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??

Denise Fergus has explicitly stated that she doesn't like people calling him Jamie, that she never did, and that it is a tabloid invented nickname. His name is James and it seems to me more respectful to use it.

"The details of the crime committed by the 27 year old man, should be released, we don't need to be told it's him do we and then on the evidence presented on this matter a jury will convict or not."

Except every bloke tried for a similar crime would have the jury wondering if it was him. Some may be innocent. He may be innocent. How is that fair? There's also the little matter that, if any such info is released, it may be felt impossible to give him a fair trial, and he may have to either never stand trial or have any conviction overturned on appeal. Which would not be at all fair on the person accusing him, now would it? I couldn't be on a jury knowing I was deliberating on the fate of one of the killers of James Bulger and not let that influence me. Nobody could. And yet that isn't what he will be tried for, if he is tried. Trials have to be fair, or what's the point?

I wish people could find a middle ground between demonising them, and immediate sympathy and thinking they've been punished too much. They had the only treatment possible for kids that age and a crime that severe, and while trial in an adult court is unfair, the secure homes were the only option afaics. Yes, they were only ten, yes, they were victims themselves, but there comes a point at which what is fair matters less than what is sensible. Screaming hatred for kids is not, but nor is ignoring the real and considerable risk freeing them posed and still poses. You're balancing some very basic and fundamental rights here, society's, the victim's family's, and the perpetrators', and trying to pretend the answer and course of action in any of this is or was simple is just pointless, IMO. If someone has been seriously hurt by one of them then releasing was the wrong decision, obviously. But what of the one who hasn't reoffended, and may never offend again?

The fame is mainly IMO because child killers are, thank God, exceedingly rare, and they also fly in the face of the sentimentalising of children illustrated by the need to call James "little Jamie". But it's also because they are released very soon after their crimes in comparative terms, and the crimes are correspondingly fresh in the mind. Would also point out that Mary Bell's fame is partly because of the book. Had that not come out a lot of us would never have heard of her. And if Baby P's stepfather was released after just 8 years, and a new identity given, I think the uproar would be greater - quite rightly, and for glaringly obvious reasons. I devoutly hope that in his case, life really does mean life.

Saying that it's our attitude to kids that's to blame doesn't get us further into how to deal with the situation we had and do have here. Nor does pretending that there's nothing questionable about throwing away the key on a pair of 10 year olds.

" Thankfully most of them dont murder toddlers AND then reoffend upon release- the person we are talking about did just that."

Actually we don't know that. There has not been a trial yet. He has been accused of something, that's all. Not everyone accused of something is guilty. I KNOW he did something unspeakable, I said in the other thread I am really conflicted on whether they should have been released, but unless you want mob justice can we just keep to facts. Such as they are.

Oh FGS of course not. But the two crimes would be entirely unrelated, other than being committed by the same very flawed individual.

Mob justice is what "the people" want though isn't it? The law is just too slow and too impartial for most people's tastes, according to this thread in any case.

"But the two crimes would be entirely unrelated, other than being committed by the same very flawed individual."

Rape, by definition, is a crime of power and violence against the person. The torture and murder of James Bulger was the ultimate act of power and violence against the person. The crimes would be very much related, precisely because someone capable of one would be far more capable of the other.

We do NOT know if he was guilty. We will not know that unless and until we all back the hell up and back the hell off, and let the criminal justice system do its job. But to say he has not reoffended, let alone that these crimes are "entirely unrelated" if he has in fact raped someone, is just not true.

Well I'm not a psychologist and I take your point. But people here would be talking about re-offending if the guy was back in jail for stealing a chocolate bar, quite frankly. That was the point I was trying to make.

It really is a non-argument in any case. Personally I would find it more surprising if he didn't go on to offend/re-offend. I would say that damage done by the age of 10 is pretty much undoable and I sincerely hope the two of them were/are being monitored extremely closely indeed. I personally felt they were released into society too early, before their adult personalities were established, but I also don't see what possible good it would have done to send them to a university for criminals (ie adult prison).

I agree. I have said over and over that the blind hate is crazy and at times - when people suggest a 10 year old deserves a bullet to the head, or to be anally raped - an utter disgrace. But on the other thread someone was having a go at Denise Fergus for outing the return to jail on her twitter account, and saying she should have more understanding for them as they were only 10 at the time. That is worse, IMO, because she at least has done absolutely nothing on this planet wrong. That is taking blaming the victim to new heights.

