To ask your thoughts on Jon Venables joining a dating site?

[Sallystyle]

With his new name no one can do a google search on him and find his history.

He was found not long ago with images of child abuse.

Should he be able to get on with his life now he is out of prison? Of course he can just as easily meet someone in the pub.

I just had a debate with a family member about this so interested in your thoughts.

Link here

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/james-bulger-killer-jon-venables-5039227

It was not unanswerable. It's not impossible to remember case details as we are discussing a 22 year old case now and have also discussed Mary bell which was in the 60's.

I can't think of an offender I have dealt with where the experts said he was too dangerous for release.

If it's not difficult to find them on Google, then perhaps you could help? I've had a quick look but I don't have hours to look for the examples you are talking about.

Pine, forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like you've used a bit of dodgy wording in your statement which has possibly caused confusion between what you meant and what we've read?

You specifically refer to cases where offenders are released too early despite experts warning that they are a danger to the public, I would think this is quite unusual however I do agree that many offenders are released too early without support to help them stay on the straight and narrow.

I might just add in, I'm in now means an expert in criminal behaviour. Far from it. But I investigate serious crime for a living as some posters may recall.

Gah, no means!

No pinefruits. You kicked off the entirely false competitive empathy contest with the daft remark;

I also notice that the ones who seem to have empathy for the killers seem to be totally lacking in empathy for the Bulgers.

I'm not "trying to belittle you". I'm pointing out the problem with what you are posting and the rather unpleasant way you are slinging unjustified accusations at other posters (particularly Nick)

I think pine, you are struggling to differentiate between emoting and empathizing TBH.

momb if someone works in that field, ie offenders and re offenders it is not my fault if they are oblivious to what goes on. To ask for actual examples (names) of people who have been released too early back into the community is unless you have a photographic memory practically impossible. The only way to have done it would be to have kept a record or took cuttings from papers. The shortcomings of the justice system are well documented, I have actually seen a documentary purely about letting violent offenders being released too soon into the community(and before you ask, no I can't remember what it was called). I suggested to Nickynacky that she Google "examples of criminals reoffending", that should have been enough. i don't work with offenders and re offenders but I keep abreast of what goes on. What shocks me most is that she and possibly you don't think it is so.

No pine, you specifically stated that there were cases of released criminals reoffending after experts had warned against their release. That's what Nicknack is asking about, not the general issue of recidivism.

I think you're just spewing out words and not quite keeping track of what you're saying, tbh.

pine

Unless I am misunderstanding your posts about section 39 of the children and young persons act,you appear to be using it as justification for believing that some sort of standard justice expert view about the possitives of naming young offenders exists.

Would you mind clarifying what your understanding of that bit of legislation is how its used and the other section usually used automatically.

Right, which one is the point you are trying to make?

That people are released early from prison then reoffend? Totally agree and I can think of numerous examples within my own area. One of which was a sex offender who was so high risk that he had a chaperone 24/7.

Or that criminal behavioural experts have deemed them so dangerous however they have went on to offend again?

They are completely different issues and the latter I wouldn't think is common.

Hardly oblivious. Please don't imply that you are more aware of what goes on than I. Your comments alone on this thread show you don't.

And I'm sure I can also be forgiven for not knowing the ins and outs of all criminals in the country.

Only on mumsnet, where your words get deliberately misconstrued, your views get twisted, people nit pick over trivials, you get ridiculed and everyone loves to pile onto one person. The point scoring is unbelievable and so called experts think they know so much more than you. There really are a lot of bleeding hearts on here who put the criminals needs before the victim. If that's a typical cross section of the community I despair.
That's it I'm done, I'll leave you to quarrel amongst yourselves.

Nick your question to me was unreasonable, how could I possibly remember those names. Why was it necessary, all that was required was to google reoffending criminals

So why can't you google it? The fact that you are evading the question suggests that you are aware that there isn't in fact a basis for your statement that "in countless times criminal behavioural experts warn against them being released because they are still a danger to the public. They often then go on to murder". You must know perfectly well that you don't need to know names in order to google, you simply have to put in a few significant terms.

OP asked for our thoughts and I think that it has been interesting, at least I have found it so. If for no other reason than I raised the issue with my DH, whom I married only last year, to find out that we absolutely agree on this issue, although many people hold different views on the value of child court privacy and European Court Guidance.

Thank you to whoever posted the Independent article about he secure homes. I found that very interesting and an insight into why some decisions (such as release at 18 rather than placement in YOI) are made.

Only on mumsnet, where your words get deliberately misconstrued

That hasn't happened re: the offenders being released early.

You clearly stated countless times criminal behavioural experts warn against them being released because they are still a danger to the public.

People are simply asking what these specific cases are when EXPERT opinion has been ignored, not the run of the mill 'end of their sentence' type of re-offenders.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to link to just one of these "countless times" as I've tried Googling and I can't find any. Perhaps I'm using the wrong search criteria so it would be helpful if you could back up what you have said.

Thank you to whoever posted the Independent article about he secure homes

That was me, I'm glad that a few people have taken the time to read it as I found it very informative.

It does explain the 'day trips' etc. that the media makes out are some kind of reward for 'thugs' whipping the public into a frenzy of righteous indignation. I think some people are under the impression that secure children's facilities are like an episode of Tracy Beaker.

