I think it was more than nature and nurture; I think it was also the two boys in question feeling totally outside everything, rejected and isolated and then finding a friendship together that made them feel they had something in life. Two extremely damaged kids without boundaries or external sources of guidance started to guide each other and probably show off to one another as to how vicious and unafraid they were, and the outcome was catastrophic. Remember that case in New Zealand in the 1950s, where two teenage girls killed one of the mothers, preplanned, because their friendship was (plainly rightly) deemed unhealthy and the parents tried to separate them?
Thompson was 1 of 8 sons, all badly bullying and beating the next younger and their parents had a serious dv relationship. Venables was sandwiched between 2 sn siblings, his mother severely depressed and his parents separated; amicably but inconsistently (have since reunited, apparently). I doubt that either would have done something of this magnitude alone, but they egged one another on in violent dysfunction because all the other adults in their lives were too preoccupied to notice or intervene, and in Thompson's case extreme violence was a daily and frightening occurrence. I do also think that they probably felt powerless and so sought to vent their rage about everything on someone else very plainly powerless. Bullying carried to an almost unbelievable level.
I don't think it fair to say all their parents were as much to blame as they were. Thompson's mother has since left his father and apparently supported Thompson through his rehab and beyond, and Venables' mother was on a documentary a few years ago on mothers of killers, with face and voice disguised, and she cried as she said all she wanted to do was say to James' mother how desperately sorry she was, and that that poor little baby would haunt her until she died herself, she couldn't stop thinking about what had happened to him. She was very plainly absolutely devastated by her son's actions. They clearly had major failings and I'm not glossing over that, but there was clear evidence that Venables' mother at least had tried to stop his deterioration to some extent. When he wuld leave the house at night to roam she took away his shoes to try to stop him, and so on. I'm afraid a single mother of 3, 2 with sn, and herself depressed just is not always going to have the resources to get a disturbed non-sn the extra support he needs. If every struggling parent in society ended up with this sort of disaster there would be a lot of Bulger cases, and thank Christ there aren't.
I'm not sure how I feel to be honest. I know they were only 10, only children, but what they did was not similar to the Norwegian case. It was far, far, FAR crueller and more violent, and they were quite a bit older. There is evidence that may indicate planned intent, though to present that as a slam-dunk is not fair either; they may have stolen paint and batteries as magpies, not with intent as to how to use it, but they definitely fought quite hard to hand on to James when they had numerous opportunities to let a questioning member of the public take him to safety. (And my God, how do those poor adults cope, knowing they didn't? That would haunt you till you died.) Police involved have stated it was the most violent and cruel and prolonged murder most had seen in their careers, and it was against a baby. I used to focus on the rehabilitative elements, as a student I didn't consider retributive justice to have any point in this case as it could never comfort the mother and how could it deter, when it's such a rare crime and by definition the kids were outside the influence of societal norms? But I have my own children now. One is only a toddler. And my attitude to risk has changed. I just can't imagine risking it. I can't imagine that someone capable of such extreme cruelty at 10 can be healed to the point they aren't a serious and significant risk. I don't think they should have been freed really because they horrendous risk of reoffence is scary. However it isn't true to say no remorse was expressed, my understanding is that a condition of parole was insight and that would include remorse.
Gita Sereny wrote a book on Mary Bell, to answer the person who said we knew nothing about her, and apparently her daughter was a credit to her, at the time, at least.
I don't know. I am so confused on how I feel about this case. But... I wish people would stop calling him Jamie. It was never his name and calling him that is actually something James' mother has voiced as finding offensive. It was a tabloid nickname that reminds her of his murder, not his life. If it bothers his family then surely that should be respected. And the notion that Denise Fergus has any responsibility at all to anyone over this is disgraceful. How she puts one foot in front of the other every morning I do not know. You know she lost her first baby at birth - James was her second? More tragedy than any one human being should ever have to stand, and damn right she has the right to think her son's killers belong in jail. I think some of the sentiments expressed - that children of ten should be shot, that anyone of any age should be raped - are sick, but if she personally expressed them I would not blame her one iota. She, and James' father, unlike anyone here, has every bloody right on earth to say whatever she likes. To be sanctimonious about Denise Fergus while expressing compassion for the boys is seriously arse about face. I am not saying you can't reasonably feel compassion for two very damaged children. I am saying that to be able to extend human empathy to them in their lack of it, whilst demanding empathy from their victim's mother, is fucked up.