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.

I never heard about that case either, ZanyMobster. I think that's because there was a police hunt for James Bulger, and the papers picked up on it. We were all waiting for news along with James's parents.

But quite clearly there is no easy answer for the judicial system as to how to deal with the cases of child killers.

I have never heard of the Jamie Campbell murder either. That’s just awful. Very comparable to the James Bulger circumstances.

If JV had not been on life licence it is possible he would not have been imprisoned at all for being in possession of images of child sexual abuse. If anything, his imprisonment on two occasions demonstrates that despite what people think from a distressed and emotional place - his life licence is being appropriately implemented.

Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the NPCC lead for child protection and investigation called last year for non-contact child sex offenders downloading images of child abuse to not be criminally charged but dealt with in different ways including being put on the sex offenders register.

Not because society doesn't care. But because it is so common.

We are arresting 400 people (majority men) per month for being in possession of images of child sexual abuse. They are the tip of the iceberg as just the ones that have been reported and/or caught.

It is endemic. Far too common. Fathers, brothers, husbands, siblings, friends and colleagues whether we like to think it or not. The criminal justice system is overwhelmed by investigating these crimes, particularly as it requires specialist forensic examination of technical devices.

Many of these offenders are classed as low risk of contact offences hence the call for not dealing with them through the criminal justice route which requires numerous resources.

JV is imprisoned as was on life licence. Those who think he should be incarcerated for the rest of his life need to understand the system, how things are viewed and the capacity for the prison system.

He committed a hideous crime at 10 and has committed further offences to breach his life licence but they are not contact offences. Over 25 years.

I agree his release into the community should be carefully considered but I doubt very much that he will be considered high risk enough to spend the rest of his life in prison. I just don't see it. Do I agree? I don't know but I know enough about the system to think those who want him to live the rest of his life in prison are unlikely to see that happen.

I know someone who spent 4 days in Police cells last week as they were being recalled to prison for breach conditions of a suspended sentence. They were in Police cells for so long because no prison place could be identified and they were waiting for Monday for people to be released to make room. Literally NO prison spaces.

There are not enough prisons. Low risk offenders are being released even before serving half of their sentence in custody as is usually the case.

The idea that JV aged 35 will spend the rest of his life in prison is just not likely to happen I'm afraid.

Is there actually a direct quote from a Scottish politician saying that? It sounds like a remarkably stupid thing to say.

The place Jamie Campbell was murdered, Bluebell Woods, was the same place two 17 year olds had murdered the younger sister of one of them just a few years before.

Plus William Bell was 14 when he murdered his 3yo sister. He was on the run from one of the secure schools. There was also a toddler killed by her babysitter shortly before that. Scotland has more than it's fair share of children killing children.

Also, I know it's not much more, but Richard Keith served 9 years in Kerelaw for murdering Jamie Campbell. I do remember the fuss when he was released as he was old (20) to still be in the school. Also he'd been spending time with people in the town near the school who had no idea.

I don't understand the lack of discussion about this case either, especially when you consider he attacked another child just a few weeks before, and he was cleared of murder and convicted of culpable homicide.

I had completely forgotten about the Jamie Campbell case, but reading about it there I did remember it. I lived only a few miles from where it happened. I certainly don’t recall it being discussed around the time of JB though

Lack of discussion was probably to do with it not being newsworthy enough.
Maybe they didn't want to highlight other cases to distract from the horror of this one - and not sell papers.
At the end of the day a lot of this case is to do with the press and their profits.

I remember this case very well though

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/619361.stm

I wonder if it's because none of these ones mentioned had been released at the time of James Bulger's murder. Mary Bell was mentioned a lot, but she was released. I wonder if there was just more information about her available.

So in 2010 Venables called the police or his probation officer because of fear of attack? That lead to his arrest due to child porn,
Yet he outed himself to workmates..I guess he let it slip then realised what he did.
Another point about the baying mob outside the court. People were angry about little James death. And shocked. But I bet in the cold light of day they wouldn’t really have lynched a ten year old. Angry emotions do lead to severe reactions. I’m sure most of them were normal law abiding people normally.

Absolutely this case was driven by the media and the government at the time who used it for their political agenda.

A few years later in my city a 12 year old murdered his 6 month old brother by stabbing including cutting off the hand of the baby.

Aged 21 he went AWOL from a secure unit and raped a 14 year old at knifepoint. Minimally reported in the press. No one who wasn't immediately involved in the case remembers.

Absolutely this case was driven by the media

That woud also explain the mentioning of Mary Bell without any mention of any of the other male killers as well. The media is always fascinated by female killers.

