Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - re-offenders?

androphobic

from sky.com
<snip> .. Venables, who is now 19, attended a parole hearing to see if he would be released from detention.

He could walk free within days if the panel reviewing his case at a secret location so decide. A further hearing on Wednesday will decide the future of Thompson, who is also 19. The young men have already served eight years for murdering the toddler. </snip>

Should James Bulger's killers walk free?

Shinji

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?</font>

I guess that's the question here.
But does 8 years make up for what they did?

And considering they carried out such a gratuitous act in the first place, I guess people can't be blamed for thinking that at least one of them must be evil.

DadaKopf

They were imprisoned "at Her Majesty's pleasure" anyway so a release soon after they became legal adults was always on the cards. Presumably they've grown up and have received therapy or something. So long as the shrinks say it's ok, it's ok. I mean, they're unlikely to become priests and molest children as well and then enroll in an anti-capitalist vigilante group and bomb the Tweenies.

I'm sure there are provisos like ongoing treatment and so on. People just should be careful about how they're viewing the whole thing; most people found the case extremely emotive but the law is more objective.

Magwitch

They committed a terrible act of barbarism but after 10 years of theorpy and observation I am sure their heads are righted.

Both had troubled (in one case deeply) childhoods. As adults I think they have paid the price of loosing their chilhoods. Surely punishment enough.

ConUladh

Definitely one for the experts

You can't trust joe public to look at this with an open mind, if they were kept inside for another 20 years there would still be protests

Xterminator

I understand why they may be released.
As children themselves, they were not entirely responsible for their actions.
Whether their parents should have assumed more of the blame is a discussion for another day.
I think if they are determined to be on no danger to the public, then they should be released, but monitored carefully for a while yet.
They need their anonimity preserved if they are to be re-intregrated into society.

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 22-06-2001).]

JustHalf

The fact that what these people did, as children, was cruel and barbaric is not in question. However, they are no longer children. The crime was committed as ten year olds. I don't think any of use had that much comprehension of cause and effect at that age, did we?

Argh, I need sleep.

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
I don't think any of use had that much comprehension of cause and effect at that age, did we?
</font>

I don't reckon we did. However very few kids killed someone at that age either.

I realise they've lost their childhoods as Magwitch pointed out, and they've undoubtedly had a lot of treatment since.
Just don't think I'd be able to accept 8 years if it had been my little sister.

Victor

I think it is a case where it is both difficult to forgive and indeed more difficult to forget. However, I think the time has come. Which has served longer Venables and Thompson or some 22 year old soldier who got trigger happy in some conflict or other.

Time to move on.

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Just don't think I'd be able to accept 8 years if it had been my little sister.</font>

Quite. Had it been mine, I'd probably be frothing at the mouth too.

However, the whole point of the law is that it's meant to be a little more objective than that. I don't think that giving the victims a pointy stick and inviting them to punish the offenders however they see fit works particularly well as a criminal justice system.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
I don't reckon we did. However very few kids killed someone at that age either..</font>

I don't think we had a well formed idea of death though. I'm not trying to excuse what they did, but I think that children of ten could not possible have the same degree of logical thought processes as an adult.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
I realise they've lost their childhoods as Magwitch pointed out, and they've undoubtedly had a lot of treatment since.
Just don't think I'd be able to accept 8 years if it had been my little sister.</font>

That is understandable, but it as Shinji pointed out (repeatedly I think) the law is more objective. It needs to treat all parties fairly.

Shinji

It's worth noting that the very people whinging about the money being spent on protecting their identities are the people that they need to be protected from.

I can understand Bulger's mother being amazingly bitter about the whole affair, she'd undoubtedly like to see the pair of them roast in hell for what they did. I do wish, however, that the tabloid press would stop giving the woman a soapbox from which to shout - she's suffered a terrible loss, yes, but her ranting about Venables and Thompson is getting tiresome now.

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
That is understandable, but it as Shinji pointed out (repeatedly I think) the law is more objective. It needs to treat all parties fairly.</font>

Hey again Justhalf.
Yea, I get what you (and Shinji, etc.) are saying. It's such a hard case to contemplate because on one hand we have 2 young men who committed crimes at a very vulnerable and impressionable and innocent age and who surely have a different perception of right and wrong, eight years later.

