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 have always avoided reading the full details of James' suffering because I know I will apply it in my mind to my grandsons who live with me. Such a beautiful, trusting young boy. The images of him being led away holding the hands of his killers will remain with me and so many people.

I believe that Youth Court would have ensured they received a lesser sentence and this would have caused a public outcry. My comment is not about the rights and wrongs. I think there was an element of trying to appease public opinion because no such crime had affected the country so much since the Moors Murders.

I noticed yesterday that in the case of the man who has recently been tried for terrorism offences (the intention to slaughter at an lgbt meeting in a pub) the Judge is considering an alternative sentence. He is considering a secure unit sentence which he believes may offer the public more protection than the jailing of a man just outside the Youth Court jurisdiction who has Asperger's syndrome. Would this not be better for Venables rather than the revolving door of prison? Maybe the Judge here will be criticised for being "soft" but he is at least looking at the wider picture.

I believe that Ralph Bulger and Denise Fergus are also victims. Denise is on TV tonight and her grief is still so raw. God forbid that anyone of us ever walk in her shoes. Ralph, I understand, has launched legal action to have anonymity removed from Jon Venables.

I have no answers here only sad observations.

Would the youth court have given a shorter sentance? I can't see any circumstances where they would have been let out before they were 18

I don't think we should take the route that some american states took and hand down while life terms to children (and even in the USA these are now subject to mandatory review), but I do think that as a country England is too soft.

By the time a convicted child killer has been found with images of child sexual abuse twice, there needs to be a mechanism by which that person is kept in prison for far longer than they otherwise would otherwise have been held. some people just cannot be corrected!

what would you have done had it been your 10 year old which was the perpetrator? Would you have supported them through the trial and visisted them whilst in detention?

I have a 9 year old DD and I would be devastated if she did something so horrific and in shock that she could have been capable of such actions - especially without any prior "build up" behaviour. But regardless of what she did, she is still my child and whilst I might not like her for what she did, she is still my child and I could not just abandon her to the criminal justice system and wash my hands of her. She is still a child, my child, and I could not just walk away because what kind of parent would that make me?

One of the most chilling things in the interview tapes was shortly after confessing to the murder Venables said (unprompted) “What about his mum, will you tell her I’m sorry?” If that doesn’t prove that he knew what he did was wrong I don’t know what does.

There is a difference between knowing what you have done is wrong and having the cognitive maturity to understand the consequences. If anything that is an indicator that supports that - he knew what he did was wrong and had the ability to understand that "doing something wrong = apologise" but didn't have the cognitive development to understand that in this situation, because of the magnitude of the actions, that wasn't enough.

I did a whole post earlier about the difference between understanding right from wrong and having the cognitive understanding of the full consequences of actions and I won't repeat it all here, but there is a difference.

I posted on the other thread. No justice was not done. IMO they should have been imprisoned for life, yes, even at 10.

Why though? You would condemn a 10 year old to potentially 80 years in prison without giving them any chance to rehabilitate when other offenders are not held to this same standard?

In this country even "life sentences" don't mean offenders will spend the rest of their lives in prison - they will have a minimum custodial sentence and after that, if they can prove to the Parole board that they are rehabilitated and no longer pose a threat to society, then they will be released on licence for the rest of their lives. This is exactly what happened to these boys, the only difference is that their custodial tariff was 8 years when the average offender on a life sentence will serve about 15 years in prison.

We do have "whole life orders" where an offender is sent to prison with no chance of parole but a very specific set of parameters must be met for this sentence to be handed down, and of the approximately 5,500 people currently in prison on a murder charge, only about 60 of those are there on a whole life order. Even adult offenders who have committed heinous crimes like Ian Huntley don't get a whole life order. In Huntley's case he was given a life sentence with a 40 year minimum custodial tariff which means he will remain imprisoned for most of his natural life but could still end with him being released aged 68 if he is still alive and is granted parole as soon as his minimum tariff expires.

They knew the consequences. They didn’t think he was going to magically spring back to life did they?

Why?? Because I don’t think they should have he opportunity to walk the streets. Their right to freedom and to have a life ended when they took a 2 year olds life in the most fucking horrific way. Rehabilitate? No, I don’t think they deserve that at all.

I know I am going to get positively slaughtered for this, but regardless. Venables is still commiting crimes, this is true. But he was imprisoned for murder. He has not committed another murder, or another violent crime. He has not, as far as we know (and I think we would) applied his paedophilic tendencies to a child. His crimes since being released for murder are relatively minor. Why does that indicate a danger to the public that requires him to be imprisoned for the rest of his life?

Is it really not acceptable to people to trust the police, courts and probation service to make this decision on our behalf?

Sleeping Do you believe everyone convicted of murder (as opposed to manslaughter) should be sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of being let out, no matter what the age of the murderer, no matter what the age of the victim? Or just children who kill other children?

@Sleepingbunnies so you believe that every person convicted of murder should serve a whole life tariff? Without any chance of rehabilitation or redemption?

Well I actually support the death penalty in certain circumstances but failing that yes a whole life tariff. Why should a murderer get to live whatever is left of their life when their victim(s) don’t have that luxury?

Is it really not acceptable to people to trust the police, courts and probation service to make this decision on our behalf?

Short of vigilante (in)justice we don't have a choice about them making the decision for us, but trust them to get it right? No, my days of trusting the justice system to make the right decisions died a long time ago.

Sleeping What circumstances would they be then?

He has not, as far as we know (and I think we would) applied his paedophilic tendencies to a child.

Oh well that's ok then.

He has committed a horrific murder and has been caught with severe paedophilic pictures and books.

Why some seem to be doing mental gymnastics to excuse his behaviour, I think is quite strange.

Is it really not acceptable to people to trust the police, courts and probation service to make this decision on our behalf?

It should be, shouldn't it? Just like we should trust elected representatives to make difficult and complex decisions on behalf of the country instead of having referendums.

Unfortunately 'people' as in the general public are on average, pretty stupid. The average IQ is c.100... that is pretty low! And only 2% of the UK population believe themselves to below average intelligence. Pretty funny really.

Can you explain how my post excuses his behaviour?

Do you think the sentence for men who download pictures of child abuse should be the same as men who rape children?

I posted on the other thread. No justice was not done. IMO they should have been imprisoned for life, yes, even at 10.

I think only 70 prisoners have been given whole of life tariffs.

I disagree with a whole of life tariff for children. Had they been adults, they would have got an 18 year tariff (sentencing judge). It was scaled down because of their extreme youth

I agree fluffy. This subject isn’t half bringing out those stupids too

In this case for example yes I believe that they should have faced the death penalty.

Ian Huntley, Ian Brady, Myra Huntley, (To name but a few) imo Warrant the death penalty.

I am so glad the police, courts and probation service make these decisions and not the public

If anyone wants to see a haunting thread about the attempted rehabilitation of a child killer, see the film drama Boy A

(www.imdb.com/title/tt1078188/)

In this case for example yes I believe that they should have faced the death penalty.

You think 2 children, and no matter how horrific their actions they were children, ought to have faced the death penalty? I thought I was pretty harsh, clearly not!

I don't agree withthe death penalty anyway, but children? Words fail me.

There is an excoriating (if I'm using the right word!) report by UNICEF on the publicity surrounding the trial of Thompson and Venables

I found this link a very thought provoking piece. I now have my own theory on what happened but will not share it here.

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/secret-life-of-a-child-killer/news-story/0efedcdd6e977053e4e3b5074f266beb

Two things though.

The boys should not have been tried in an adult court and their names should not have been released after sentence was passed.