James Bulger, 20 years ago today...

davet82 · 12-02-2013 11:13AM #1

Today 20 years ago James Bulger was abducted, I cannot believe how fast that time has gone, it still creeps me out this murder especially now I have a children of my own.

After 20 years one the lads that done it seems to have been rehabilitated (IDK?) and the other is a pedophile, so its right to say at least one of them was born evil?

On reflection were the lads who took part almost victims themselves of this sad and twisted event? Or was justice served?

I find it hard to form an opinion on anything here because emotions run so high with how the murder was carried out butd its easy to forget the perpetrators were only children themselves, so who do you blame then, the parents? childs play? soceity? Or its just some random terrible act that just happens sometimes and no sense can be made of it...

anyways i'm interested in peoples view

RIP James, never forgotten

donvito99 · 12-02-2013 11:13AM

Tabloid journalist OP?

HondaSami · 12-02-2013 11:15AM

I was living in the UK at the time and I remember it like it was yesterday, one of the most upsetting things I have read. RIP James.

I always felt some sympathy for the boys at the time because they had a terrible childhood, no excuse I know but their parents were awful.

davet82 · 12-02-2013 11:16AM

donvito99 wrote: »

Tabloid journalist OP?

I wish :pac:

seamus · 12-02-2013 11:20AM

I don't buy "born evil" as an explanation of any of these acts. It's too easy. Someone can be born with a tendency towards a certain outlook, like sociopathy or autism, but "evil" implies that they've come with malevolence built-in.

All indications seem to be that one of the kids was completely fncked up, the other wasn't off the wall, but was easily led. Chances are they were both quite sociopathic, that's why they got along, but one was a little moreso than the other.

Funnily enough it was the kid that the psychologists considered to be the softer of the two (think it's Venables) who ended up being done for the child porn when he was released. Though a lot of commentators are very sure that was a deliberate act to get himself locked up again because he was unable to take the stress of being out in public.

Odd enough that I used to be able to read the details of the case no problem, but since having a child of my own, I can't. It's quite unimaginable how any child of any age could do what they did and think it was OK. I can only assume that one or both of them is a clinical psychopath and had no ability to emotionally relate to other people.

Grand Moff Tarkin · 12-02-2013 11:39AM

If there was any justice the two lads would still be rotting away in prison.

Foxhound38 · 12-02-2013 11:55AM

Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »

If there was any justice the two lads would still be rotting away in prison.

Because that's what civilized societies do - lock children away for their entire lives.

As horrific as this crime is, you cannot apply the same criteria here as you would had an adult committed the crime - if you do so, you are essentially saying it's OK to try children (because these kids where what, 10 years old?) as adults - take that to its logical conclusion.

AEDIC · 12-02-2013 12:02PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Because that's what civilized societies do - lock children away for their entire lives.

As horrific as this crime is, you cannot apply the same criteria here as you would had an adult committed the crime - if you do so, you are essentially saying it's OK to try children (because these kids where what, 10 years old?) as adults - take that to its logical conclusion.

Huh? I dont think anyone did apply the same criteria as an adult committing the crime....or even suggested it should be the case.

What some people might be suggesting is that one or more of those children might be a sociopath, and that by locking them up might have saved more atrocities...You cant assume that they wont go on to commit more crime any more than you can assume they will, so the term of imprisonment should fit the crime and the mental state of the perpetrators.... I mean its not like one of them went on to be a pervert in adult life or anything... :rolleyes:

Civilised societies should not allow sociopaths out on the streets regardless of their age.

Lollipops23 · 12-02-2013 12:13PM

I was only 5 when it happened, so I don't really remember it.

I am slightly torn when it comes the the kids that did it- although I know they were only children themselves, I believe they knew full well what they were doing. The fact that they tried in vain to cover it up afterwards means they knew full well the seriousness of their actions.

I think they should have stayed locked up due the likelihood of re-offending.

It was a highly unusual (thankfully) case, so an unusual punishment (life in prison) would have been appropriate IMO.

CelticRambler · 12-02-2013 12:14PM

His father's talking to PK right now ...

