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

Probably pretty much what was done. Trial. Taken to an appropriate place. Served an indeterminate sentence in a children's secure unit. Released on licence when it was deemed that, as far as could be seen, they didn't present a risk. Given new identities to protect their safety. Any disagreements there?

OK...so since one of them has (allegedly, possibly) re-offended in some way that we can only speculate. These things happen. Why the Hoo Hah?

(Incidentally - James Bulger's murder is sometimes described as 'uniquely evil'. Piffle! Think about the children who are regularly beaten to death by grown adults.)

One caveat to the above. Many who observed the trial have suggested that neither Venables or Thompson were able to follow procedings nor quite to appreciate what they'd done. This does not sound like a fair trial.* I'm not saying they should not have been detained - but it is highly questionable whether murder was the appropriate verdict.

Ancient Brit: I'm infering - and please correct me if I'm traducing you - that you may be suggesting that Thompson and Venables were irredeemable bad 'uns? Now - I'm not so naive as to think they were angels (incidentally - I don't think 'youths' is the right word. Ten year olds are 'children' by any sane definition). Well, their release took into consideration the opinions of professionals who knew tham better than you or I. Do you think those professional had not been talking to them over many years? Do you think they would not have undergone some pretty damned intensive rehabilitation?

But earlier you refered to genetics. An old canard. I defy anyone to design a plausible experiment to separate nature from nurture in criminal behaviour (I simply can't envision a child being brought up without an...upbringing. Can you?). We could have a longer nature/nurture debate - but the summary would be that it really is a quite silly idea.









*It's down to their having been above the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, which is 10. Scotland has a *notional* age of 8, but it's less rigid - it's decided on a case-by-case basis.

Two youths take a young boy and beat him to death.
What should have been done ?<<

The Law was applied, but it seems to have failed in rehabilitating him. He was 10 years old, a child, I don´t know if he was sent to jail or which treatment he received, but it´s really terrible that he still has problems with justice. He deserves compassion, despite all.
I´ve googled the age of penal responsability for England, it says it´s 10 years old. I think it´s wrong, although the crime is so horrible, we are talking about children. But again, I don´t know how you treat a child who has done such a terrible thing.

didn´t seen your post, Ed before posting mine, it clarifies some things I didn´t know.

(my reply was to AncientBrit)

Re the Bell cartoon...someone earlier praised contributors here for our reasoned opinions. Could it not be that tabloids *don't* actually reflect the mainstream opinion but, rather, attempt to manufacture it? It's entirely possible that the default, majority opinion is 'Ho hum'. But that doesn't sell newspapers as well as a 'Panic Panic we're going to the dogs' story does. And a photo of Venables would be a *massive* scoop.

Wow, that certainly had an impact on me. Good journalism by the Grauniad.

Question Time had good coverage of this, with Carol Borederman - sorry Vorderman - and Will Self doing a good job of articulating the different viewpoints.

Personally, I can't see what good knowing this information would do anyone? I'm not sure what comfort Denise Fergus can draw from knowing about her son' murderers other alleged crimes - wouldn't it just serve to pour salt on an already-open wound?

Interesting how Jamie Bulger's dad has disappeared from public view altogether and I can't help but respect and sympathise with this more: he seems decided to have decided to deal with his grief in private.

And as a slight aside, I was 7 years old when Jamie Bulger was kidnapped and killed and lived just around the corner from Bootle Strand. The afternoon it happened the police recruited local kids to help them search the docklands as we knew the hidey-holes and hidden places better than adults. The memories of that afternoon are some of the most vivid of my early life. None of that gives me any right to know what Venables is up to these days.

The kids were treated with one-on-one tuition and help...more than any other kid in Liverpool had off the state.

they were given new identities when it was believed they were safe to go into the community.

It would seem that Venables has broken the terms of his release...justice can take it's course as with anyone.

Robert Thompson is said to have been more stable than Venables so one can hope he has managed to get on with his life which would be 'a good thing' and hopefully he can live with but feel the guilt for what he has done.

As for 'pure evil' etc. No just like any other murder it's henious.

I don't think it's any different from anyone killing anyone else.

It's just that some people can't process the fact and that two 10year olds killed a 2year old.

Killers tend to kill people weaker and more vulnerable than themselves.

There are people in Liverpool who wojuld string them up if they could. Why don't these people want to string up any murderer?

mar:
>>I don´t know if he was sent to jail or which treatment he received, but it´s really terrible that he still has problems with justice.

It shouldn't surprise us, should it, that somebody brought up in an institutional environment might later come into conflict with the law? That doesn't negate what I said earlier about profession judgement on the risk of release. But it would seem somewhat unfair if we said 'OK - we don't think you're going to murder anyone - but we can't release because of the effects of the environment you've been kept in while we ensure that.'

Murderers do get let out of prison. Some reoffend in someway. Others become a 'normal' member of society.

The only ways to ensure no mistakes are made are either lock em up for life and execute them.

Executing them could make the worst mistake of all...

