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??

This case is too complex though to be 'debated' in the tabloid press.It is one of few of its kind and a lot of what the authorities do now must surely be based on what his rehab entailed and why it failed/was insufficent etc to enable him to live in society succesfully.Simplifying it for the braying masses is dangerous and tbh pointless

He'll be tried under his new identity - so any jury would only be told of any criminal activity committed as 'John Smith' not 'John Venebles...so they would not be told that the man in the dock also killed James Bulger.

He should be tried under his true identity of Jon Venables not the new id he was given which is the second one as he gave away who he was.

He doesn't deserve anonymity

I think if he was tried under his original identity it would be very difficult for him to have a fair trial. And it should be a fair trial.

I agree tsc

'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'

completely agree

I think most people are pretty reasonable and the 'flog 'em and hang 'em' brigade are (hopefully) in the minority.

But I do think that an 8 year sentence for such a heinous crime was crazy. I've seen the full report of what was done to James - it is truly shocking. How that little boy must have suffered, I can't imagine.

I fully support the penal system being being as much about rehabilitation as it is about retribution. But the retribution part can't be forsaken.

To release a deeply disturbed and violent indivdual, with a low IQ and huge immaturity at 18 was a big mistake.

I don't believe JV or RT pose any greater risk to society as adults than thousands of other despicable individuals out there. We don't know who or where any of them are, if indeed the authorities even know yet in many cases - why should these two be any different?

The way i see it is that these two boys were given a second chance and knew that if they messed up this time they would be back in prison. However Venables is now 27 years old and a adult and therefore waived any of his previous rights.He should be treated as an adult not the 10 year old boy he was.I dont particular want to know his new identity i dont really care but if his crime is serious and means he poses a threat to the public especially children then in light of his previous crime he should face a heavy sentence as it appears rehabillitation has not worked.Maybe we should know the crime he has commited but we dont need to know his name-all that will happen is he will be given a new identity at the expense of the tax payer anyhow.

"if an adult murders it would be walking the streets in 10-15 years-do you not see that? why do you want children punishing more than adults? really?"

comaparing to the 2 just shows how bad our justice system is.
obviously sentances are way to lenient for murder. life should mean life and not 10 - 15 years.
when did life bcome so cheap?
8 years for murder?

have commented at length on the other thread but,

Firstly, at this stage what JV is supposed to have done is still an alagation. He is still innocent until proven guilty in the same way as any other defendent. He is not being tried again for the murder of James Bulger - if he is to be tried for another offence it will be a separate offence.

If he is to receive a fair trial (and whatever people think of what he has done in the past he is still entitled to a fair trial), then his anonimity needs to be protected at all costs, and that includes not disclosing details to Denise Bulger's family.

Criminals do re-offend. Afaik their former victims are not informed every time an offender has his/her licence revoked.

if Jv is found guilty of a subsequent crime, then surely the question of whether his anonimity will be revealed should be revisited then.

Yes, there must be a fair trial. If for nothing else but the subsequent victim/s to have their day in court and not have their case dismissed on a technicality.

I think you could argue that depending on the severity of the offence and if he is found guilty of the allegation that he should lose his right to anonymity. The details shoul not be released at the moment because it will jeopardise his right to a fair trial.

I heard Jack Straw on Radio 4 this morning. He kept talking about "Mrs. Bulger" and how he had every sympathy for her and he would be meeting her soon. But, clearly, he hasn't really bothered to familiarise himself with the case or he would know her name is not Mrs. Bulger.

I don't think we have a right to know the details - at least not until he is found guilty.

But, since we know what JV looked like at the time of Jamie Bulger's death, surely someone out there is going to edit the phot for what he will look like now. And someone in the public must know who he is and where he lives / works.

I think the only way this boy/man can remain anonymous is if he leaves the UK. Even then, I think it is doubtful.

It makes me feel a bit the way people get so interested in cases such as this...I find it quite macabre tbh. To me it's a bit like all of those abuse memoirs that everyone seems to be reading...there is the element of the voyeuristic/pornographic in it all that leaves a bad tasts in the mouth.

I think if Venables has done something wrong, then the public interest has been served by locking him up again, and no one will benefit from knowing the minutae, unless they are directly involved in the case.

I think the media should be a bit more honest about the difference between 'the public interest' and 'what interests the public'.

Depending on th crime, if there is a specific victim then that person is entitled to a trial for what was done to them, and not to be the tag end of a different crim some years ago.

It should be taken into account in questioning but no more.

I would agree to him losing anonymity if that wouldn't likely cost him his life or risk severe injury (albeit one almost certainly to be spent in prison now, as life tarrifs are available in adulthood if not childhood). We don't have the death penalty, either by direct emans of effective.

I think if Denise Fergus (Jamie's mother) can track down one of them years later, the same is surely possible for John Venables.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4048957.stm

I think that loss of anonimity should depend also though on whether others will be affected. I.e. if he has a family, children of his own or even step children that would be affected by the revellation of his new name.

It's perfectly possible to live in this country under a new identity, Maxine Carr does.

If an adult murders it would be walking the streets in 10-15 years-do you not see that? why do you want children punishing more than adults? really?

Once again, it's getting boring repeating over and over again but hey ho.
No, any murderer, Ian Huntley, Ian Brady should serve more than 8 years for killing.
What a kick in the teeth for any parent of a 2 year old or 42 year old, that is all your child's life is worth 8 years.
That is what annoys the hell out of any right minded person in Liverpool or Lisbon.

An eye for an eye might make the whole world blind or it might remove scum from the face of the earth.
I cannot wait to see the reaction if JV has killed again it'll be priceless.

Oh yikes. Can you image finding out your husband is Jon Venables?! Eek!

I actually think keeping it a secret at least until after trial is the right thing to do because it is only fair and just that he be tried for the crime at hand, and not retried for the death of Jamie.

I agree that 8 years was way too short. But, that isn't the question at hand.

Furthermore, I tink this raises pr at least highlighs the question of whether Jon Venable was rehabilitatable.

However, I do this man's life is in great danger whether the details of his more recent crime are put into the media or not.

I have much more sympathy with Maxine Carr and can understand how she might be able to live a protected life. After all, it was not she who killed Holly and Jessica.

"I cannot wait to see the reaction if JV has killed again it'll be priceless." such gleaful anticipation of the hideous details and potential outcome. That statement says a lot, none of which is pleasant. Gosh you'll be disappointed won't you if jv is tried and found not guilty.

"I cannot wait to see the reaction if JV has killed again it'll be priceless."

Oh, simply HILARIOUS. We can all take popcorn and laugh. Shame about the corpse and all, but hey, you'll have been right, and we do need to get priorities straight, don't we?