Foxhound38 · 12-02-2013 12:18PM

AEDIC wrote: »

Huh? I dont think anyone did apply the same criteria as an adult committing the crime....or even suggested it should be the case.

What some people might be suggesting is that one or more of those children might be a sociopath, and that by locking them up might have saved more atrocities...You cant assume that they wont go on to commit more crime any more than you can assume they will, so the term of imprisonment should fit the crime and the mental state of the perpetrators.... I mean its not like one of them went on to be a pervert in adult life or anything... :rolleyes:

Civilised societies should not allow sociopaths out on the streets regardless of their age.

Then following your logic children should be tested for sociopathic or psychopathic traits early in life, and if found to possess these traits, be locked away for the rest of their lives as a consequence of what they *might* do.

We also might as well throw away the idea of rehabilitation for violent criminals - after all, you'd need to be fairly sociopathic to commit aggrevated robbery on a shop or whatever - and *what* might these people do when they get out. Is automatically giving these people life without possiblity of parole feasible, or in the best interests of society? Can a 10 year old even fully comprehend a crime of this magnitude in the way an adult could?

As for looking up child porn - yep, he fcuked up and was rightfully put back behind bars. With that said, the more sociopathic one is still out isn't he? According to your logic, he's the bigger danger, yet nothing suggests he has done anything since leaving prison (because presumably the tabloids would be all over it if he did)

dark crystal · 12-02-2013 12:27PM

I read what Venables and Thompson did to Jamie and it made me physically ill. I have no sympathy towards them whatsoever - it was a planned murder. They had attempted to kidnap another child just before they took Jamie.

My sympathy lies very firmly with Jamie and his family. The two boys who tortured and murdered him never showed any remorse for what they did and get to continue on with their lives, with new identities and protection from the state, while Denise and Ralph Bulger will never get their son back.

tbh · 12-02-2013 12:28PM

at the time, I remember thinking that something had gone terribly wrong that two ten-year old boys could do something so horrible.

I was very much of the opinion that the boys were too young to be held accountable for their actions and should be treated rather than punished.

Now, I'm the father of a happy, trusting, healthy two year old boy, just like James was, and - I'm not writing this to be a hard man or anything - if someone did that to my boy, I would find them, somehow, and I would kill them. That's not rhetoric, or hyperbole, that's simply what I'd do.

I've posted in AH many, many times about the civility of justice and the barbarity of the death penalty and I do still stand over all of that, but it's mad how much I've changed now I've a child of my own.

Grand Moff Tarkin · 12-02-2013 12:30PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Because that's what civilized societies do - lock children away for their entire lives.

As horrific as this crime is, you cannot apply the same criteria here as you would had an adult committed the crime - if you do so, you are essentially saying it's OK to try children (because these kids where what, 10 years old?) as adults - take that to its logical conclusion.

I find it very hard to imagine that either of the two of them could be rehabilitated into productive members of a civilized society. But that is my own view.

clairefontaine · 12-02-2013 12:32PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Because that's what civilized societies do - lock children away for their entire lives.

As horrific as this crime is, you cannot apply the same criteria here as you would had an adult committed the crime - if you do so, you are essentially saying it's OK to try children (because these kids where what, 10 years old?) as adults - take that to its logical conclusion.

It's true. If you want to convict children like they are adults, then you would also have to let them serve on juries.

We don't let them because we don't believe they are capable of mature judgement.

clairefontaine · 12-02-2013 12:34PM

tbh wrote: »

at the time, I remember thinking that something had gone terribly wrong that two ten-year old boys could do something so horrible.

I was very much of the opinion that the boys were too young to be held accountable for their actions and should be treated rather than punished.

Now, I'm the father of a happy, trusting, healthy two year old boy, just like James was, and - I'm not writing this to be a hard man or anything - if someone did that to my boy, I would find them, somehow, and I would kill them. That's not rhetoric, or hyperbole, that's simply what I'd do.

I've posted in AH many, many times about the civility of justice and the barbarity of the death penalty and I do still stand over all of that, but it's mad how much I've changed now I've a child of my own.