At the same time, we have one brutally murdered toddler whose murderers, however changed they may be, will probably walk free quite soon.

I realise the importance of rehabilitation. Eight years just doesn't sound like justice.

Shinji

That's well and good, but your concept of justice seems to boil down to a "punish the bástards" mentality rather than a "rehabilitate them" mentality... Or rather, you don't want "justice", you want "revenge".

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:
That's well and good, but your concept of justice seems to boil down to a "punish the bástards" mentality rather than a "rehabilitate them" mentality... Or rather, you don't want "justice", you want "revenge".</font>

Hmm, not exactly. As I said previously, there's two sides to the story as such. Of course it's important for the two guys to be rehabilitated. At the same time, a young child was murdered. I mean, 8 years do not make up for this loss of life.

And I know they were only 10 when they killed him - that's what makes it so hard - their ideas and perceptions of right and wrong were different.. probably not even really formed.

My idea of justice is not the same as my idea of revenge. I guess prison sentences are somehow linked to both. The two boys were put away because they killed James Bulger.. so I suppose it could be argued that they were put away to avenge his death.

I'm not claiming to be objective - I can't be, a kid is dead and nothing can change that. For most people when they think of the Bulger case, they're gonna think of the innocent little two year old.. not the two ten year olds who probably didn't know what they were doing.. but it still happened, he still died.

I don't want them (Venables and Thompson)dead; I don't believe that they're going to reoffend; I don't think I even want them punished any longer, but at the same time I can't help thinking about the little child who was killed for no reason.
I feel pity for them more than anything.. because they're going to have the murder on their consciences for the rest of their lives, and that's one hell of a burden.

Magwitch

The picture being painted is a dostorted one by the media, but one often painted. Tabloids and TV give vent to grieving in such a way as to convince the agrieved that everyone else is grieving with them. And of course there are those to whom this soap-opera makes a deep impression.

In the past grieving was done privatly, but the emergence of a "confession culture" through the media leads many of the more vocal to a higher moral ground, where they can grive continiously and denounce others who do not. (Reaction to Lady Diana's death spings instantly to mind).

Jamies Bulgers mother has other children, who are growing up in the shadow of a dead sibling. She should get over it. Eight years is going well beyond any period of acceptable grieving, It is now a morbid circus of media and self pity.

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Magwitch:
Jamies Bulgers mother has other children, who are growing up in the shadow of a dead sibling. She should get over it. Eight years is going well beyond any period of acceptable grieving, It is now a morbid circus of media and self pity. </font>

I agree that the tabloids need to stop giving her so much attention because it is neither helping her or anyone else.

And you're right, eight years is a long time.. and it does seem to be a circus of media.. but you just don't get over something like that.
Yea it's been 8 years but I don't think it's very fair to say "she should get over it". Some people never get over things like that.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
Yea it's been 8 years but I don't think it's very fair to say "she should get over it". Some people never get over things like that.</font>

I think that the media should stop drawing her out like this. She feels anger and wants to vent it, but if you do this with a microphone and camera in front of you it totally demeans your grieving. I don't know what a psychologist would say about this, but I'm fairly certain that if she was allowed to grieve with her family, although she will probably never get over it, she will also not be abused by our curiousity while we reopen old wounds and dust off old memories.

Edited for syntax and grammar, the gruesome twosome.

[This message has been edited by JustHalf (edited 21-06-2001).]

Clintons Cat

one of the most irresponsible pieces of tabloid reporting over the last week or so concerns this case.The sun published a picture of one of the boys next to a picture of Damien from the Omen films on the grounds that the forman of the jury thought at the time that he "looked just like him".
There seems to be a que of upstanding citizens ready to dispense Justice for jamie,most of which seems to revolve around re enacting venables and thompsons crimes.
After the name and shame paedophile campaign which resulted in innocent men being attacked because they had the same name or lived in the out of date address supplied by the news of the world,one would have thought the tabloids would have used a modicum of sense.
Still if the boys release sells papers
just think how many will sell ...

Clintons Cat

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">the forman of the jury thought at the time that he "looked just like Damien".
</font>

Looking just like someone...Always a solid foundation for a judical process

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
I mean, 8 years do not make up for this loss of life.</font>

This is what it boils down to, isnt it. Nothing makes up for a loss of life. Even if you were inclined to believe in the death sentence (other thread), killing the killers does not "make up" for his loss of life.

