The Bulger killers: was justice done?

[WannaBeWonderWoman]

Following on from previous thread which was filled.

What would have been the correct way to deal with these little boys who subjected a tiny two year old to protracted agony and unimaginable suffering then?

Interested to know what all the bleeding hearts on here believe should have happened? Whether they attended an adult court and were convicted of murder which they confessed to anyway, was this crueller to them than what they put that child through? They were well treated and even when they were serving their 'sentence' they were protected and given all they wanted (more than they would have got if they'd been in their own homes probably) and had all the help and therapy it was possible to give them. Did they suffer? You could actually argue that they benefitted from killing. They have to live with what they've done, yes, but if they did I find it hard to comprehend that Thompson especially (who came across as the leader in the interviews) can.

The Norwegian case which is often compared to this is nowhere similar IMO. The perpetrators were a similar age to their victim. They were 6 which is almost half the age V&T were and they wouldn't have been tried here anyway. Most importantly that crime was not premeditated or drawn out for hours like the many horrors inflicted on James.

He was the only victim here.

Nightmare job for the parole/probation people btw. Not for the person living with the change (well, unless they are there through no fault of their own like Danielle Cable).

Also how could you ever prove he was doing it, without tracking him 24/7?

I once heard a man in court trying to issue a claim to have someone barred from using pay phones (no idea why!!). The clerk was trying to explain to him gently that it was a waste of his court fee because it was never going to work, but he was so insistent!

Couldnt watch all the documentary...found it too uncomfortable. But it would seem to me that Venables in particular has some form of mental health issue - anti social personality disorder? (chaotic early life...pattern and nature of offences etc..Which requires treatment and close supervision...as he has shown that he is going to reoffend...

*If children commit crime below the age of 10 they are deemed incapable of knowing right from wrong. In that case the parent(s) should be tried for the crime as they are responsible for the

Venables ... previously hiding a relationship with a woman with a young child from his probation officers for a number of months

Which reminds me of the report that a probation officer was actually present when Venables tried destroy a hard drive carrying images of child abuse

If he felt able to do this in their presence I have to wonder what else they'd witnessed and how much of it was reported, never mind dealt with

The terms of their licence require disclosure of identities to people they have a relationship with That's true.

However, Venables broke the licence several times: travelling into Merseyside, which should have resulted in a breach and immediate re imprisonment: he also had two 'known' relationships; one with a woman who had a 5 year old child; the other with a 17 year old, when he was 25. He did present himself as a woman with a child on a paedophile forum. These are serious breeches. The identities of the women were never sought and Venables was believed when he said he never met the child.

It's all so messy. Clearly Venables is struggling with living a 'normal' life.

Which reminds me of the report that a probation officer was actually present when Venables tried destroy a hard drive carrying images of child abuse

The probation officer, female, was indeed there at the time that this happened and the police arrived to see the meltdown Venables was having. It was Venables who phoned the police

I think the points about 'othering' these two and most horrific criminals in the world being a tactic for self preservation are very true.

Jamie's case is soul wounding but we are meant to be a civilised society that does not require someone's life in the name of punishment - however horrific.

No one can say that they or their loved ones are incapable of horrific acts. Circumstances and events are often beyond our control and these things shape us. A part of me wonders if people who seek to have retribution are more capable of murder and harm than those who recognise it's futility? That's not a woolly opinion, just a recognition of the pointlessness of baying. When that glee actor killed himself my first reaction was a shrug - no sadness there but I can't say I wouldn't have been sickened if he'd been killed by a vigilante or the state.

Imho the only people who should be feeling that way is Jamie's parents because their grief is primal and palpable. But they're not. They're calling for justice within the realms of what has already been laid down in non-emotional law. I really hope that Denise achieves it this time.

I am surprised that Venables isn't in a state of mind he could be sectioned indefinitely. He's clearly a danger and from media reports has recognised he has no control.

*If children commit crime below the age of 10 they are deemed incapable of knowing right from wrong. In that case the parent(s) should be tried for the crime as they are responsible for the

So if people don’t think they should have been in a youth court for a more lenient sentence, then what would be the purpose of it?
The crime was so serious I doubt a youth court would have been able to deal with it because Its unlikely they would have experience of such cases.

Well as for veneables, nothing has worked has it and the key should have been thrown away this time. He’s had fun and privledges many kids in wouldn’t have had, in a sentence served at a holiday youth camp. Then he’s came out and contributed further to the abuse of innocent children.
I would like to think because of the easy time they had after what they did to James and his family, that going to adult court was horrific for them. But given the crime they commited and the way they held it together afterward for a period, the little psychopaths probably weren’t phased by adult court Anyway. so I don’t know why so many people are concerned about them going through the trial at an adult court. Venerable has proven time and time again he’s capable of putting on a performance, and footing the so called professionals assessing him.

