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.

Some of you might find this article about Robert Thompson interesting:

It includes this account: 'A social worker who spent eight years observing his behaviour on a daily basis has come forward to reveal how Thompson’s life unfolded during his time in detention.'

I have no idea about the veracity of it. I'm just posting it in case anyone is interested in reading it.

theukdatabase.com/2012/04/03/profile-of-a-child-killer-robert-thompson/

'I honestly think James's family and wider society would be better served by them remaining anonymous.' Grumble do you really think James' parents shouldn't have known who murdered their son? I've heard it all now.

Let's face it the unbearable pain Denise and Ralph have suffered may have been mitigated in even a very small way by knowing James' killers were locked up for life which was the very least they deserved. No further chance of re-offending, no media furore detailing it, because in a civilised society the victim and their family would have been put before the right of liberty of their murderers.

I can't understand the hand wringing about what court they were tried in at all. They were the legal age to be tried as they were. It baffles me. There is no evidence of coercion, no torture or abuse has ever been alluded to in while they were in custody. Would the wigs have really been all that scary to boys who had already seen the most horrific sight already? I don't see that the sentencing could have been any less in a youth court?

Should they have wrote a note to Denise and Ralph saying they were sorry and skipped back into school after some counselling?

The disrespect to James' family in even questioning this is disgusting.

At the end of the day as long as they were treated humanely why would anyone give a shit about these kids/men after what they did? Kids die in accidents, through poverty, through murder, every day all round the world, why give a shit about two of the most savage children the world has ever seen?

The reason there is such heightened anger around this case by complete strangers even after 25 years, is because of what we know James endured. It far outweighed any crime we have known in this country in living memory in it's barbarity. We wouldn't be human if we didn't feel strongly about it.

All those that keep mentioning Mary Bell and her living a normal life, with children and grandchildren of her own, as if she's some poster child for 'rehabilitation', it is outrageous she even had the chance. How she could have and keep her own children after killing two toddlers shows just how fucked up our justice system is. I only think about Martin Brown (aged 4) and Brian Howe (aged 3) and how they'd still be alive today. They were much more important than their murderer.

Talking of Mary Bell, she was paid £50k to take part in Sereny's book. She was able to put down a deposit on a house. This woman who was haunted by remorse never thought to donate the money to charity I guess.

Nice little earner from strangling to death and mutilating two toddlers eh Queen. I don't even know how she could look her own child, let alone a grandchild, in the face if she had felt any remorse.

WoW just WoW not even the USA state of Texas would execute children and they are 2nd highest death penalty state in the world ranked only behind China (population of 2 billion) compared to Texas 40 million....

Even China does not execute children the only places that do are states we would not really want to take lessons from aka Rwanda Afghanistan under the Taliban we are a far more civilized nation then to have state sanctioned murder of children...... It makes me sick to think a sizeable portion of my nation want to kill children not matter there crimes.

Actually, OP, what is disgusting is you using this distressing case to try and polish your own halo. You are not making any effort to address a single point that anyone's made....you just keep regurgitating the same strawman rubbish. Either you have reading comprehension issues or another agenda entirely. Shame on you.

I believe the law needs to be changed. Their parents should have stood in the dock too.

I really am not deliberately misunderstanding you, Cronut, I just don't understand what you feel the alternative should be to be unable to live with something if it is not suicide. And for some reason you won't say.

fontella agree 100%. How people have shits to give about how they are treated is beyond my thinking. I couldn’t have cared less if they were beaten every day of that 8 measley years they served.

Following Cronut's admittedly bizarre logic: real rehabilitation for Jon Thompson means you shouldn't be able to live with yourself after.

All based on what she imagines she would feel if she was in the same position. i.e a child murderer, etc. Which she apparently isn't. So what she knows about the workings of such people's minds is a mystery,

My guess is the reason she won't say is because she sees the implications of her frankly barmy "reasoning" and just won't own up to wanting Jon Venables to top himself as some sort of affirmation of his contrition.

Our judicial system is set up to provide both and as James' mother said, they were not punished

The last time I looked, to be in prison is punishment.

It's not that I won't say it @gnu, I don't expect everybody including Thompson to live by my moral code. I would have commuted suicide at the first opportunity I got, that doesn't mean I expect or encourage him to do the same.

I don't know what you think I'm trying to hide, I've made my view clear that I don't think justice was done. That's not to say I think they should have brought back the death penalty or they should have been locked up for their whole lives. There is a middle ground believe it or not

As I said on the last thread, it's easy to believe in rehabilitation vs punishment when your children are safely asleep in bed.

The othering on both threads is quite worrying. People are looking for reasons and answers where sometimes there is none. It can't always be explained by upbringing or outside influences why people do terrible things.