The issues are agonisingly difficult and complex. The decisions weren't clearcut either. People on both sides talk as if it's simple: it isn't. The only simple part is that the justice system has to be respected and allowed to do its job, or we're just a baying mob. But to say that they were just ten and needed love and care in the community as some people do is facile, if at least well meaningly so. It reminds me of those people who think that anyone infertile should just adopt a troubled older child, without stopping to wonder how said troubled older child would be able to cope with being sent back into care because their needs are so great and behaviour so challenging that many (maybe even most) people wouldn't be able to cope.

If these things had simple answers we wouldn't all be getting so polarised and so heated. I have no flipping clue whether they should have been released or not. If he's raped someone, then hindsight says not. But do we then keep all child killers in jail forever for having been disturbed little kids who did something abhorrent? What about the child killers around the world who haven't ever reoffended? What about all the adult killers who get released, when they haven't a 10 year old's potential for change, and haven't spent half their lives in a therapeutic setting? I just don't know the answer. Nobody does. I wish people would admit that.

Confuzled - you talk a lot of sense and make me feel quite inadequate in my own ramblings. I'm thinking that you have some training in this area - yes?

Just a BA, and a decade ago, now. Not any sort of practitioner. I don't think you were rambling any more than I was (you are certainly a lot more concise! ), and I do agree with you that people should back up. Apart from anything else, if he has indeed raped someone then this shitstorm could deny her or him the chance to convict him. If they don't care about his human rights, they should think about the possible new victim's.

Reading this thread, one could imagine "Candide" was a documentary.... Pangloss is surely weeping with joy in his literary grave....[shocked]

However, in the name of justice, press and all of us, should back off and stop speculating about the unknown facts regarding this development.
If JV is guilty of whatever offence he is charged with, the jury needs to be impartial and make the decision based on facts of the case.
If he is not, then he is not.
My feelings about what he did 17 years ago are well known (waves pitchfork), yet I want the justice to prevail and JV to get a fair trial.
Whatever we think of the society we live in, for it to function at all - justice system has to work for everybody equally.

There is no need for the public to know nor for the tabloid press to be snooping about hoping for an attention grabbing headline to get the masses all riled up.We have a legal system to deal with these cases and that is what they are trying to do!Jack straw did say that this 'new id' system has only been implemented 4 times and so is still a learning process for the authorites.We need to leave them to get on with it and not fuel this hatred and banner waving.Us knowing will not create any justice for anyone.What the Home sec decided to tell or not tell JBs mum is nothing to do with us.Some of the people who have time to construct placards and banners and take to teh streets protesting should use the time to do something worthwhile where they can have an affect or spend those hours volunteering in their own communities rather than breeding this hysteria that always ends badly

Some people are just born evil and i believe he is one of them and we should have the right to know, he could be living by one of us and that makes my skin crawl.

There are all sorts of people living among us!What do you think you have the right to know and what would it achieve.I think looking at the press in the last few days we do know and what has changed?

The Mirror has behaved disgracefully and leaked that its a child porn offence. The PCC should throw the book at them.

In the case of this piece of scum i would gladly bring back the death penalty lets hope previous crimes are taken into consideration and he goes away for life.

Glasto, can't remember whether it was on this thread, but there seemed to be a consensus that a small misdameanor would be viewed differently to a serious crime regarding taking his anonymity from him.

If he has committed a sexual offence which included a child, I don't think he has a leg to stand on and has to publically suffer the consequences of his actions as everyone else has to. He's not a child anymore.

You're right the 2nd coming you have broke the rules and I've reported your post but to answer your legitimate point.

If we find out what the crime is then when he comes to trial any and every jury is going to just convict any man in the mid twenties to early thirties based on the fact that they don't know if it is one of the killers of James Bulger.
How does that help anyone ?

That was exactly what I earlier said almost word for word.
I'd much rather they convict the man because then all the idiots who said he was only a boy, didn't know right from wrong etc etc cannot defend him any longer.

why was that message deleted?

he cant have a fair trial if everyone knows who he is

fgs that is the reason

And that was exactly what I said, it's no good "the child killer" appearing in the dock because he could never have a fair trial, so put the evidence before a jury of what joe bloggs the 27 year old man has done and let them decide.
Is that too much to ask ?

But afterwards the judge will read out his previous conviction - or at least they usually do - in the case of Baby Peters step father they did and the jury wept with relief they'd made the right decision.