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.

@Cronuts , you posted as I was writing my post. I am
Not going to google. So much crap from 'sources' such as The Sun and Daily Mail.

The justice system can only do what it does (and I think overall, it is a fair and balanced system). The variable with all rehabilitation programmes is always the individual and their free will. It's not one formula fixes all, as we are not all robots.

I am of the opinion that Venables should be locked up, and the key should be thrown away, but not when he was ten years old. They were right to attempt to rehabilitate. Now, from what I have read, he has had his chance, (several times, I believe?) and he keeps breaking the law, breaking his parole terms, pushing boundaries, before the sheer awfulness of the child abuse images.

I think he is wholly institutionalized and at least inside, he knows what he is getting. The outside world is a widely unpredictable place and there will be no guards there, bound by their jobs to protect him from anyone who wants to give him a taste of his own medicine.

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

Every system has it's flaws - and some offenders will always go on to re-offend regardless of how well they are rehabilitated because they have that kind of personality. I also think there were flaws to their licences - there should have been far more restrictions put in place originally, that would have curtailed his reoffending at the first point, and if they had put a condition in that any recall for serious offences would mean they served a longer sentence than for the offence alone, then it would also have improved the situation.

Venables was always going to be released eventually - they were never going to keep him in prison - and once his minimum tariff had passed it was only matter of time before he was released and they basically had to decide if he was a risk to public safety ... if at the point of release he was deemed not to be a risk (and at that point all the reports described him as posing a "trivial" risk to the public and unlikely to reoffend) then they cannot predict the future, thy can just try and put the support and supervision in place for him to prevent reoffending.

In this case it failed, but again he didn't re-offend for almost 10 years ... so they must have managed some rehabilitation or else he'd have been out of prison in June 2001 and back in by July, not 10 years later.

Rehabilitation can support and help offenders but it isn't a "cure" that guarantees no further re-offending ever.

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

I don't have blind faith, but I do have a degree in Criminology and Forensic Pathology which means I have a much more rounded view of the criminal justice system than you appear to have.

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.

Yup. 100% agree with this. I find it absolutely ridiculous that they keep letting him out, especially given what he did as a child, Yes a second chance should have been given but he has been given more than that and kees breaking the law. I do think the general public are in danger with this man outside.

Apparently this time he has been sentenced to 3 years for indecent images of children. 3 years is pitiful, he will be back out before that. Why are previous crimes not taken into account? And how on earth can paedophilic crimes have such pathetically short sentences?

I feel that it's more a self fulfilling prophecy. I find it really hard to just blame children.

YANBU

Literally cannot understand all these people coming out defending the murderers saying they should have been tried in a juvenile court, allowed to live their lives etc. What is wrong with you. Seriously.

Have any of you actually read what they did to that poor child? Have you?

Can you imagine what his mother goes through every single day of her life knowing the way he left this earth?

That is why people - including Jamie's parents - continue to feel justice hasn't been done. They are the ones serving a life sentence while the murderers have managed to go on and live their lives as they please.

I think he is wholly institutionalized and at least inside, he knows what he is getting.

Exactly - he went into custody as a 10 year old and left as a 19 year old and whilst support would have been put in place to help with resettlement and independent living, some offenders cannot cope outside of the institution because it is their biggest support structure and they don't know how to live without it.

I did some work experience with paroled offenders who had been released from long sentences (10+ years) back when I was doing my degree - a good decade ago now - and so many of them struggle because they genuinely didn't know how to live without the prison structure.

They spent 10 years with someone telling them where they could go and when to get up, when to eat, when to go to education, when to go to work placements, when to have free time, when to go to bed etc that once they are out and don't have someone to tell them what to do and when, they struggle to form their own routine, which often leads to reoffending just so they can return to the only life they know.