People would rather peddle the myth that both boys experienced extremely abusive childhoods than accept some people are born with an ability to carry out the most deplorable acts.

Cronut the whole point of rehabilitation is learning to live with your crime. You have no experience of any of this, so your musings on whether a 'normal person' would be 'able to live with the guilt' are irrelevant.

@echt see my last post. I didn't say I understood the workings of such people's minds, quite the opposite actually!

They also never went to prison, maybe you should get your facts straight before putting other people down.

@susan I'm entitled to muse, this is a discussion forum is it not?

Sleepingbunnies so you do or you don’t advocate the physical abuse of kids then? Because on the one hand you’re full of sadness about what happened to one small child but on the other would have been happy to see two other small children beaten?

I wouldn’t give a shit if he commited suicide. One less peadophile in the world is fine by me.

For children that chose to do what they did fell, no I don’t care what happens to them.

People would rather peddle the myth that both boys experienced extremely abusive childhoods than accept some people are born with an ability to carry out the most deplorable acts.

Thompson did experience an abusive childhood. There was a huge amount of violence within the family and his father, a habitual criminal, went to jail when T was very young, for a serious offence. When he got out, he left the family and his mum turned to alcoholism, leaving the children to fend for themselves. At the end of the day, that sort of thing fucks kids up. Not all of them go on to kill, but a large proportion of the prison population in this country grew up in the care system, so it certainly makes it much more likely that they will engage in anti-social behaviour.

Denise made a point about Venables and new identity. The fact he went into Liverpool clubs and went to watch Everton. She said her family members went to the same places, it would be possible that they could meet. She had a fair point. He was banned from entering Merseyside as a license condition.

Jeez wondereomam I am not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or really are this stupid.

Anonymity of killers or criminals in the public eye doesn’t mean that the parents (or other parties involved in the case) don’t know who they are. It means their identities aren’t published in the press.

As for the comments about the trial. Ultimately it doesn’t matter 2 shiny shites whether you think it was OK or not. At the end of the day the European court of human rights, the body charged with ultimately upholding the rights of all citizens, said that it wasn’t. Whether you think they were right or wrong, this is their area of legal expertise and this is what they decided.

It’s all too easy to be over invested and engage in competitive outrage about the case (“I think they should have been locked up forever!” “Well I think they should have been executed!” “I’d have killed them if they’d done this to my child!” etc) but rather than spouting a lot of bilge about something that happened 25 years ago I think it’s more important to;
Appropriately deal with Venables now, including consideration being given to revoking his life licence;
Ensure Thompson is kept close tabs on;
Learn lessons from the case to try and ensure (a) that it doesn’t happen again and (b) if it does, that accused people are dealt with in a fair way that would minimise the risk of both Innocent people being convicted and guilty people being let off the hook.

@susan I'm entitled to muse, this is a discussion forum is it not?

I never said you weren't. I don't think a failure to commit suicide suggests anything about whether a person is rehabilitated. You can feel remorse without topping yourself. In fact, suicide is surely the easy way out. True penance would be living with it every day. I don't think Fred West or Harold Shipman are morally superior because they killed themselves.

The issue with how they were treated in the court process is because it has to be strictly fair, all rules followed every time.

What people accused, which is what they were when they walked into that court, face trial they should do so in a way that's appropriate and correct. Every single time. With no exceptions because the crime is heinous or because it's coming up to a general election or whatever.

When you start excusing things that shouldn't have been done because they were found guilty then you end up on a slippery slope.

What if they hadn't been found guilty? What if they'd been found innocent? Or found as having diminished responsibility? Then putting two ten-year-olds in an adult dock and not making it clear and understandable to them seems less appropriate.

I guess it's not specifically Thompson and Venables that should have been treated more appropriately at that time, but BoyA and BoyB as they were at that point.

As for what happened after sentencing, id be curious to know if there was a decision to send venables to a place Mary Bell had been. They took lessons from the Bell case and it would be interesting to know how many - perhaps a case of 'well it worked then' rather than it being tailored around his/their specific issues.

Yes Thompson did @susan which has been widely documented. Venables on the other hand had a pretty standard childhood by all accounts but that was glossed over by many posters on the last thread who stated he had an abuse childhood with hints toward incest.

I think they should have remained locked up for their whole lives to be honest. Venables especially has proven time and time again as an adult now that he cannot be trusted around people, especially children. He does not care, he likes it. Always will. He should remain in prison indefinitely.

Dunno why but I always thought venables was the leader. I know everyone thinks it's Thompson, but venables seemed the crueler of the two, especially since he is still committing crimes. Can't remember having seen Thompson rearrested for similar crimes, although I think he once revealed his identity to someone? Doubt anyone will ever know who was the ringleader, but it was always a feeling for me that it wasn't Thompson however it may have appeared.