John Venables- do we have a right to know???

[onebadbaby]

Do we really have the right to know if and when the killers of James Bulger re-offend?

I am inclined to say we don't. If they have been given a new identity and life then what is the point and benefit of the general public having knowledge. In my opinion, any re-offences should remain in his new name.

Obviously members of the press behold certain information on the new lives of the two killers, but I really don't see the benefit of this being public knowledge.

Also- do you remember how you thought and behaved at ten? I certainly do and in a way I don't think ten years old is under the age when responsibility for such an horrific crime has to be considered.

Opinions??

"""triggles-if he has reoffended (and we don't know that he has by the way as he's only accused and hasn't been found guilty after a trial,in a court) then i am sure we will find out what he's done. I know personally that there are journalists who know what he has done and who he is-one of my friends knows this stuff.
PRIOR TO HIM BEING FOUND GUILTY HE MUST BE KEPT ANONYMOUS AND THE CRIME KEPT SECRET OTHERWISE ANYONE FOUND GUILTY OF THAT CRIME WOULD HAVE RIGHT TO APPEAL AGAINST THEIR CONVICTION FOR THE SAME CRIME BY SAYING 'THEY THOUGHT I WAS ONE OF THE BULGER KILLERS' which bit of that are people not understanding??? it's for the protection of every white,late 20's early 30's person who may be up for the same crime,not for the protection of the fucking bulger killer???""""

thesecondcoming - having worked in law enforcement for many years, I'm well aware of the reason why they are keeping it quiet now until he is tried for this current alleged offence. If you look at my previous post, you'll note that I did mention "alleged" regarding reoffending, as I do understand the legal system. I also did not mention taking away the anonymity PRIOR to trial. I simply don't feel that it is something that they should continue once all is said and done. As none of your ranting really applies to what I posted, I can only assume you just wandered off into a bit of a rant in general.

Triggles please don't shout.

And wrt to wanting to remove anonymity afterwards- I don't agree with you, I don't think they should.

Clarissimo I didn't shout - that shouting was a quote from thesecondcoming's post. And hey, you're perfectly within your rights to disagree about the anonymity. We all have differing opinions.

thesecondcoming I didn't ask a question. I made a comment.

Beginning to wonder if people even READ a post before they respond on a thread....

Apologies for that mistake then.

pmsl thesecondcoming you DO make assumptions. I don't recall saying "vengeance must be ours", I simply feel that he was given a chance to show rehabilitation and in all likelihood (once it is no longer "alleged") has blown it, as an adult, with full realisation that it would create chaos and possibly put him in danger, plus cost many £££ to the government to protect him and provide him with new identity if needed.

If he truly has shown such blatant disregard for his own wellbeing (not to mention for the government that provided him with the new identity, education, and such), then why should we (collective we as in the UK government/people) continue to provide him with that security? You'll note that as we have had no information that the other boy has been recalled, I see no purpose in outing him at all. If he continues to live a law abiding life, then it'd be nice to think that possibly the rehabilitation worked with him.

I'm not convinced that revealing what Venables is accused of would prejudice a future trial. He won't be the only bloke in the system up on a kiddie porn charge after all. So how would naming the crime make him identifiable? Unless he's accused of something particularly heinous, of course (which wouldn't surprise me).

It would tsc

People oft quote the paediatrician / paedophile case on here.... that was on the neartest estate to my home if I walk towards the shops; these are the very same people that would be doling oiut their own justice in my patch, simply not soemthing I would be happy with. Fortunately dh is a decade too old to be Venables, as he looks very similar otherwise, but knowing that DH has no links whatsoever to the4 area or case I can deduce that many have a similar appearance.

And I just don't beleive the locals get the whole MQ point of grasping that he is in prion, I can quite see vigilante action from the numbskulls should a local name surface.

Am not convincedf that this area is any worse than anywhere else- last pale I lived I reckon anyone outed as venables may as well order their coffin- so cannot fathom the people circulating names.

"I'm not convinced that revealing what Venables is accused of would prejudice a future trial. He won't be the only bloke in the system up on a kiddie porn charge after all. So how would naming the crime make him identifiable?"

It's not that it would make him easily identifiable it's that it would prejudice every trial of every mid 20's to mid 30's white man. because it could be fairly easily argued that the jury had been influenced by the release of this information and so when presented with a man, who could possibly fit the description of what JV may look like now, charged with similar crimes they were predisposed and influenced by the media to find him guilty as they feared the possibility that they'd be the jury that allowed JV to walk free. regardless of the facts presented to them and whether or not they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. If it could even be argued that a clearly guilty person had been convicted by a jury who had lowered their standards to balance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt because one or two of them had an inkling it was JV in front of them then the conviction could be quashed.

There must be hundreds of white males aged between 20 and 30 in the system. I very much doubt that revealing what Venables had done would prejudice every trial.

