to think the Jon Venables program on bbc 1 now is unnecessary and disgusting.

[bristolcities]

I realise the point of the program is to find out why Jon returned to jail but the interviews and graphic descriptions are unnecessary and disturbing. It seems like voyeurism at it's worst.

I feel quite torn on this, having worked in secure units on the one hand I like to believe in rehabilitation including having met teenage offenders who've committed pretty grim crimes. I do believe these children are entitled to therapy and rehabilitation and have decent living conditions etc.

this programme is an appalling piece of journalism right down to the voice of the woman narrating it, it's biased, sensationalist and pretty much one sided.

BUT that said, I've met young men who are too dangerous to ever be in society, sometimes it doesn't work and the younger the child when the offence is committed the more worrying it is. And it makes me feel sick to think of what he's done and that he could have been living near to me and my dcs all this time.

It is not sensationalised, it's mainly factual, and yes deals generally with rehabilitation. Denise Fergus features on the program several times.

I speak as i SW in CP and the system of children in custody does need reviewing, all i am saying is the reaction will get picked up elsewhere (even on the Wright Stuff) and promote discussion in the right places. We need for the government to plege more money to the whole service. I wish that the 'gutter press' would point out that we can never re-instate the death penalty because we are a member of the EU. There is little point in stupid misleading discussions.

BTP- i didn't dismiss 'the experts' but there are others qualified to give an opinion.

Help. Help. that word makes me so, so angry.
They dont need, or deserve, help.

Denise deserves a medal for her courage, and for just staying alive. If that was me the anger alone would physically eat me alive.

I shall not comment further on what they did, as if I do not only will I probably have a sleepless night, but I will say something I regret.

It seems to me to be a fairly sober and measured discussion of how the criminal justice system deals with young children who commit appalling crimes and whether this case tells us something about the failings of the system. The former senior policeman who is presenting the programme seems thoughtful, and certainly not encouraging hysteria or voyeurism.

But these were boys who were failed by their parents. It doesn't make what happened any less terrible but it does make them deserving of treatment. These were two young boys. Just like the recent case (can't remember the names) they were not though right from wrong and exposed to horrific things at a young age. People aren't born bad.

Nullius- its not just about help (although its a hard decision to make towards the treatment of children), it is about stopping and preventing a silmilar event from taking place. The states in America (just as an example, not having a go) that have the death penalty have the highest murder rate. Prisons that have the toughest regimes produce violent criminals. It is very much the public's business what goes on inside them because we have to live alongside what the prison system producers.

But Come did the makers really need to engage the audience with horrific details?

BTP- you need an public outcry sometimes. Care in the community was overhauled because of press reporting and the public reaction to it. People can help to change systems. That is why in some countries freedom of the media is constricted.

Without the horrific details, how do people know what they are dealing with, some people lead very sheltered lives and do not realise what others are capable of or why.

bristolcities I, officially, dont give a shit what their parents did to them (and for the record, I dont think "daddy showed me a scary movie" is anywhere near a defence)

The argument should always be - are they a danger to society?

If the answer is yes, then why they are a danger is irrelevant.

They are a danger, keep them away.

Birdsgottafly I agree with what you are saying in that trying to learn may prevent further tradgedies.

But still, the americans do this punishment malarky better than we do. We focus way too much on the criminal and not on the victim. Denise should get what she wants, it was her baby :(

I thought it was interesting. We need to learn from mistakes made when punishing/rehabilitating children who commit serious crimes because whether we like it or not it will continue to happen.

The major mistake that was made IMO was naming the children who committed the crime.

While my heart goes out to Denise Fergus - her opinion is never going to be very unemotive or objective and she feels she never got justice for James which is why she continues to take part in these programmes.

Nullius- there parents and others did alot more than 'show them a scary movie' but i do not want to start the discussion on that. What i will say is the more knowledge that we have the more it influences the law in all areas. All practice is backed up by research so while you may not care there is good reason to take it on board.

I agree with Bird's post of 23.33.

I thought the programme achieved a pretty good balance between reminding the audience (some of whom would have been children or not living in this country in 1993) that the crime was horrific without including the most horrendous details of it.

It was the first half that was graphic. How are these people that live such a sheltered life going to have any knowledge on the treatment that children who commit terrible crimes should receive?

The danger is not irrelevant of course it isn't. Its very very relevant. That is my point.

As I said ''If it was for the sake of educating people and trying to work out a way of people not re-offending then great but that doesn't explain why we need to here every awful detail of a child's murder and the original interview''

Nullius- if the 'punishment' puts the rest of us in danger by changing the behaviour of the criminal then it cannot be a good thing. For instance America went through a stage were the taking of a hostage carried the death sentance so the captor might as well kill the hostage because they had a greater chance of not getting captured.

But birds in your line of work, surely you see many children who have been treated terribly? and had horrible starts?
They dont all do this do they? So what message are we sending those children? That they are entitled to do as they please now, and that they will get more help and support for doing so?
I know people like to see the good in all, hope for salvation. Im sorry I just cant feel like that.

I live in the city that it happened in and i can remember and it is still thought by some that the boys threw rocks at James and this was the extent of the crime. Thus opening up the possibility of accidental murder, i think some need to be educated about what some (even children) are capable of.

Birds I might be wrong as I didn't watch the program but I doubt it went in to the details of what happen to Jon and Robert pre-murder and with out that how can any one have an unbiased view or the faintest idea of what treatment they need. Some thing that has never been as widely reported as the horrible details. Correct me if im wrong.

Bristol - I've said my bit and I'm baling it now. But you do people who work in the criminal justice system (assuming that that's who you mean) a huge disservice if you describe them as living sheltered lives. Dealing day in day out with offenders and their victims (and witnessing the social chaos and dysfunction which often surrounds them) is the very opposite of a sheltered life.