And in this case the offenders were children - they spent their teenage years in this institution. The time we teach our children to be independent young people and prepare them for life when they leave home by gradually increasing their freedoms and allowances, was a time when their days were a regimen of the same schedule day in, day out. Is it any wonder that sometimes teenagers who have spent more time in the criminal justice system than they have out of it (and for many of them, their time out of it will be in chaotic households that encourage reoffending behaviour) end up in a spiral of re-offending until they get to a point where they do something to earn them a significant sentence?

*Sugarcoma
*
Trying to objectively decide what should happen with two CHILDREN who committed an horrific crime is not "defending" them.

Jeez.

Two CHILDREN who premeditated and carried out the torture and murder a 2 year old. Let's not forget that bit, eh?

I agree with a PP, this isn’t about those 2 per sae, it’s about how we, as a society treat children who commit crimes.

Although children of 10 are deemed to have criminal responsibility the prosecution are supposed to illustrate on an individual that anyone under 14 can understand right from wrong. In the Bulger case this complex legal argument was expected to be pivotal to the process. In fact was accepted very quickly on the evidence of, if I recall correctly, a couple of teachers. Was that good enough? It was certainly challenged later.

Then there is the question of- did they really understand what was happening to them in an adult court? Could they follow the processs, get the defence the were entitled to etc? Arguably that would’ve been more appropriate in youth court which is designed to be understood by children.

Would their punishment/ outcome be any different? Probably not. But we as a society would’ve potentially shown a more mature, measured way of delivering justice.

And send him to prison for life for downloading child abuse images? Of course you can’t do that. Can you imagine the outrage in 30 years time when we realise a man has been imprisoned for what is a relatively minor crime? He’s served the time for committing murder and previous offences .
It’s not sensible as a society to keep punishing him because he’s an adhorrrent character. All you can do is punish the offence in front of you.

Why are previous crimes not taken into account?

He's got a sentence of 40 months. He's eligible for release after 20. However, he's already got a life sentence, meaning they don't actually have to release him. Last time this happened, he was kept for longer.

Theoretically, they could keep him in for life. I doubt they will though, unfortunately.

Yes, I think torturing and murdering a two year old can be counted as an "horrific crime". So, what is your point?

Other than waving a pitchfork and attempting to insult others who aren't quite so thoughtless, of course.

Thompson and Venables were 10 years old.

Tell me....do you allow any 10 year olds of your acquaintance to drink alchohol? Smoke? Drive a car? Consider leaving school to get a job? Go on a day trip to London alone? Babysit younger children?

No? Why not?

Literally cannot understand all these people coming out defending the murderers saying they should have been tried in a juvenile court, allowed to live their lives etc. What is wrong with you. Seriously.

There is nothing wrong with me. What is wrong is the mob mentality that comes out in some people who think that 10 year old children should be tried in the media and an adult trial and treated more severely than adult offenders who commit terrible crimes and should be condemned to spend the rest of their lives in prison (potentially 70, 80 years) without being given any kind of chance to prove they have been rehabilitated.

Did they commit a terrible crime? Yes, of course (and I have read exactly what they did to James, so yes I know the facts) and nobody is denying that fact or trying to excuse it or suggest they should not have been charged and tried for their crime.

Do they deserve to be treated more severely just because they were children? No they absolutely do not.

They were 10 years old and should have been treated like any other 10 year old offender. They should have been tried in a juvenile court with appropriate sentencing for juvenile crimes. They should not have been tried by adults in an adult court and subject to adult sentencing purely because of media and political pressure.

They should also be treated like any offender when they completed their custodial sentence - they have done the tariff the courts imposed, they have shown to the parole board that they do not pose a risk to the public and so it is not in the public interest to keep them incarcerated. They should then be given the opportunity to show that they are capable of being functional, productive members of society who have been rehabilitated and not re-offend.

Murderers and rapists are released from prison every day, so why should these children have been subject to more severe punishment than any of them?

@Sugarcoma,
I haven't seen a single post where anyone is defending them. What they did was unthinkable, unbearable and no one has forgotten or even lost sight of this.

The British justice system is built on rehabilitation. Everyone deserves a second chance. Etc etc. It is not based on 'an eye for an eye.' We are (apparently) civilized and do not support the death penalty.

