h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just to qualify the feelings here in Liverpool.

It isn't the fact that Thompson and Venables are being released, it's more the fact that they are being released without serving and time in prison. Instead, they have been cosseted and given treats and a lifestyle that most law-abiding teens can only dream of. How many kids were disappointed at not being able to get a Playstation 2 for christmas?? They got one. It just seems that there has been little actual punishment for , what is after all, a premeditated murder.

Rant over

Point taken, although I'm not sure exactly how premeditated the murder was. I suspect that it was just a bit of vicious, cruel, bullying "fun" that got disastrously out of hand.
I just can't see that any practical good would be done by putting Thompson and Venables into the brutalising, corrupting environment of a young offenders' institution. All they'd learn there would be how to fight and how to be criminals again. By all available accounts, they have become very different people in the past eight years (and, let's face it, there'd have to be something very wrong with anyone whose personality didn't change a lot between the ages of 10 and 18 ). I think it'd be a great shame to risk undoing all that progress for the sake of some primitive desire for revenge; and I think that to seek revenge by persecuting the killers' innocent relatives is absolutely monstrous.

I agree with the point about not persecuting the relatives. But bear in mind, although these boys are supposedly rehabilitated, neither of them has seen fit to apologise for their actions. And as for premeditated, they tried to take another child previously, but were prevented from doing so.
As for them getting new identities, why should they be any different from any other murderers? I feel sorry for the people who they meet in the future, as if they discover their true identities, it could actually ruin lives. Imagine discovering that you have married a convicted murderer without knowing.
It does seem, however farfetched, that the rights of the guilty supercede the rights of the innocent.

Sorry for going on, but I do feel quite strongly about this.

I agree with the point about not persecuting the relatives. But bear in mind, although these boys are supposedly rehabilitated, neither of them has seen fit to apologise for their actions. And as for premeditated, they tried to take another child previously, but were prevented from doing so.
As for them getting new identities, why should they be any different from any other murderers? I feel sorry for the people who they meet in the future, as if they discover their true identities, it could actually ruin lives. Imagine discovering that you have married a convicted murderer without knowing.
It does seem, however farfetched, that the rights of the guilty supercede the rights of the innocent.

Sorry for going on, but I do feel quite strongly about this.

The "Panorama" programme I referred to in the column also contained interviews with those who'd worked with Thompson and Venables. They stressed that the killers had expressed great remorse over the murder. This must be true. If Thompson and Venables hadn't done so, they would have had no chance of being released. It is one of the central principles of the UK parole system that in order to qualify, a prisoner must accept responsibility for their offences and show real remorse.

Thompson and Venables may not have put out a public statement of regret, but they may well have decided (or been advised) that there would be no point in doing so, as it would be unlikely to make anyone involved with the case feel better and it would give the tabloids a chance to stir up more hysteria. You can well imagine what the headlines would have been like: "'WE'RE SORRY', SAY FIENDS", or something similar.

As to the question of "why should they be any different to other murderers?" I'd argue that Thompson and Venables are inescapably different to other killers for two reasons.

One, they committed the crime when they were 10. Although they were (barely) old enough to be legally responsible for their actions, I think common sense must tell us that a 10-year-old does not have the same powers of reasoning, or fully-developed worldview, as an adult. That surely has to have some impact on the degree of responsibility they can be expected to take for what they did; after all, that's why we have juvenile courts.

Two, lots of people have made it abundantly clear that they want to kill Thompson and Venables. Surely that's all the justification that's needed for providing their new identities? It's a simple matter of crime prevention. Having had plenty of people threaten to carry out a violent crime, the authorities are simply seeking to prevent that potential crime.

What you say about the possible impact on anyone who meets one of the killers and then subsequently finds out their real identity is true up to a point, but the idea of one of them getting married under their alias does seem far-fetched. For one thing, I wouldn't have thought that any such marriage would be legally valid - and in any case, Thompson and Venables are out of prison on licence for life. They'll always be watched, and I can't believe that the authorities would allow either of them to do anything so irresponsible as to marry without telling their bride-to-be who they really were.

I also agree that it seems wrong that Thompson and Venables should have had access to a better quality of life and a better education than many of their contemporaries. But what is wrong there is the inequality of income and opportunity that denies people in deprived areas a decent life, not the fact that very young offenders are treated in a civilised fashion.

Finally, Mistdancer, there's no need to apologise for feeling strongly about all this. Lots of people do - it's a very emotive subject. I feel very strongly about it myself. I really hate vigilantes, and the tabloid press that encourages them.

Actually, by apology, I meant to the Bulger family for the loss of their son, not to the public. And I too dislike vigilante groups.
There would always be a minority of the population who would advocate revenge, but the majority just want to feel that they have been punished for their crime.

But the subject of their past is not going to come up in conversation, and by the time it comes to a relationship issue, it may well be too late to prevent great hurt and distress to the other person involved.

After all, Mary Bell got 12 years, and she was a child. Yes, she was granted anonymity because of her daughter, but 12 years, some of which was served in prison, seems like a lifetime in comparison to 8 years.

And since Jon Venables has already been recognised on one of his "rehab trips" to a shopping centre recently, it is only a matter of time before they are both recognised. It is something that no amount of policing will prevent.

