerned, and yes I include the 2 boys in that. To call for their blood is not really a productive outcome in my opinion. I understand the hatred towards them but we really need to be a bit more progressive in such cases. what can the experts learn from their crime? What, if any are the signs a child may be capable of such acts? and so on. Only when these things are learned can we hope to prevent crimes like this. Stringing them up acheives nothing and I don't think that it would appease the family of Bulger.

 

[Mackenzie]

I was going to say exactly the same thing. I realise this particular case was more emotive than most, but equally I cannot understand why the tabloid press in particular seem to think we all have a RIGHT to know why and when, etc.

IF he's committed another criminal offence (not saying he has BTW) and there was a trial pending as a result, it would be highly prejudicial to the case if it was public knowledge that he was the defendant. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Bulger case, Venables has, by the law of the land, as much right to a fair trial as anyone else. What jury would acquit him, even on a minor assault charge?

And secondly, do we demand to know what every other life licence prisoner does or doesn't do for the rest of his life? Clearly we don't, therefore, unfortunately for the would-be lynch mob candidates, it is absolutely nobody else's business whatever Jon Venables has done to warrant being recalled to prison.

Yes, he's a convicted murderer. But- insofar as it's possible to determine degrees of wickedness in these matters- you can't call him any worse or better than the hundreds of other convicted killers in our system and thus he should be accorded the same rights.

Frankly, it smacks of a blatant bit of bandwagon-jumping by The Sun, to suck up to the people of Merseyside, yet again.

Fear. The fear that Venables lives in your area, near your children. The Sun is selling papers by championing this 'right to know' campaign, feeding off of our (parents) fear. Cynical I know, but it's probably the truth.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Fear. The fear that Venables lives in your area, near your children. The Sun is selling papers by championing this 'right to know' campaign, feeding off of our (parents) fear. Cynical I know, but it's probably the truth.

Sarah's law - I think, based on an Amercian law, has been applied in the UK to 4 constabularies. It works (I think) along the lines that an individual can ask the constabulary to confirm if another [named] individual is on the sex offenders register and living nearby - the stats were on BBC1 breakfast this morning.

However, I don't know if these two were put on the SO Reg for their offence [murder]?

Sorry I don't profess to know too much on this subject so please don't take any of this as fact.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

If he has been involved in something else then it would be impossible to give him a 'fair' trial if his true identity was out in the open and whoever he had commited the crime against would be denied justice.

If he couldn't be tried and convicted then it would be hard to send him back to jail for something he hadn't been proven guilty of.

Keep it secret and let the law take it's course. If he's done something else then he should never be freed again.

 

[User removed 4]

What a ridiculous statement from you, who probably knows full well what those two did to him,they are simply not on the same level as as the majority of convicted killers when it comes to levels of wickedness, for the record i dont subscribe to the hang em and fog em tendency on this one, they were children after all, but i would question whether individuals capable of such depravity are curable, or indeed whether its fair to put the public at risk by releasing them, there have been far too many cases of mental patients deemed safe by ''experts'' going on to butcher innocent members of the public.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Stringing them up acheives nothing and I don't think that it would appease the family of Bulger.

If this happened to one of my children I am pretty damn sure that it would appease me. Excuse my lack of compassion.

 

[maffew]

The whole case was a tragic affair from beginning to end for everyone concerned, and yes I include the 2 boys in that. To call for their blood is not really a productive outcome in my opinion. I understand the hatred towards them but we really need to be a bit more progressive in such cases. what can the experts learn from their crime? What, if any are the signs a child may be capable of such acts? and so on. Only when these things are learned can we hope to prevent crimes like this. Stringing them up acheives nothing and I don't think that it would appease the family of Bulger.

Thats a fair post and raises some good points

Though personally I'd have them removed from the gene pool should such option exist

 

[User removed 4]

edited.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

BBC News - Bulger killer Venables faces 'extremely serious' claim

 

[Nibble]

If this happened to one of my children I am pretty damn sure that it would appease me. Excuse my lack of compassion.

Yes, I imagine that would certainly cross my mind on a regular basis if it were to happen to me. Some reports I have read suggest that in these circumstances that the victims family go through several stages of grief from denial to anger to coming to terms but I think every person reacts differently.

I suppose my main hesitation with these two is that they were children when they commited the crime. Yes, old enough to know the difference between right and wrong but obviously so damaged that they failed to control their behaviour. I think at that age the main contributing factor is the treatment they received at the hands of their parents.

