Thompson and Venables

hullaballoo

I just got this "petition" in an e-mail there:

e-mail wrote:

Do you remember February 1993 when a young 3 yr. old was taken from a Shopping mall in Liverpool, NY by two 10-year-old boys? Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson. They took Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed batteries up his ass. It was actually worse than this...What these two boys did was so horrendous that Jamie's mother was FORBIDDEN to identify his body.They then left his beaten small body on the tracks soa train could run him over to hide the mess they had created. These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it lookl ike an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest oftheir lives when they leave custody with newi dentities. We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to a University. They are getting away with their crime.They disgustingly and violently took Jamie's life away- in return they get a new life.Please read it carefully...then add your name at the end... and send it to everyone you can! Please add your name and location tothe list and send it to friends and family. Please copy this e-mail (highlight text, rightclick, copy and paste into a new email) instead of forwarding so we do not get arrows at the beginning of the sentences. If you are the 1000th person to sign, please forward email to cust.ser.cs@gtnet.gov.uk and attention it to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. Then start the list over again and send to your friends andf amily. The Love-Bug virus took less than 72 hours toreach the world. I hope this one does as well. We need to protect our family and friends from creatures like Robert and Jon. One day they may be living next to you and your small children, without your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10 years old, imagine what they could do as adults! dont send this back to the person who sent it to u cuz they cant sign twice...plz sign...thank you1.

Now, I have a number of issues with this;

• What about doli incapax? By today's standards in Ireland, children of 10 are considered too young to be liable at all for crimes they commit (S.52 of the Children Act 2001), and these two have served a lengthy sentence, so should we not afford Thompson and Venables some sort of clemency, and allow them to live out their lives?
• What about rehabilitation? Surely 10 years in prison should have made a difference to these men. As it says in the e-mail - there's talk of one of them going to University.

What does anyone else think?

Thirdfox

The age limit for doli incapax is 10 though in England isn't it?

Also s.52 of the Children Act 2001 has not been enacted (and is apparently about to be changed)... thus children at 10 only have a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax in Ireland. If it could be proven that they knew their actions were "serious wrong, gravely wrong" - KM v. DPP [1994] 1 IR 514. Currently it is still under 7 that a child has an irrebuttable presumption of doli incapax.

So I think that in this case doli incapax could be rebutted (based on what I know of the case).




Child offenders are a tough issue when it comes to clemency and rehabilitation etc. I know of friends who say they should rot in hell/prison for they have done and others who are for the rehabilitation route. I honestly do not know what could be done to/for these criminals - perhaps a psychologist would be able to give a solution?

hullaballoo

Thirdfox wrote:

Also s.52 of the Children Act 2001 has not been enacted

Are you sure about that? Have you got a link for that?

TheVan

I think Thirdfox is right....I think I managed to sneak it into my Criminal exam last year....was told this by the head of the Legal Aid board in the midlands so I assume it was correct then. Not sure about the current situation!

Victor

hullaballoo wrote:

Are you sure about that? Have you got a link for that?

Children Act, 2001 (No. 24).

See
S. I. No. 151 of 2002;
S. I. No. 527 of 2003.

Thirdfox

I'm definitely sure... our Criminal law professor was telling us how every year she asks when they'll enact s.52 and they say next year

Victor

Do you remember February 1993 when a young 3 yr. old was taken from a Shopping mall in Liverpool, NY by two 10-year-old boys?

Interesting the way the information gets manipulated and distorted, moving the murder from Merseyside to New Yorka nd changing the age from 2 to 3 (he was nearly 3) and use of hte word "mommy" is very American.

padser

Thirdfox wrote:

Also s.52 of the Children Act 2001 has not been enacted (and is apparently about to be changed)...

I didnt know it was about to be changed but i did learn last yr, sometime after my criminal exam that the section has never been enacted. Apart from the fact I thought that legislation that was passed by the Dail and Senad had to be enacted I also wondered why our lecturer never told us it hadnt been enacted. Pat Rabbit was going on about it for about a month.

It does also beg the question of whether it is constitutional for a government not to enact legislation that has been passed. It would seem to me to the government (the executive) effectively usurping the constitional right of the legislature to legislate.

PS as this is one of my first posts in this forum I'd like to apologise now for my spelling.
Please do not ever quote me just to correct my spelling, i get it, i cant spell. I dont need to be told.

Thirdfox

Pffh s.52 has only been waiting for 5 years to be enacted...

try s.60 of the Civil liability Act 1961! (It was to do with non-feasance state liability for nuisance.)

decided by State (Sheehan) v. Gov that there was no obligation to bring it into force

....so probably never going to be enacted (since the costs would be enormous...)

Could the minister however, just say that the provision will be scrapped entirely (instead of having this hanging over everyone indefinitely)?

Victor

Thirdfox wrote:

Could the minister however, just say that the provision will be scrapped entirely (instead of having this hanging over everyone indefinitely)?

No, it would need to be repealed. If nothing else because some minister after that minister could enact it.