It's not a matter of it actually prejudicing every trial, it's that it has the potential to prejudice ANY trial.
Put quite simply if they were to reveal he was engaged in child molestation or had child pornography photos on his computer then any dark haired male in his mid 20's to mid 30's being tried for a similar crime in the next year or so has the potential to have their trial prejudiced for the reasons I outlined above.
All you have to do is look at the reaction of the self-appointed lynch-mob that have taken to posting barely literate comments and opinions on face-book, or those who have targetted that man david, to see that it would not be possible for some people to be unbiased if they were selected for a jury.

Revealing the details would lead to some people voting guilty if they were on a jury regardless of the evidence they were presented if they managed to convince themselves that it was JV they were looking at and they could make any sort of mental gymnastics to tie any fact which was released to do with his charge (lets say they reveal he is being charged with having sex with a 6 year old or that he had over 100 photos on his comp) that happens to be similar to the case in front of them. In that way the jury pool has been tainted and any hope of a fair trial for JV himself or any other male who's barrister could argue his clients way into an "at risk group" of being confused with JV and thus prejudiced will now be released.
There are simply no compelling arguments for releasing the details at this point, I doubt anyone would argue against releasing the details if convicted following the trial, when it seems simply to be about satisfying some morbid curiosity on the part of faux-sincere pitch-fork wielders alot of whom seem to think this is an episode of big brother or something and that what happens to JV should go to a public vote, especially when the release of such details has the potential to cause havock throughout the legal system, threaten the integrity of 100's of trials and potentially lead to guilty men being let off on the back of a technicality and a good barrister.

For crying out loud, enough about the criminals waiting for trial. Yes, let's hope the innocent get off and the guilty ones get properly punished, but do spare a thought to the victim/s of JV alleged crime, whatever it is. They deserve their day in court and a fair trial.
Who wants JV get off on technicality if he has committed a crime?

Rollmops I think that is precisely what we are saying isn't it?

It certainly was a facet of my argument- if JV has committed a crime tyhen A) I want him locked up and B) I want his victim to get justice for him or herself

I do not want anyone innocent to suffer as a result of mistaken identity

I do nto want someone else convicted to be able to claim the jury thought they may be JV and get off on some technicality

I don't want anyone else dead, regardless of their history. It's rotten enough one baby is dead, why should someone else lose their son / dh / Dad? Just because a person is a criminal does not mean everyone who would sugffer from their loss is.

no one rollmops. that's exactly the point. we want venables locked up if he's proven guilty in the same way we want other criminals awaiting trial if they are guilty. If you release this information then you jeopradise their convictions and he could walk on a technacality.

The criminal justice system in this country absolutely has to be as rigorous and transparent and fair as possible, so there really can be no steps taken that could possibly jeapordise the fairness of JV's trial. I did jury service a few years ago, and sat on a jury, where three jurors voted guilty for the following reasons:-
1)He looks guilty
2)He's Indian
3)"It's written all over his face"
It would be nice to think that all jury's are fair minded and reasonable, but they are made up of human beings with all their shortcomings and it would be far too easy to jeapordise such a high profile, high emotion case becuase people are fallible and often in thrall to their emotions.

Regardless of what he did as a child, JV deserves a fair trial now. End of story.

As far as the issue of punishment is concerned, for a ten year old being locked up in a secure unit away from their families and everything they know, would actually seem like a lifetime. It simply can't be compared to adult sentencing because the sheer emotional and psychological differences between a ten year old and an eighteen year old are too numerous. As an eighteen year old, I was worlds away from the child I was at ten.

I accept that they may not actually have been effectively rehabilitated (none of us know for sure) but that doesn't make it wrong to try. We are the only county in Europe to try children in an adult court - at no point during their original trial were the necessary psychological adjustments made for their age. It was simply wrong to divorce their developmental/emotional age from their crime simply because it was a crime usually committed by adults.

What else should we do with them as a civilised society? The idea that children are beyond redemption is truly horrifying but not as horrifying as the thought that people don't even want to try.

I don't think anyone actually thinks that the boys are innocent victims, but they were victims of the society in which they were brought up - I disagree with the idea that children can be inherently evil -that seems to me to be lazy thinking by people who can't be bothered or are too scared to look at what causes the development of these children to go so badly wrong.

My feeling is that a lot of the anger and 'lynch mob' mentality out there (which makes me feel ill, btw - grown adults trying to break children from a van to hang them - fgs!) is nothing more than fear. Fear because to see children commit this sort of crime is so far outside our expectations of the world we live in, that it quite literally shakes the very foundations of our belief systems.
It is because the circumstances of James Bulger's death were so very very rare, that it has stayed in the public consciousness for so very long. It is easier to blame inherent evil/video nasties/witchcraft/whatever, than to take a long, hard look at the fact that as a society we realyy are capable of messing up our children so very badly.

If anyone is interested btw can I direct you to the excellent book 'As If' by Blake Morrison - he was actually at the original trial - it's extremely thought provoking and sheds a lot of light on the original case and thoughts on childhood in general.
www.amazon.co.uk/As-If-Blake-Morrison/dp/1862070458/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268492481&sr=8-1