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.

They should have been tried in a youth court. They carried out a horrific crime but strangely have faced a public that wants them punished more it seems because they were so young .
We read horrible reports of tortured and neglected children every day but these two and poor little Jamie have evoked so much more emotion and outcry because it’s so hard to imagine that other children would do this .
I don’t Place a huge amount of trust in youth prisons either , I’ve read and been told about lots of abuse and neglect taking place.

I don't understand if he was genuinely rehabilitated how he can go about living an everyday life?

So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't - go on to reoffend and he ends up back in prison and everyone feels justified in thinking he deserved it; don't reoffend and people think you should kill yourself for actions (terrible though they was) committed at 10 that you have served your sentence for and clearly have been successfully rehabilitated for.

You'd condemn a 10 year old to life in prison or suicide as the only two options? Do you feel the same for every offender? At what point shoudl offenders have to commit suicide if they are released at the end of their sentence? Only if you've murdered? What about manslaughter? Or GBH? Or rape? Where do you draw the line?

Do you understand what rehabilitation is?

The whole point of rehabilitation is to use therapy, training and support with the intention of helping someone to regain a "normal" life once their sentence is complete and they are returned to the outside world.

All sentences carry a minimum term that the defendant must serve before they are eligible for release, and during that term everyone within the system will be working with the knowledge that - with the exception of very few offenders - one day those offenders will be out of prison and therefore the system needs to do everything they can to ensure that the offender is not a risk to themselves or others when that happens.

In Venables' case he was clearly not rehabilitated, as he has gone on to reoffend, and therefore he needs to be returned to prison. However, Thompson has served his sentence and was released because the parole system decided that he was rehabilitated, he has come out of prison and never reoffended. In his case his rehabilitation worked and whilst he will have to live every day with the terrible knowledge of what he has done, he has shown he is not a risk to the public unlike Venables.

There were no winners here. A child’s personality and behaviour stems from their experience with parents and peers. Both Venebles and Thompson came from chaotic backgrounds.

It’s ironic when people say they love children, yet want all sorts of harm and punishment on children who have had an abusive upbringing.

The kids should have been tried as kids, given help and education. But, like I said your personality is shaped by your experiences and there was no coming back from their actions. They were always going to come out damaged. But we have to keep trying, for James sake, and for societies sake.

The other thing to understand is that whole life tariffs remove a very important management tool for prison staff. A person who cannot be paroled at all, or has a set, whole sentence incarceration, has nothing to lose inside. Very bad idea.

Keeping people inside for their whole sentence also means no time on the outside with stringent supervision.

People baying for blood don't actually know, or understand, rehabilitation or the practicalities of offending and sentencing. Much easier to lust for retribution than actually think about what works. Those of us who have worked with offenders, and in prisons, aren't listened to.

@Bourdic James' mother has said on numerous occasions that she didn't want them locked up for life but felt that justice would have been them spending time in an adult prison for part of their adult life. So before you accuse people of not knowing what they're talking about I suggest you get your facts straight.

There also been numerous reports from confirmed staff members from said residential unit about Thompsons life there. Again check your facts.

@melj I understand perfectly well what rehabilitation is. In the case of dragging a 2 year old 2 miles away from his mother, brutally torturing, abusing and eventually murdering him then no I don't think 8 years in a residential unit is an adequate length of time to actually rehabilitate and be sure that they are rehabilitated successfully. Venables kind of proves that point and yes either Thompson hasn't reoffended or just hasn't been caught yet who knows.

Being tried in an adult court was purely down to public and media pressure, I am in no way condoning what they did and it still knocks me sick but the perpetrators were minors themselves.

I agree - as someone in the programme said - would you be happy to be tried with a jury of 10 year olds? If not then why not? If it's because you don't think 10 year olds in general are mature enough to be part of that process, why were these particular 10 year olds deemed mature enough to be part of this process rather than being treated like other 10 year old offenders would be.

If 10 year olds are deemed old enough and competent enough to be tried as an adult, then 10 year olds should also be deemed old enough and competent enough to sit in judgement in an adult courtroom ... if you don't want 10 year old juries then you can't have 10 year old "adult" defendants tried in an adult court.

Do the public condemn them more because they were young, I am not sure they do.
They condemn their behaviour since release as adults, but I remember the news reports of the time , the adjustments made in the court room for their size, what little boys they were.
Those 2 boys were killers in the making, foetal alcohol/drugs is highly likely, reactive attachment disorder., dissociation, no nurturing force, self fulfilling prophecy of how they would be and an immature mind left to wonder unsupervised. Not every child with their backgrounds will do what they did but let's not kid ourselves they were born that way, they were made that way, and the people who made them like that wander free.

melj123

Well put.

@Cronuts ' check your facts'

Could you site your sources please?

(Genuine question, not snarky)

I can understand why people are totally horrified at what they did to James Bulger. What I can't get my head around is that many people think they should actually be punished more than an adult would be. There are plenty of adults who have done worse crimes and yet there is no furore around their sentencing and or rehabilitation. Why should a ten year old receive a harsher sentence than an adult for a similar crime?

@melj1213 , I concur.