For those who missed the link:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-end-of-innocence-inside-britains-child-prisons-1874053.html

I'm sure it's already been mentioned on here and I've just missed it but
-Please can posters refrain from referring to James Bulger as Jamie. His family never referred to him as Jamie and his mother has stated publicly that it upsets her that people get his name wrong. The 'Jamie' label was handed out by the red tops and it stuck. So please can we respect his family's wishes and only use his given name of James.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11217680/Cannibal-murderer-Matthew-Williams-should-have-been-in-prison.html
Not sure how to do links but to all those who wanted an "example" of what I was talking about here's one as good as any. If that's not a case of someone who should never have been released I dont know what is. I remembered the case but couldn't remember his name as most wouldn't. If people want to carry on arguing after this, argue with yourselves. I know I said I was finished but I had to reply to some of the rather puzzling posts, that what I was talking about didn't happen. I really am shocked that some people aren't aware of what goes on.

I can't be bothered with reading much of what's been posted since this morning as it's just going over old ground.

But somebody asked what was the difference between him being on a dating site and meeting someone down the pub.

Somebody else has already mentioned high hit rates, access to women with children amongst others.

But other reasons I wanted to mention were:

Ability to hide any new relationship from the authorities. If a girlfriend is hidden from the rest of his social network, e.g. friends, family, workmates, neighbours then it's easier for it to be hidden from probation services who may need to protect/inform the women concerned.

It's easier for him to hide his identity (including the one he is supposed to be hiding under) which will make it harder for a woman to identify him as an offender and a potential danger, again because she will be cut off from the rest of his social network.

Meeting him online would also mean she was cut off from other warning signals like a lack of friends, other people in the local community who might have picked up that something was not right.

Also given the fact that he has assumed different personas in the past means he could well do it again and use it to trick his way into a woman's confidence. For example if he was to pose as a father ins responsible job like a teacher or nurse, which it is far, far easier to do online it may facilitate contact with children.

And to be honest, given his offending I would prefer if he wasn't online at all. Best way to ensure he's not accessing child porn.

pine Thanks for the link, I was aware of that horrible case. Although we could sit all night and post links of offenders who go on to commit murders, but it still isn't an example of what we were discussing earlier.

"Should never have been released"....I think that's debatable as he was in prison for some form of domestic assault so he can't reasonably be imprisoned forever to prevent him possibly killing someone. Although once there is an enquiry into the actions of all agencies then we don't know if it was preventable.

Oh please stop implying that you are the only one so knowledgable about offending. You aren't.

There's nothing in that linked article that says he was released against the advice of criminal behaviour experts.

Any re-offender is going to get a chorus of "never should have been released" from their subsequent victim or their family and friends.

Thats just the tip of the ice berg. Nick what on earth makes you think I'm an expert on criminals, you know more than me if you work with them. I've known a few in my time but that's about it. I've just given my opinions as everyone else has.

moan, but there is no way of ensuring someone doesn't go online ever. There are ways to track someone's activity online including, presumably, their ability to go on dating sites but you cannot dictate to people how they are able to meet a partner, and you cannot dictate to anyone that they can or cannot have a partner. If he is on the sex offenders register then future partners could find out about that, and similarly with his change of identity there would at some point be the need for a serious partner to know that he had a past, but this has to be managed very carefully.

And the terms of his licence would be different now than they were at the time of his release at eighteen because he has now committed a separate crime from his original one.

Anyone can lie about who they are anywhere. yes they can lie more on a website because it's a lot easier to embellish the truth, but only up to the point that you meet, at which point the risks are the same as if you'd met him in the pub.

With known offenders the risks are in fact less because the authorities will know who they are, and where they are. What people need to be aware of is the bigger picture that most people will not tell the whole truth on a dating site, it's just a matter of how much of the truth they don't tell, be that their age or their sexual perversions. Proceed with caution regardless of who you think someone might be would be the general consensus.....

Jeez, I never sad you were an expert. You keep saying that people are not aware of what is going on and implying you are the only one.

If I wasn't a professional I could give you some examples of offenders who have went on to commit crime, and yes some of those offences included murder. I don't need to google for it.

it is not uncommon for former victims to be placed under protection when their attackers are released. But that doesn't necessarily equate to the authorities considering them not safe for release.

In the case linked above he was serving a sentence for attacking a former girlfriend. they couldn't have predicted that he would go on to commit a horrific murder.

ultimately, people who commit violent crimes will at some point be released back into society. We may not agree with that but that is how the justice system works. And due to the nature of the crimes they have committed it has to be assumed that they are capable of offending again on the basis they have done so before. And as such violent offenders are placed under supervision with strict licencing conditions. sometimes they re-offend in the most horrific way imagineable, and then we ask the question why this was allowed to happen. But statistically, the more violent the offence the less likelyhood of re-offending.

Momb wow you won't let things go will you. So you want me to devote a few hours trawling the net looking for examples of what I've said, or do you think I should have a list of names in front of me.....Nick who works with criminals has never heard about any of these cases, so that means there can't be any right? Is it so hard to understand that you can read things in the newspapers and watch current affairs programmes to get the general gist of what goes on.... It is unreasonable to ask for examples because it's implying I'm lying and I have no reason to do that. I'm rather new to copying links, I'd just found another perfect example which I'm sure would have passed even your keen scrutiny but my iPad wouldn't let me do it. Don't worry, I shall keep trying.