And finally(promise!) with their identities hidden, how many innocent 18 yr old boys are going to be persecuted under the mistaken belief that they are one of "those Bulger Killers"?

phew

OK, I'll concede that a direct apology to the Bulger family couldn't hurt. But I still think that keeping Venables and Thompson in an adult prison would be likely to do them a lot of harm and no-one any good. Because Mary Bell was kept "inside" for 12 years, it doesn't follow that the same should happen in any other similarly horrendous case for all time. Perhaps there were more doubts about her rehabilitation.

Every other objection you mention - what might happen if someone else was mistaken for one of the killers, what happens if one of them forms a relationship, what happens if one of them is recognised - would apply whenever they were released. And they hardly add up to a justification for keeping them in prison for life for something they did when they were 10.

NOOOO, you misunderstand. I don't think they should be locked up for life(although why we set so-called life tariffs is a matter for another forum). I just think 8 years is such a short time to serve. I think that the first revision of their sentence to 10 years was a reasonably fair tariff.
But I do admit, having to constantly hear their lawyers on TV bleating about the rights of their clients does annoy me greatly. I get the impression that their lawyers would only have been happy if there had been no custodial sentence enforced at all. There should be a middle ground wherein the guilty admit their crimes and accept their sentences, and the victims and their families accept said sentences. The problem arises when the terms of the sentences seem weighted in favour of the perpetrators. 8 years still seems such a short time in relation to the life of a child.

You're certainly far from being alone in feeling that the perpetrators of crime get more concern than the victims, but I think we'd be going down a dangerous road if victims were consulted about sentencing. (And I have been assaulted and burgled in my time, so I feel qualified to comment). I think that you need consistency in sentencing, and it shouldn't depend on how angry the victim feels.

Rightly or wrongly, eight years is about par for the course in terms of what a "life" sentence actually means in Britain. Given that fact, you have to ask whether imprisoning Venables and Thompson for longer than that really makes sense - IF they now seem to be remorseful and rehabilitated. That said, I absolutely agree that they had to be incarcerated until those who dealt with them on a regular basis were convinced that they were highly unlikely to reoffend. If their lawyers have been suggesting otherwise, then I think that's quite wrong.

And, as you say, what a "life" sentence should actually mean is a whole other argument, probably best left to a whole other forum.

I have done an entry on this so if anyone would like to have a look and make comments go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A583049

I'm not going to get into the issue of whether Thompson and Venables should be released. I would like to say, however, that I don't feel the danger of leaving children unattended is understood by some parents.

Last week I was in the Strand shopping centre in Bootle, where James was abducted. Although most children were under very close parental supervision, there was one incident which disturbed me.

As I was passing by a newsagents, I saw a young mother telling her toddler child to remain outside the newsagents while she (the mother) went inside to get some change. She then left the child and disappeared into the shop.

I was shocked, and extremely disturbed, that any parent could leave a young child unattended in such a manner, particularly in Bootle Strand, with so much media attention being directed towards the abduction and murder of James Bulger. Thankfully, in this case, the child was unharmed (I hung around to make sure), but it only takes a second to snatch a child. Had I wanted to, I could have easily abducted the child.

I would like to urge any parents who are reading this to NEVER leave your children unattended, under ANY circumstances. There are some very sick people around. Don't make things easy for them.

I agree completely.

I'm also from Liverpool, and I still see, quite frequently, babies in prams left outside shops while their parents disappear inside, often for 10 mins or more. My nearest local shop is not big enough for me to get my pram inside, so I always walk the extra 10 mins to go to a shop where my children can be right beside me.

On the other hand, I have a very lively and precocious 4 yr old, and he has been known to run away in supermarkets...despite me telling him not to. I have been frantic with worry before, but luckily, he has always gone straight to the security guards. And It's not that I don't watch him, just that he can run faster than I can as I have the baby in the trolley, and cannot abandon him to chase his brother!

Please don't think that all loose children are not being watched, some of them are, but as Denise Bulger found to her cost, it really does only take a second.

Please don't misunderstand me. Although I am not a parent, I am quite a bit older than my younger brothers and sisters and I know how difficult it is to keep them near you always. I was not implying that all children who are unattended are being neglected by their parents - kids will be kids, and unfortunately they are not very cautious, nor do they understand the dangers of running away from their parents.

I was referring to the small minority of parents who do not keep an adequate watch over their children - those who will not walk just that extra bit further to the nearest shop that they can fit their pram into. And in the case I was saw, the mother had absolutely no excuse - the child was not in a pram (and even if she was, there are other newsagents very nearby - after all, this was Bootle town centre). I cannot believe that such people do not know the risks of leaving their children unattended, and I have to ask myself if such people are fit to be parents. But again, let me stress that I believe that the vast majority of parents are caring and loving, and would never, ever do something as foolish as the woman I saw.

I realise that you weren't implying that all parents were neglectful. I also know of many with the "it will never happen to me" attitude. But even these parents genuinely love their children. They just don't think, that's the problem. It's not neglect, more stupidity and thoughtlessness. We need to educate them as to the ever-present dangers, and make them realise just how fast a potential killer/kidnapper/abuser can strike.

I think you're right.

Of course, I am not really qualified to comment on whether such parents love their children or not, since I am not a parent myself. Some of my remarks were hasty, and unfair. Since you are a parent, I'll take your word for it that these parents do genuinely love their children. But I still get absolutely furious when I see stupidity and thoughtlessness prevail over common sense. Child safety and protection is an issue I feel very strongly about.

And you are absolutely right. If these people aren't made aware of the dangers, then it's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes again.