Bowing out now. I think it's such an emotive subject that evokes strong opinions in each of us, that those of us with differing opinions on the legal process will never agree.

We can go around in circles all day but what difference will it make really. I've signed the petition that has been shared on behalf of James' mother as I do think there should be a review in light of evidence that the terms of license weren't followed correctly by the government.

Why would it be justice to spend part of their sentence in an adult prison - that’s punishment which isn’t the same as justice ar all. And I don’t believe there is any objective information about the secure units they were in or what everyday life there was like - the one Venables was in had at least one member of staff who behaved appallingly. We all hear about how cushy adult prisons are and then the inspectors go in and the reality is rats, cockroaches and overflowing toilets

Melj123 you have expanded on what I wanted to say perfectly. I don't think anyone is minimising the horrendous crime that took place. I remember the terrible unfolding of events, I was 19 at the time and being truly shocked. I also remember even at that age being more shocked by the headlines to me it smacked of spectres at the feast.The red tops lapped it up,sickenly so.

@pickle I don't have the links saved but James' mother has said in most of her interviews and her book that she didn't want them to have life scentences.

Google should help with the reports from social workers, chaperones and the legal teams about life in the residential centres including numerous classes, shopping trips and special treatment received.

Justice has not been done in Venables case, at all. After the original sentence, when he reoffended he should have been locked up for life. Meaning life, til he dies, in prison. Its clear he is not rehabilitated, he is a paedophile and will keep reoffending again and again so why keep letting him out and risking more people. Its just so wrong.

The other one appears to have kept out of trouble.

I have issues saying that kids (and they were kids) should be locked up for life for something they did when very young. Yes it was evil. But I do think at some stage they need a second chance. I know thats no good to the parents and family of the poor little boy they killed though.

@bourdic that's what James' mum said would be justice for her so I can't help you with that but as it's her son that was murdered I think she's well within her rights to give her opinion

As for the other stuff, believe it/don't believe it that's up to you of course. Just like there's no real facts about the terribly abusive childhoods, mainly hearsay but many are happy to believe that.

@Cronuts, you are right, it won't make any difference at all, was just hoping you would share your sources as, well, why wouldn't you share this information with others who might not have read it?

It is an exceptionally emotive subject, and has been for the last 25 years. I have a nine year old and a child who was exactly James age. I don't think I am alone in saying I have lost sleep over this....

The person who I think suffers the most whenever the case is revisited is his poor mum. I am
genuinely amazed that she has found the strength to continue over the last 25 years. I feel so awful for her and at the same time am in awe of her composure. If I ever met her, I would just want to give her the biggest hug I have ever given anyone. I can't imagine.

no I don't think 8 years in a residential unit is an adequate length of time to actually rehabilitate and be sure that they are rehabilitated successfully.

So you don't think that spending half their lives (at the point they were released) being rehabilitated is long enough?

They went into custody a week after the murder in February 1993 and were released in June 2001 so just over 8 years in custody.

They were 10 and a half when they committed the crime, so by the time they were released they had spent 10.5 years prior to their crime living in chaotic households and only 2.5 years less in prison where they were rehabilitated.

I think that the experts in Youth Offending, Probation, Offender management etc who spent those 8 years working with the two children have a better platform to assess whether or not they were rehabilitated by the time the end of their minimum tariff was reached.

Nobody can ever be 100% sure that an offender is rehabilitated, whether they're 10 or 100, until they are released and allowed to exist in a society outside of the institution they have spent their sentence in.

To me the fact that Venables has reoffends multiple times shows he has not and will not change I can not understand how given the nature of his first crime he is not locked up for life after his following crimes. He is not rehabilitated and clearly can't be. He has had too many chances to change now he deserves prison for life no parole ever.

@pickle as I said I don't have the links saved from articles I've read over the years but I'm sure you'll find Denise Bulgers book on amazon and she's filmed a documentary with Trevor McDonald which is on tomorrow night I believe. I expect she will talk about justice there.

I'm sure 5 minutes on google will find you some of the other reports/articles from the chaperone etc.

Yes I can't imagine how it is for his mum, especially when one keeps reoffending, I don't suppose she'll ever know peace again.

I think that the experts in Youth Offending, Probation, Offender management etc who spent those 8 years working with the two children have a better platform to assess whether or not they were rehabilitated by the time the end of their minimum tariff was reached

Yes, they did such a good job of assessing Venables that he's gone on to reoffend twice.

Must be nice to have such blind faith in the justice system.

I think that prison doesn't always mean rehabilitation.

I'm very wary of children being tried as adults.

I read the whole case history of this crime. I wish I hadn't.

DOes We all have different views on this but one thing we all agree on is it's an horrific, sickening crime. If he's suddenly a good person how can he live knowing that he actually did it?

This comes across to me as basically..if he was rehabilitiated he would kill himself because of what he did and because he has not, thats a bad thing and proves he is not rehabilitated? Is this how you meant it? Because thats how it reads, to me anyway.

Like, the only way you would believe he was rehabilitiated was if he was dead.

Looking at their school photos I think they look evil.
This from the last post on the first thread just made my blood boil, what a fucking idiotic thing to say.