yes but let's look at why they have new identities. Because the judge saw fit to name them so as to satisfy the baying mob. As such they were always identifyable. If they had not been named, as is the case with all under 16's even now, they would have been released under licence and got on with their lives, possibly re-offended yes, but there wouldn't have needed to be a new identity, a new witch hunt every time someone thought they'd spotted them and went to the press.
Venables should be judged based on the crimes he committed as an adult. Anyone who thinks that ten year old children should be locked up for the rest of their lives is twisted. Regardless of what they had done (and no-one is disputing that what they did was horrific).
But at ten they:
Were too young to drive
too young to drink
too young to vote
too young to consent to sex (on the basis they were not mature enough)
too young to possibly even walk to school alone in some cases.
Too young to legally watch certain films or buy certain games.
And yet they were old enough to be tried as adults for the crime they committed and for people to consider they should have been locked up for ever. How does that work then? It should not just be the nature of the crime which determines whether you're too young to be responsible. Again, the reason they were tried as adults wasn't because they were responsible in the way an adult is, it was to satisfy the outraged public.
The age of criminal responsibility was actually lowered to make a special example of them.
Responsibility for the crimes committed as a child does not sit in the same league as those committed as an adult.
Venables is responsible for the crimes he has committed as an adult. He is of course responsible for the crimes he committed as a child, but an adult should have been responsible for him before it came to that. You don't tell me a ten year old wakes up one morening and decides to murder a toddler and before that he was a normal happy healthy child. Somewhere someone must have noticed that something was very, very wrong with this child, and yet no-one looked out for either of them.
I read that Thompson's elder brother attempted suicide in order to be taken into care.
You simply cannot judge children on the same level as adults. if so then what is the point of having age orf responsibility for e.g. driving drinking, sexual relationships? If you're old enough to be tried for murder then surely you're old enough to drive a car? no thought not.