Sure, and then their fathers would come after you [or mothers] for the same reason. Only you would have killed two children, not one.

RossyG · 12-02-2013 12:37PM

davet82 wrote: »

After 20 years one the lads that done it seems to have been rehabilitated (IDK?) and the other is a pedophile, so its right to say at least one of them was born evil?

No. They were horrifically abused by the adults closest to them to the the point that it completely warped their outlook. Venables used to line his Action Men up along his bed to 'guard' him while he slept, so fearful was he of being attacked. That's not the actions of someone born evil.

dark crystal · 12-02-2013 12:42PM

tbh wrote: »

Now, I'm the father of a happy, trusting, healthy two year old boy, just like James was, and - I'm not writing this to be a hard man or anything - if someone did that to my boy, I would find them, somehow, and I would kill them. That's not rhetoric, or hyperbole, that's simply what I'd do.

You'll probably be blasted for saying that here, but I think that's exactly how most parents would feel.

I remember reading an interview with Denise Bulger in which she said she was told the identity and whereabouts of Thompson. When she tracked him down, she was paralyzed by fear and hatred and walked away. She couldn't bring herself to go near him. Wishing something and the reality of doing it can be two very different things.

I would feel just as you do, but when it came to it, I'd probably never be able to kill anyone. That's the difference between us and them I guess.

admiralofthefleet · 12-02-2013 12:43PM

i remember it like it was only yesterday but didnt understand it at the time as i was 12. now when im out with my son who is just about the same age as jamie bolger was i never let him out of my sight

HondaSami · 12-02-2013 12:48PM

tbh wrote: »

at the time, I remember thinking that something had gone terribly wrong that two ten-year old boys could do something so horrible.

I was very much of the opinion that the boys were too young to be held accountable for their actions and should be treated rather than punished.

Now, I'm the father of a happy, trusting, healthy two year old boy, just like James was, and - I'm not writing this to be a hard man or anything - if someone did that to my boy, I would find them, somehow, and I would kill them. That's not rhetoric, or hyperbole, that's simply what I'd do.

I've posted in AH many, many times about the civility of justice and the barbarity of the death penalty and I do still stand over all of that, but it's mad how much I've changed now I've a child of my own.

It's true once you have children yourself you see the world in a different light, we can all feel sympathy but where children are concerned parents feel it more.

Salty · 12-02-2013 12:50PM

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Then following your logic children should be tested for sociopathic or psychopathic traits early in life, and if found to possess these traits, be locked away for the rest of their lives as a consequence of what they *might* do.

About 1% of the world's population is psychopathic, however it takes a certain kind of environment for these genes/brain patterns to be expressed. A person with psychopathic brain patterns will likely never act in a way which is considered by most "psychopathic" because they've had a normal upbringing with a healthy home and school life etc. The correlation of genes and environment is important when it comes to these kind of things.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/psychopathy-a-misunderstood-personality-disorder.html

It's a very interesting corner of psychology, one which is being covered currently in one of my psychology modules in college.

davet82 · 12-02-2013 12:59PM

_meehan_ wrote: »

About 1% of the world's population is psychopathic, however it takes a certain kind of environment for these genes/brain patterns to be expressed. A person with psychopathic brain patterns will likely never act in a way which is considered by most "psychopathic" because they've had a normal upbringing with a healthy home and school life etc. The correlation of genes and environment is important when it comes to these kind of things.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/psychopathy-a-misunderstood-personality-disorder.html

It's a very interesting corner of psychology, one which is being covered currently in one of my psychology modules in college.

So if we were to try make some sense of what happened it would be; two psychopaths with terrible upbring meet each other and form a freindship and this chain of events lead to James's murder...

this must be quite rare, anybody any other examples of children that kill? I can't think of any

dark crystal · 12-02-2013 01:02PM

davet82 wrote: »

this must be quite rare, anybody any other examples of children that kill? I can't think of any

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell

Mary Bell was also 10 when she committed her first murder.

Lone Stone · 12-02-2013 01:03PM

God i remember it clearly the footage on the news, all the blame being put on that movie chucky. r.i.p kiddo.