SO, the questions is not how we can make up for it, but rather how we can best recover from it.

A media circus, giving (as Shinji put it) JBs mom a soapbox to get up on, and a mob-rule mentality which has put these boys' lives in danger is by no means a good solution.

As for whether 8 years is "long enough". These boys have now spent almost 50% of their life to date in a correctional facility. While 8 years may not seem like a lot to us on the outside, think what it means to a young child. I remember thinking when I was in my teens that the millenium was SO FAR away.

If, as the experts say, they have been rehabilitated, then they should be released. Institutionalising someone serves no purpose, other than revenge, which is not what our justice system is about.

No length of time is "long enough" for the agrieved. However, for the boys in question....they lost their childhood, and their actions will probably haunt them for the rest of their lives to some extent or another.

Why also force them to spend their lives behind a wall if they are no threat? Why not allow them to at least try and put something back into society.

And of course...keep an eye on them, just in case the experts are wrong.

jc

Connor whos 11

Shinji wrote: »

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

You have to be and Evil child to do that i may be 11 but no one would do that.

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 mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they

brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint

in his eyes, pushed batteries up his a*** and cut his

fingers off with scissors. Other mutilations were

inflicted but not reported in the press.

N.B. :- Remember, a 3year old cannot possibly

defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of

2 them.

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 railway

tracks so a 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 look like an accident.

carlybabe1

Shinji wrote: »

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?

Its not a simple case of breaking windows and puncturing tyres, these two boys deliberately abducted that toddler and then tortured and murdered him. Are they the same people? I very much doubt it, they are quite possibly worse, and at the very least they dont deserve thier liberty

carlybabe1

Shinji wrote: »

It's worth noting that the very people whinging about the money being spent on protecting their identities are the people that they need to be protected from.

I can understand Bulger's mother being amazingly bitter about the whole affair, she'd undoubtedly like to see the pair of them roast in hell for what they did. I do wish, however, that the tabloid press would stop giving the woman a soapbox from which to shout - she's suffered a terrible loss, yes, but her ranting about Venables and Thompson is getting tiresome now.

Thats rich coming from someone who couldnt possibly have a clue how that women feels or what she went through. Typical fcuked up rationale if you ask me, on the one hand your saying we shouldnt judge these animals on what they done ten years ago, but your ok judging the mother of the victim, and harshly at that. Smacks of cheek IMO, put yourself in her shoes cause having three kids myself, and having lost my son three days after his 3rd birthday (due to illness) the torture that goes through your head and tears your heart, stuff like : was he scared when he was dying, did he know what was happening, did he suffer. I cant imagine how that woman has coped with the images and thoughts of how her baby suffered, how scared he must have been, and how she could do fcuk all to protect him. Its a testament to her courage and strength of character that she chooses to remind the world (and because of that herself) of what happened to her son, and why these people should never have thier liberty again. And you have the cheek to critise her for doing that while claiming these people should not be judged for what they done when they were ten??? Shame on you
She doesnt want people to forget about her jamie, and I can certainly understand that, as would most people I imagine.

carlybabe1

Magwitch wrote: »

The picture being painted is a dostorted one by the media, but one often painted. Tabloids and TV give vent to grieving in such a way as to convince the agrieved that everyone else is grieving with them. And of course there are those to whom this soap-opera makes a deep impression.

In the past grieving was done privatly, but the emergence of a "confession culture" through the media leads many of the more vocal to a higher moral ground, where they can grive continiously and denounce others who do not. (Reaction to Lady Diana's death spings instantly to mind).

Jamies Bulgers mother has other children, who are growing up in the shadow of a dead sibling. She should get over it. Eight years is going well beyond any period of acceptable grieving, It is now a morbid circus of media and self pity.

I find this particularly offensive :mad: Are you havin a laugh??? What makes you such a worldly fcukin expert that you can tell someone how long they should be grieving?? When did you bury a child???? Didn't? well I never would have guessed that from your post. That kind of flippant remark could only come from someone who has never experienced anything like the subject thier spouting about

JustHalf

JustHalf wrote: »

That is understandable, but it as Shinji pointed out (repeatedly I think) the law is more objective. It needs to treat all parties fairly.