My heart could literally break when I think of James and some of the circumstances children are in allover the world.
But these two being tried at an adult court does not make me feel uncomfortable at all.
I’m only uncomfortable that in 3.5 years or less veneables will be back out again.

But these two being tried at an adult court does not make me feel uncomfortable at all.

It’s not about whether it makes you feel comfortable or not. It’s about the fact that if accused people don’t receive a fair trial (which is everyone’s right and the cornerstone of the criminal justice system) then it can lead to guilty people getting off the hook. Would people really rather risk that happening to child offenders than taking the time and effort to put together a legal process for dealing with them that’s fit for purpose?

Some people are so short sighted.

Oh here we go again with the 'holiday youth camps' attitude from people who I doubt have any experience of them whatsoever.

@ LadyinParis. I agree with you that too much emphasis / blame is directed towards parents and they are heavily scapegoated. Trauma / attachment issues/ chaotic early life has been shown to be a strong factor in the development of Anti social personality disorder (formally sociopathy/psychopathy) and personality disorders is general. It is certainly the case in the psychiatric unit I work in (reading through reports etc) as a kids personality is formed in early years. But it is one factor of many and actually being a parent is bloodly difficult.

Do you Harvey?

So if people don’t think they should have been in a youth court for a more lenient sentence, then what would be the purpose of it?
The crime was so serious I doubt a youth court would have been able to deal with it because Its unlikely they would have experience of such cases.

For me it's because that's where children should be tried. Either children should be dealt with in a youth setting (be that a specific place or just under specific rules such as no wigs etc) because they are children or they shouldn't and should all be treated in a normal adult court.

If you start diffrentiating between who deserves youth facilities and who doesn't then it is blind to the fact that they are innocent until proved guilty and that is a fundemental part of our justice system. Youth courts are used for a reason.

No-one would expect, or insist, on an adult murderer accused of a particularly heinous crime to have their trial dealt with differently to other accused murderers, this shouldn't have been different.

If it had all been dealt with properly perhaps there wouldn't be such a feeling of injustice about it all.

Whether right or wrong it appears that Veneables and Thompson's solicitor is saying Veneables lawyer is backing Jamie Bulgers fathers campaign.

metro.co.uk/2018/02/08/jon-venables-ex-lawyer-backs-calls-unmask-child-killer-7297388/?ito=social

That was muddled, but you get my drift...

Yes and of adult prisons. They're not holiday camps either.

I agree with the lawyer but the lynch mob mentality types need to look at themselves as to why it’s going to be unlikely his anonymity will be lifted.

I don't think Mary Bell is comparable tbh, she had a truly horrific childhood, neither of these boys did

That is very very untrue. Robert Thompson had a horrific childhood and one of his brothers voluntarily placed himself into local authority care. Venables was said to have been subjected to emotional abuse. Mary Bell killed two children and even taunted the parents of one of the murdered boys by asking to see him in his coffin, before the police caught her. Why no calls for her to be hanged?

The people who said that they would happily subject V and T to what they did to JB clearly don't have a problem with those acts then- the important part seems to be that the victim must 'deserve it'.

Late to the conversation. Apologise if this has been said as haven't RTFT

I was under the impression that Thompson was who they believed led Venables into murdering James. And Venables was just an easily led incredibly unfortunate child who actually felt remorse, genuine distress, cried real tears etc in his police interviews,

They said Thompson would pretend cry, lie unless he knew he'd been found out etc he sounded the more in control manipulating character with a really tragic homelife that wouldn't have set him up with massive empathy for James to begin with.

Thompson reportedly did well in secure accommodation, on release we only know he hasn't re-offended and has a relationship with a man who knows his real identity

Whereas Venables has had a far more chaotic time both in secure (staff member slept with him?) and on release... he told people his identity, drugs/alcohol... there's a part of me that wonders if it was actually him who was the "evil" child all along, or actually if he simply cannot cope with his actions that day that he's so determined to get himself hated/punished by others he's seeking out a crime that he feels will push people to do it to him?

Susan. I agree it is comparable although I think her upbringing was worse than Thompson's but on the flip side, I don't believe Venables or Thompson were described as showing classic signs of psychopathy by several psychiatrists as Bell was.

It was reported that Venables revealed one of his identities himself: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bulger-killer-reveals-his-identity-as-strain-proves-too-much-1917581.html

If this is correct, what happens if he does it again? Would yet another identity be provided at massive expense, and if it was, is there any kind of limit on this?