HondaSami · 12-02-2013 01:04PM

davet82 wrote: »

So if we were to try make some sense of what happened it would be; two psychopaths with terrible upbring meet each other and form a freindship and this chain of events lead to James's murder...

this must be quite rare, anybody any other examples of children that kill? I can't think of any

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=children%20that%20kill&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trutv.com%2Flibrary%2Fcrime%2Fserial_killers%2Fweird%2Fkids2%2Findex_1.html&ei=jy8aUd_wFIuyhAeirYHIAw&usg=AFQjCNGrbe79GEiHqnnStOffQY1muSOOgg

It's not rare at all.

davet82 · 12-02-2013 01:06PM

HondaSami wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=children%20that%20kill&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trutv.com%2Flibrary%2Fcrime%2Fserial_killers%2Fweird%2Fkids2%2Findex_1.html&ei=jy8aUd_wFIuyhAeirYHIAw&usg=AFQjCNGrbe79GEiHqnnStOffQY1muSOOgg

It's not rare at all.

rare in the grand scheme of things then...

thanks for the link, scary stuff btw

HondaSami · 12-02-2013 01:10PM

davet82 wrote: »

rare in the grand scheme of things then...

thanks for the link, scary stuff btw

I just don't know where the boys got the idea that's all, I say TV is partially to blame, sometimes I do think some kids watch adult films that gives them ideas.

The case was heartbreaking for all concerned.

kunst nugget · 12-02-2013 01:11PM

HondaSami wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=children%20that%20kill&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trutv.com%2Flibrary%2Fcrime%2Fserial_killers%2Fweird%2Fkids2%2Findex_1.html&ei=jy8aUd_wFIuyhAeirYHIAw&usg=AFQjCNGrbe79GEiHqnnStOffQY1muSOOgg

It's not rare at all.

Yes, those six cases really highlight the pandemic of kid killers that are lurking within our society.

charlemont · 12-02-2013 01:15PM

It was evil, His poor parents will never be right after it, Imagine what that poor boy was thinking as this was happening, Those scum deserve to be exposed and kicked up and down Britain.

AlekSmart · 12-02-2013 01:18PM

RossyG wrote: »

No. They were horrifically abused by the adults closest to them to the the point that it completely warped their outlook. Venables used to line his Action Men up along his bed to 'guard' him while he slept, so fearful was he of being attacked. That's not the actions of someone born evil.

There's an interesting article on the thoughts of the Defending Solictor here.....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/james-bulger-murder-20-years-1594811

What particularly caught my attention were these quotes....

Recalling the first moment he saw his client Venables, Laurence says: “I went to Lower Lane police station and he was sat with his mother, Sue, a respectable lady

After coaxing James two miles away to Walton the older boys attacked the toddler on a railway line.

Paint was splashed in his eyes before the pair stamped on him. James had 10 skull fractures – and a total of 42 injuries.

Bricks and stones were hurled at the tot during a degrading assault.

A 22lb iron bar was dropped on him before Thompson and Venables laid their victim’s body across the railway line to try to cover up his murder as an accident.

Two days later, James’s body was found severed by the impact from a train.

Also from here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9849563/Jon-Venables-lawyer-believed-10-year-old-was-innocent.html

The lawyer said one of the hardest parts of the case was looking after Venables' parents who he described as "very respectable people who were going through a nightmare".

"They were good people. Lovely people. They didn't have a clue what was happening," he said.

Mr Lee said as far as Venables was concerned his background was "no worse than any kid in Liverpool" and at the time he had actually been given a responsibility by his schoolteacher.

So which is to be....?

seamus · 12-02-2013 01:19PM

Child soldiers. Otherwise "normal" kids who can be taught to kill and possibly enjoy killing. So it's not just a matter of a child requiring certain traits to be able to kill another.

Upbringing plays a large part in what's going on, so if you place violence close enough to the list of things which says, "This is acceptable" (or even *in* the list of acceptable things) then a child who does not fear retribution or lacks the ability to foresee the consequences may just go ahead and be increasingly violent.

James Bulger, 20 years ago today...

Comments