If its the case of treating all parties fairly, then they should be treated the same way as if someone older had done something similar. The point of this is that Justice is supposedly blind. That is, if we're talking about punishment based on the crime regardless of those who commit it..

For myself, I'd like to see them on serious probation for the next five years of their lives. Sure, let them out to join mainstream society, as any other released convicts, but they should be monitored to ensure that they warrant such a release.

carlybabe1

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I find this particularly offensive :mad: Are you havin a laugh??? What makes you such a worldly fcukin expert that you can tell someone how long they should be grieving?? When did you bury a child???? Didn't? well I never would have guessed that from your post. That kind of flippant remark could only come from someone who has never experienced anything like the subject thier spouting about

I think he's more talking about the showing of the grief to the public, as if they're acting on stage, rather than commenting that she should forget her child. Its a fair point that many people who have received the limelight from the media, continue to do so for various reasons. Its time for this to be left to the family & friends, rather than broadcast across the world.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Connor whos 11 wrote: »

You have to be and Evil child to do that i may be 11 but no one would do that.

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 mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they

brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint

in his eyes, pushed batteries up his a*** and cut his

fingers off with scissors. Other mutilations were

inflicted but not reported in the press.

N.B. :- Remember, a 3year old cannot possibly

defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of

2 them.

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 railway

tracks so a 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 look like an accident.

That's a copy and paste of an email which added some details to the story which aren't true.

carlybabe1

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he's more talking about the showing of the grief to the public, as if they're acting on stage, rather than commenting that she should forget her child. Its a fair point that many people who have received the limelight from the media, continue to do so for various reasons. Its time for this to be left to the family & friends, rather than broadcast across the world.

With all due respect thats not your decision to make. And lets be honest here, people dont really want to repeatedly hear about this kind of thing happening because it makes them uncomfortable and cant be explainedaway, there is no reason for this kind of a crime occurring and it brings reality a little bit closer to our own front door. (dont start down the bad childhood crap, I know people who've had much worse upbringing, and while they are not what you'd call well adjusted, they could never concieve of this kind of malice)

So the above comment and similar fake honourable types such as "let them grieve in private" is really just dressing up the fact that people dont want to hear about it.Lets call a spade a spade, Sure, let them out into society, let them be rehabilitated and get thier lives back together, because then it will all just go away and we wont have to hear about it anymore.
I hate to point out that aside from the fact that I dont beleive they should have thier liberty back, what if they do get out and re-offend??? Will anybody feel guilty for fighting thier cause I wonder

carlybabe1

carlybabe1 wrote: »

With all due respect thats not your decision to make.

None of our decisions bear any influence over this. This is a bulletin board where people post their opinions. Which is extremely obvious, so why bother saying so? Really...

And lets be honest here, people dont really want to repeatedly hear about this kind of thing happening because it makes them uncomfortable and cant be explainedaway, there is no reason for this kind of a crime occurring and it brings reality a little bit closer to our own front door. (dont start down the bad childhood crap, I know people who've had much worse upbringing, and while they are not what you'd call well adjusted, they could never concieve of this kind of malice)

Actually, for my part, I say let the issue be forgotten because the court has ruled, and the punishment has been applied. If we're going to talk about the murder of children, fine, do so. But the issue of these offenders is over. The court of law has pretty much decided they've served their time.

So the above comment and similar fake honourable types such as "let them grieve in private" is really just dressing up the fact that people dont want to hear about it.

Pretty much. But society revolves around being polite about just about everything.

Lets call a spade a spade, Sure, let them out into society, let them be rehabilitated and get thier lives back together, because then it will all just go away and we wont have to hear about it anymore.
I hate to point out that aside from the fact that I dont beleive they should have thier liberty back, what if they do get out and re-offend??? Will anybody feel guilty for fighting their cause I wonder

Aside from the fact? You've made your stance clear, so how can this be aside the fact? You point out people who dress up their comments, and yet you're pretty much doing the same. Its a bit like saying "With Respect,...". :rolleyes:

The release of any person who has served time in prison is a risk. But the simple fact is that the British don't have corporal punishment, and keeping them in prison for the rest of their natural lives isn't really an option. Better to released them while they're not too bitter about being stuck in prison for those years, and capable of reforming. I do believe they need to be monitored more than most released prisoners, but they should be given the chance to deal with what they've done. Perhaps they've taken the true measure of what they did, and now wish to act positively?