Who can really say at what age a person can be held wholly responsible for their actions. I am not a psychologist so can't say with any certainty but their age and upbringing should be considered.

However, I don't think they should have been released at all.

 

[rool]

Y
I suppose my main hesitation with these two is that they were children when they commited the crime. Yes, old enough to know the difference between right and wrong but obviously so damaged that they failed to control their behaviour.

That's always been a argument I've had in my head over this. They were only ten, did they know the difference between right and wrong?, Is it something they can grow out of in the right conditions? Even so, surely seeing a toddler being seriously hurt, crying etc should have brought them to their senses before killing him.

I believe Ian Huntly was only torturing animals at that age and look what he turned out to be.

 

[jevs]

I believe Ian Huntly was only torturing animals at that age and look what he turned out to be.

A common trait of many violent sexual predators i believe.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The Sun was again attempting to publish details of this alleged crime today until stopped by an injunction.


The issue as far as I can see is that any criminal trial he now faces is going to be seriously compromised. Although he's supposedly anonymous, somebody somewhere will cotton on if/when he ends up in court, and any solicitor worth their salt will have a field day, claiming he cannot possibly get a fair trial. Let's face it: no matter what they're told by a trial judge, what jury won't convict someone they know or strongly suspect to be one of Britain's most notorious killers?

While I'm sure most people don't care if he gets a fair trial or not, the point is he could be released a free man if a trial was scrapped because it was deemed impossible for it to be fair.

 

[rool]

A common trait of many violent sexual predators i believe.

I made a mistake there, I meant to type Ian Brady.

 

[Nibble]

That's always been a argument I've had in my head over this. They were only ten, did they know the difference between right and wrong?, Is it something they can grow out of in the right conditions? Even so, surely seeing a toddler being seriously hurt, crying etc should have brought them to their senses before killing him.

I believe Ian Huntly was only torturing animals at that age and look what he turned out to be.

I agree. A mess the whole thing.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The odd thing is, despite what the likes of The Sun would have you believe, the risk of a child dying a violent death is far less- I seem to recall something like 40% less- than it was half a century ago. It's just that access to media now is far easier therefore incidents are much more widely reported.

A child is much, much more likely to die on the road than at the hands of a violent predator. I don't see The Sun launching a campaign to slow traffic down or better educate kids on road safety however. But then that wouldn't play on the fears of parents nearly enough to sell more papers would it?

 

[WATFORD zero]

What a ridiculous statement from you, who probably knows full well what those two did to him,they are simply not on the same level as as the majority of convicted killers when it comes to levels of wickedness, for the record i dont subscribe to the hang em and fog em tendency on this one, they were children after all, but i would question whether individuals capable of such depravity are curable, or indeed whether its fair to put the public at risk by releasing them, there have been far too many cases of mental patients deemed safe by ''experts'' going on to butcher innocent members of the public.

I believe there are far more cases of mental patients deemed safe by ''experts'' going on to live normal lives. If everyone given a life sentence were to stay in prison till they die, we would need significantly more prisons.

Remember

- a very similar case

Released back into society at 23, has children and grandchildren and has not re-offended since. As a parent myself, the one thing I am sure of, is that the parents of children who do this should not be allowed walk away from the responsibility.

 

[seagull_special]

I understand that anonymity was necessary for children who committed this repulsive crime but we are talking about a 27 yr old man now, there are no excuses, I do not know what the breach of his conditions involved but if it is a serious offense then once the case has been heard, the anonymity should be removed and he should be treated the same as all other people and treated no differently. Venables and Thompson and the brothers from Edlington are freaks of nature and a very rare occurrence. As a dad the hatred towards them is understandable and the desire for revenge normal but society has to have rehabilitation at its heart, I personally would never have released these 2 as there is a risk of re-offending and the crime too heinous to be explained away by not knowing the difference between right and wrong and finally on the subject of the parents of Venables and Thompson, they were responsible for their children's behaviour, you are responsible for your own and it is too easy to blame everybody else

 

[rool]

I believe there are far more cases of mental patients deemed safe by ''experts'' going on to live normal lives. If everyone given a life sentence were to stay in prison till they die, we would need significantly more prisons.

Remember

- a very similar case

Released back into society at 23, has children and grandchildren and has not re-offended since.

Who is that?