Jon Venables jailed for 2 years

[Ewe]

2 years? It just doesn't seem long enough to me.

I find my usual liberal attitude really challenged by this situation. Downloading and distributing images of children as young as two and of eight year old girls being raped.

And he gets two sodding years and no doubt a new identity to boot when he leaves prison.

Is that less than somebody else with a criminal history would have received or about the same ?
At least he'll be on the sex offenders register and won't be able to fart without somebody wanting to know why for the foreseeable future.

its a LONG time for htat offence ime
am stunned.
never normally get 2 years.

I cant type a reply without getting severely abusive towards that creature so i have decided to say nothing.

lenin - they get non custodial as that kind of amount is normally under 6 months ( although he did distribute which ups it)
the options normally available to a court are say 6 weeks in prison OR a two year sexual offences programme that is MUCH more rigorous and means probation keep an eye on him - if he goes to prison that is it - inside then out - nada

It's too expensive to keep him inside forever but i hope he doesn't get a new identity this time, he had a chance at a new start and blew it, he should be on his own now.

dunno
never hear about out of court disposals. thats the prob with em.
not an expert with stats but am SURE someone else is

It's even more disgusting that it's a comparatively long sentence for the crime. I wonder why it's not longer, I thought this crime would have much tougher sentences attached to it.

Well, this one got 12 months for a 2nd offence.

how can he get a new identity and be on the sex offenders register?

BBC reports his defence barrister said he's had difficulties forming relationships with women as it's a condition of his licence that he tells them who he is. As if that's some ruddy excuse for paedophilia!

Excuse me if my heart doesn't bleed but FFS, of COURSE any woman who enters into a relationship with him has to be warned. Good grief. What does his lawyer want, Venables' 'right' to a sex life prioritised over the safety of any women and children unfortunate enough to come into his orbit?

I am usually very liberal on justice (except that violent crimes against women and children attract bizarrely low sentences compared to property crime and domestic violence is badly mishandled). But this lame, insulting excuse for paedophilia makes me really angry.

AND he's been living in Cheshire. Which is five minutes down the road from Liverpool. FFS. Apparently one of the other conditions is that he doesn't go to Liverpool - so why make him live so close? Talk about putting temptation in someone's way. And there's a high risk someone will recognise him causing yet another crime... which could be dangerous for anyone who happens to be near him at the time. Whole thing is ridiculous.

I don't understand. If he was released on licence, albeit with a new identity, doesn't it mean that he violated the terms of his licence and is back in prison for the remainder of his life sentence?

You'd think, wouldn't you, Ilovemydog? Maybe it means he has to serve the two years (or whatever people really serve when nominally given two years) before he can be considered for parole as a lifer again?

Chris Langham was out in 10 months.

Venables is getting a new identy at a cost of £250,000 to the taxpayer.

Which he'll probably reveal the next time he gets drunk and high.

Which will probably be the day he's re-released.

I would be really interested to know how a licence works, who monitors it? Who knows if he tells these women who he is? Surely he can't tell too many people or his identity would end up being revealed.

I just think that someone who is so fucked up and can't add anything positive to society should be kept away from innocent people. He has had his chances, he cannot function as a normal person, what would he have to do for someone to lock him up/institutionalise him for the rest of his life?

And this goes against all the things I normally feel about crime and punishment but I just can't see this ending well in any other way.

"Life licences" are issued by the Parole Board after someone has provided enough evidence during their time in prison that any 'threat' they have to an individual or wider society can be managed in the community. It appears in this case that iot was reasonable to assess that he was ready for release, though this did upset some people understandably.

Real, real credit has to go t othe quick thinking, and acting, Probation Officer in Cheshire who intervened when he/she was suspicious about Venables behaviour around his computer. In the criticisms that I ahve read about the supervision process this action ( which is an example of effective supervision) doesn't get a look in.

Edam - his strong scouse accent would have marked him out if he ever went anywhere else other than within the Scouse-tongue areas.

He can be considered for parole release, again on a licence til he dies, but probably now not for many many years.

Incidentally, the success rates for parole licence completion is up in the 90% mark. The Parole Board get very picky about who they let out and who stays in, though some decisions are quirky.

For most sentenced prisoners serving over the 1 year mark, the prison issues the licence.

The whole sentencing/recall framework can appear quite muddled and inconsistent.

I agree with Pan = very intuitive to spot hard drve thing.

Sadly other probation officers thought it was OK to leave him free when he was taking drugs, getting into fights and disclosing his identity, though. So one good officer, and quite a few with appalling judgment who made dangerous mistakes.

Hope CEOPs is trying to track down all the other people who saw those images and the children involved.

(Btw, plenty of Scousers throughout the UK - they are allowed across the borders of Merseyside, you know. People don't assume every Liverpudlian they meet is Venables.)

I am having trouble with the fact our justice system have said that we have to pay for a new identity for him again .

HE committed this crime as an adult so I don't understand why he still has to be protected in this way,

If someone could explain it to me I would be greatfull as I am livid that we are spending more money on him