The Norway case is relevant - of course the details are different, I mean so what if the children were of a different age?!? The relevant issue is that the community didn't explode in hate and outrage at the children responsible, they asked themselves where they all went wrong as a culture. THAT'S the important bit that for some reason readers seem to be sidestepping

Some people have asked what the point in the programme was. Well I’m guessing Denise wants her son to be remembered and wanted to share her story again. That’s absolutely fine with me. No one was forced to watch it, there are hundreds of other tv channels. As indeed this thread, no one has to read it.
I think Denise came across very rational and Sir Trevor presented it well showing compassion to the family.

Harvey - the judge has actually said in his sentencing remarks that the pre-sentence statement made by someone who knows JV well considers he is high risk, I will try to find the paragraph

'The Pre-Sentence Report was prepared by someone who has had significant dealings
with you. Its author concludes that you present a high risk of serious harm to
children. It is agreed that the threshold for an extended sentence is met but
submitted on both sides that the question is academic since the extended period of
licence would add nothing to the powers which the Parole Board already has and will
have for the rest of your life because of the life sentence.'

Further down the statement (I won't copy as it's unpleasant) the judge does comment that the possession of the manual implies intent to carry out contact offences.

Last nights programme tugged at my heart strings. Firstly when Denise said she normally put James in a buggy but didn’t have it with her that particular afternoon.
Secondly the way she sets a place for James at the table as well as other little things. Who couldn’t be upset by all that??

Zany. They're saying it's academic as he will always be subject to a life licence so there is no more sentence to be imposed.

That doesn't mean a life sentence in custody.

Can everyone think back to when they were 10? Were you all capable of making the correct informed decisions? Would you have made the same decisions 5 years later?
I think what happened to Jamie was horrific but don't believe that the children that committed the crime were treated correctly. There was never going to be a satisfactory outcome but institutionalising children will not improve things. I can only think that a child of 10 must have had some awful outside influences to be able to carry out such a heinous attack

Sorry yes Harvey, i probably didn't explain what I meant. I was just saying they could continue his life sentence if they wanted to, regardless or not that the crimes are related and the judge has said he is a high risk. I fully expect he will not stay in prison beyond the 20 months let alone the 40

Chocolate50 I think the fact that James' killers were 4 years older than the Norwegian kids is very relevant to how they were dealt with which is what this thread is about! The difference in brain development between 6 and 10 is pretty big! Those 3 boys also never planned to abduct a much younger child with the sole aim of killing them as was reported that T&V tried to lead away a toddler they planned to push under a bus before they abducted James.

It also seems that the mother of Silje feels differently about those boys now. I wonder how much pressure the family were under to accept the way it was dealt with especially as they were neighbours. Silje's father even ended up with one of them sat on his lap shortly after the murder before he knew he was involved!

This type of case is so rare, I don't think it is necessary to question the culture in society that may have contributed to them committing it other than SS obviously not doing their job if there was abuse in Thompson's home as they were already involved with them, the parents being piss poor and knowing and allowing them to get away with truanting, similarly their school. Nothing I need to look at myself for there thanks .

It's always the same - we all need to look at ourselves. No, individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions! T&V were old enough to understand logically that by making James bleed and scream and cry they were hurting him in even the most simplistic childish terms.

When I think of myself at 10 loubey coming from a dysfunctional and very abusive family myself, I can honestly say that I would make the correct decision if I ever had the thought to kidnap and murder a toddler. I wouldn't have needed to be 'informed'.

Wannabe

The minimum age of criminal responsibility is 15. On the C4 programme, one of the Norwegians who was interviewed did say that it made no difference whether the boys who had killed had been 6 (nearly 7) or 10. The circus that took place in the UK after the murder would never have happened in Norway. I believe them.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility In Norway is 15.

Sorry yes Harvey, i probably didn't explain what I meant. I was just saying they could continue his life sentence if they wanted to, regardless or not that the crimes are related and the judge has said he is a high risk. I fully expect he will not stay in prison beyond the 20 months let alone the 40 sad

I actually think he'll be in prison for a lot longer than that, at least the 40 months he has been sentenced to, and beyond that as well. I think the manual shows intent, and they will take this seriously. IMO.

even able to indulge in sex with the staff as teenagers

You mean, be sexually abused by adults in a position of authority?

They were ten when they committed that crime. Commit it they did but they should NEVER have been tried as adults. It was a kangaroo court brought about by the baying of the enraged public. Ten year old children are capable of heinous crimes. We don't get to say they are adults.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/206851

Sign this petition for James