I struggle to understand how anyone could deny a ten year the opportunity for rehabilitation, and insist that they are locked up for their entire life or have a sentence which is more than an adult who had committed the same
crime
would have received. Seriously! Something must be incredibly wrong for a child to have committed such a heinous crime. Rather than writing them off, as a society, we need to at least attempt to offer corrective treatment. Even if to allow more insight for future cases (as these horrific cases are thankfully so rare, there is hardly a good practice protocol).

Although children of 10 are deemed to have criminal responsibility the prosecution are supposed to illustrate on an individual that anyone under 14 can understand right from wrong.

Also there is a difference between understanding right from wrong and genuinely understanding the consequences of their actions.

The boys knew on a basic level what they did was wrong, but they didn't yet have the capability to understand the consequences or implications of their actions in the long term. Like many 10 year olds.

It's like when you give a small child consequences for bad behaviour - immediate consequences work best because they don't yet have the cognitive ability to understand that taking away the trip to the park tomorrow is the consequence of their bad behaviour today. Aged 10 the boys had developed the cognitive ability to know that their actions were wrong, but they didn't have the cognitive to understand that their actions would have serious consequences.

My DD is 9, she knows right behaviour and wrong behaviour, but she does not have the same cognitive reasoning as a 19 year old or a 29 year old. Yet these two 10 year old boys were tried in the same way as a 20 year old or 30 year old would have been tried, with no recognition given to that fact, purely because they were tried in adult court. If they had been tried in a juvenile court those factors would have been taken into account.

Absolutely Mel

Theoretically, they could keep him in for life. I doubt they will though, unfortunately.

I really really hope they do but already know they won't. I don't understand at all why they keep lettng people like him out. Same with that Worboys person. They are very very dangerous and its only a matter of time before they offend again. And the authorities must know this, but seemingly just,..don't care?

pickle I agree something must have been wrong for them to carry out such a crime, but isn’t that true of all criminals?
You scratch the surface of almost any violent criminal case and you’ll find a back story of abuse/addiction/neglect... but where does personal responsibility end and mitigation begin?
And as well as rehabilitation, people are also put in prison for the simple reason the rest of us need protecting and for some (some) it acts as a deterrent.

We have to decide what we want to do as a society.

You can have revenge, retribution, safety, a cheap system, a just system, a compassionate system, rehabilitation or pure democracy in punishment. But you cannot have them all at the same time. And you can't pick certain offenders for retribution while others get rehabilitation. That way is the mob. So choose.

I choose safety balanced with rehabilitation. It WILL fail sometimes. It's not perfect.

@mogulfield ,

Yes, quite. The whole
nature vs nurture is very interesting. As is the age, in this instance. Raises many questions...

Imagine your loving hubby and father of your children turning to you one day and admitting he was Thompson... that is a horrific thought.
I would like to think people can be rehabilitated but what those boys did and clearly thought was ok at just aged 10 is terrifying.

Your OP renders anyone else's perspective on this pointless. You're clearly not interested in a discussion, and are instead just waiting to jump down the throats of anyone who disagrees with you.

Ta-ta!

Around a child a week is murdered by their parent/s in the UK. Most barely get a mention in the press.

There are people released from prison every year after serving their sentence for murdering their own children. Very, very rarely mentioned in the press.

Serving a life licence but allowed to go about their lives in public without press intrusion or calls of 'evil' and 'should have been hanged'.

Why do we as a society hold children who murdered a child in more contempt than adults murdering their own children? The children they are supposed to have loved and protected?

Lol at 'cushy residential unit'. Yeah it's all birthday cake and karaoke parties. No trauma, abuse, violence, self-harm or suicide attempts.

Same with prison - it's all getting beefed up in the gym and playing cards with your mates. That's why so many people kill themselves in there, they don't want to ever go home.

Good post, melj

No justice was not done for their barbaric acts, no way enough time was served by them.