Which I *hope* can be a topic for a different thread - if anyone wants to be bothered. (I don't)

One thing to add, though - no surprise, but crime rates are higher amongst previous offenders than amongst the population as a whole. No surprise there. This will be partly because of the factors that put them in prison in the first place...but partly because of the effects of prison itself. I don't just mean the notorious 'Prison as a University of Crime' stuff, but also because of the dislocation from society that prison brings. How are offenders meant to reintegrate into society having lost their homes, jobs and often families?

Now - none of the above may apply to Venables - but he'll hardly have had a normal upbringing.

Icy North


Exactly, neither of the two possibilities are practical...hence why murderers are let out of prison.

Neither the public nor Jamie Bulger's family has any right to know the details. It's ludicrous to suggest they do.

I can certainly understand why the family want to know, but legally, it would be disastrous. If it becomes public, his time in prison will be hellish and if this new case goes to trial it will be incredibly difficult to ensure any sort of fair trial for him.

Ed:
<<How are offenders meant to reintegrate into society having lost their homes, jobs and often families? <<<

Shouldn´t they have a kind of guide, tutorship before and after leaving the jail to ensure their reintegration?

The Quaker movement in US is highly committed with that. btw, it started in Britain: A692804

One of the maxims of Quakerism is that there´s always something good in all people from which we can and must start to rescue them, whatever have they done.

Saving the distances, that idea is close to what happens to children with learning problems, we have to focus on what they can do, not in what they can´t. It´s a duty to integrate them in the educational system not to relegate them to schools for "disabled". Applied to law offenders it means that we must focus on what the person can do from now on, not on what he did.

(That idea of integration and the one of referring to those children as pupils with especial educative needs, come also from Britain.
You British have done a lot about social issues. A pity that tabloids are behaving that way)
::
Sorry Gif, that´s a bit off-topic

>Could it not be that tabloids *don't* actually reflect the mainstream opinion but, rather, attempt to manufacture it?

Do you really think the tabloids have conjured up public loathing of Venables? It pre-existed, what they're doing is feeding on it. If the public didn't care then the tabloids wouldn't run the story. The yellow press knew the public would zoom right in on a story about Venables. They'll *perpetuate* it now the ball's rolling, sure, but they didn't start it from nothing.

"the only reason Venebles is getting all this attention is probably out of some misguided mwdia agenda to demonstrate that true evil never changes it's spots or something."

I don't think there's any "media agenda" here much beyond the usual "we're on your side" populist showboating by the tabloids and selling more papers off that back of a story that the public want to know about. The story fell off the front pages in the past, it'll fall off again. There's an important issue here re: were they released too soon and how well the system works (as someone mentioned earlier, possibly yourself, this is an example of the justice system doing what it's supposed to) but the mainstay of the story at the moment is nothing but the papers feeding off public interest. Once the public's interest wains, so will the papers'.

Ed:
<<How are offenders meant to reintegrate into society having lost their homes, jobs and often families? <<<

mar
>>Shouldn´t they have a kind of guide, tutorship before and after leaving the jail to ensure their reintegration?

Yes - and in theory they do - but we pay lip service to probation and don't really fund it. No surprise, then, that our per capita prison population is the highest in (pre-accession) Europe.

The probation service *should* also monitor whether those released on licence are fulfilling their licence conditions, and there may have been a failure here. (Don't know. I'm speculating). If it's done properly, one would expect any problems to emerge before they become problems.

The leading charities in this area are NACRO (National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders) and SACRO (Scottish equivalent). I shall have to check with the local expert, but I understand that some probation services are subcontracted to these.

>Do you really think the tabloids have conjured up public loathing of Venables? It pre-existed, what they're doing is feeding on it.< zagreb

I think it quickly becomes 'positive feedback' in certain situations. The public loathing would never have been so strong I think without the video footage in the shopping centre. The pictures of cute little Jamie..and the dark hints of things done so appalling they couldn't be reported. Same was done apparently at the Moors murderers' trials. Things too awful to be reported. There's nothing like,' leaving things to the imagination' which any decent film director knows.

I don't think it's easily possible always to separate the way the media represents things from public reaction. The whole story in the first place was fed by the media, or no-one would know about it. The media are quite clever at knowing how to play something, so it has legs.

Sorry, I know you are referring to the present story..but that relies on the original story.

Incidentally...are we aware that the name 'Jamie' is a media creation? To his family, he was always 'James'.



>>The pictures of cute little Jamie..and the dark hints of things done so appalling they couldn't be reported...There's nothing like,' leaving things to the imagination

You're probably right - but on the other hand today I learned from the Grauniad of some sexual elements*, unreported at the time, that I hadn't been aware of.



* Strictly, 'sexualised behaviour'. It's unlikely that ten year olds' motives will be actively sexual.

Hi Maria,

>Sorry Gif, that´s a bit off-topic

Not at all - I was considering asking people what they thought of the (apparently old-fashioned) idea that once someone has done a prison sentence, they have 'paid their debt to society' and are free to live their lives.

Can such a thing ever be said of a crime of this nature? Or is it the right of all criminals - especially children - to be given a second chance?

Does the very idea of 'release on license' go against this idea? Or by violating his license, has Venables given away his 'second chance'?

Gif