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??

But but but why are you assuming she's unaware? My point is that being engaged to him isn't a sign that she must not know. She could very well know, and have chosen to love him nonetheless.

we don';t need to know at all.

"So, in other words, he must have got close to the Bulger family, or tried to contact them?"

That's some leap to make. He could just as easily have gone on holiday or away for work and missed a contact meeting with his parol officer/rehabilitation worker. He could have gotten in a fight and been charged with a public order offence. He could have done a million things which have nothing to do with trying to contact the bulger family.

No we don't need to know and don't have a 'right' to know. I've found the media speculation about this over the top - particularly as it really is speculation, they don't have anything to tell us apart from the basic facts. I don't see how this over the top coverage is beneficial to anyone.

Can the interest in this case really just be put down to ghoulishness (I think I've just made that word up )

It was our society who made Venables and Thompson and most people have a concern for it not to happen again. I would call it a public interest story, anyone who has children can imagine the cold, pit of your stomach coldness Jamies Mum felt when she realised he'd gone missing and that connects us to her, and then to her little boys killers in some way.

I'm not sure whether we have a right to know or not. Perhaps that would depend on what he did, which we can't obviously guess at as they wont say! If it was a small misdemeanour then we probably don't need to know, but if it was a bigger offence then we should know why and how his rehabilitation failed so we can debate what to do if/when it happens in the future.

I have a question:

JV has been recalled to prison for doing "something". So that means, said incident must have been reported by somebody, to somebody, followed up by somebody else....etc...etc.... and is now in the hands of numerous prison wardens, legal professionals, social workers, parole board.....blah, blah.

Also, it has been noted on here that he would never have been allowed to join the army, or many other professions I presume.

And apparently any people he built relationships with could be informed of his past if deemed necessary?

So how does this 'new identity' thing work then? With the number of people that must be "in the know" for this level of control to be achieved, I can hardly believe that there has never been a leak.

I mean, what on earth does a CRB check on his new identity throw up?!?!?!?

I wondered that as well singing. I thought that some people must know, perhaps even the media, but it would be illegal for them to divulge that info to the wider public.

But, with the internet being what it is, I'm surprised their whereabouts isn't known to all and sundry. When Baby Peters killers were anonymous it didn't take long to look up their ugly mugs on the net and find out their names, but this hasn't been the case for Thompson and Venables.

It could be that because they never made it to adult prison that their info could be controlled so much more effectively. It would only have taken one fellow prisoner with a grudge to leak onto the net, whereas they were probably surrounded by staff who were less likely to say where they were.

And as to the CRB check, I can't imagine he'd ever put himself in the position to have to have one done?

On the one hand, yes, because his 'rehabilitation' as paid for out of the public purse.

On the other hand, no, because it is in the public interest for him to stand trial for whatever he has done and not get off on a technicality.

To answer the OP -

I think there is an undeniable public interest if either of the murderers of James Bulger were to reoffend (which presumably would mean murdering another child).

I have mixed feelings about Venables's recall to prison for breaching his licence. I think until there has been a hearing into whether the recall was justified (which I understand will happen shortly) that his anonymity should be preserved, if possible. If it is judged that he was correctly recalled to prison and he is not released then I can see that there is a case that it is in the public interest for the facts of the case to be known.

The new identities they were given were (as I understand it) granted as part of their rehabilitation. If that rehabilitation has failed, then I think the issue of anonymity would have to be revisited.

But public interest in a case surely doesn't give the public 'the right' to know the ins and outs of an offender's case?

I don't think that Alan Johnson and Jack Straw are helping with this by coming at it from opposite sides of how much to disclose.

I;ll be honest, i'm curious. but i don't think we need to know. according to gossip on an irish web site, he's been living in wesport in co mayo all this time. he tried to strangle his girlfriend. allegedly. apparently.

tortoise, i agree with you. women write to adult murderers on death row and marry them but it does happen.

i think it'd be easier to forgive an adult something they did as a child, than to forgive an adult something they did as an adult. surely?

I don't think we need to know either - whatever he's done he's been caught....and if we're not going to be told, can't see the point of them telling us he's back in prison either? Just creating a storm.....

shame those great re-habilitation centres don't work then

to op
no
none of anyones business

No.

But as we don't know what he did - we don't know that the rehabilitation didn't work. He may have breached the terms of his licence in any number of ways like going abroad or not living at the address that was given to his parole monitor, according to today's newspaper reports.

""I mean, what on earth does a CRB check on his new identity throw up?!?!?!?""

Interesting question, I assume it would come out as he had committed a crime of some sort without disclosing when or who was involved so it would be flaged up but not detrimental to his anonymity is that makes sense at all? but I know very little about the system, I just imagine that they would have to find a way to "warn" people without giving too many identifiable details.

We do not know if the re-abilitation centres do not work , really because we have no idea what he has done and mayorquimbly's suggestion is to me as believable as any other.

X posted with cakeywaky.

maybe they work in making someone want a life inside. that's why so many people who have been inside alot, re-offend.

Neither of the boys was ever sent to prison though - they were held in secure children's units.

Swarthy - why is it none of my business? With such a high profile, disgusting crime, it is my business to know what's happening with the perpetrators.

I have to live in a society that created them and which has them living in it, and regardless of whether they were children when they committed their crime, I am allowed an interest in their fate.

If we want to be reassured that lessons have been learnt from what happened, we have to know the outcome ie what works/what doesn't, to try and minimise the risk of it happening again.

not much diff

i know, but from an article a few months back here, about the units, they aren't a million miles away from prisions are they?

easy to become institutionalised at 10 as well.