killers of james bulger should not have been prosecuted??

[pregnochicklol]

Oh okay, because they're kids they should just be left to be a danger to everyone else?

Is this woman out of her mind?
Prison isn't just about punishment, it's about protecting others!

And I don't believe for one second that they didn't know it was wrong.
When I was a kid a bully (ring leader) tried to strangle my little sister, she was evil. But even her friends (aged around 7-9) realised her behaviour wasn't right made her release her. NORMAL Kids DO know what's right.

Exactly, Cote; especially as the Justice System certainly can't be relied on to put society's needs first.

expat - Does the UK have a sex offender registry like in the US, where anyone can check to see if there is a pedophile in their neighbourhood?

I don't believe so, Cote, not that I've ever heard of.

Think it'd be better just to lock up paedos for life myself, until there's actually a scientifically proven way to rehabilitate them, which so far there isn't. But that's a whole different story . . .

I don't think it's fair that some criminals should have to be listed on websites for all to see, while others have annonyminity(sp).

Deatbeat dads in America are named and shamed, women who've 'solicited' themselves at some point have that perminantly on their record. We all have to live with responsibilty for our actions.
These 'special' bulger killers however, are being kept very protected, perhaps at the risk/expense of others, of course that infuriates people. It's unfair, and also, I don't want a person who enoyed torturing a toddler living next door to me, i have a 3 yr old son, and 'the law' seems to think these killers 'second chance' is more important than my kid's safety?

It's a long thread, I apologise for not having read it all. But I heard someone speaking on this, and I forget who, sorry, but he said that if one of them, with their new identity, goes for a job for which they have to be crb checked, their previous conviction will not show up on that check. Now please, someone explain to me how that can be right, and how that isn't making a complete mockery of the whole system.

As I have mentioned before, one of my best friends, now unsurprisingly an ex best friend, is currently serving a sentence for child pornography offences and another related, more serious offence. He also had a clear crb check because he hadn't yet been caught so I'm no fan of that system.

'women who've 'solicited' themselves at some point have that perminantly on their record.'

Actually, men who are caught patronising prostitutes are named and shamed and charged as well in many states. There's a big drive to go after the 'Johns' as kerb krawlers are known.

I think some countries are now proposing chemical castration to pedophiles. They take pleasure in sexual acts with children. This cures them of that desire and makes them safe to live among the rest of us.

Similarly, until there is a cure for sociopaths who take pleasure in torturing and violently killing people, not to mention little children, they should be kept away from the rest of us. In prison, hospital, remote island, lunar colony, whatever.

The issue as to whether JV should lose his identity if he is convicted of a further crime is perhaps a separate one from the fact that he currently lives under a different identity though.

It could be argued that there's no reason for him to maintain anonimity if convicted of another crime, although am not sure what it will achieve giving his new name as opposed to just confirming that John Venables has been convicted of x crime, other than to send the tabloids round to the friends and families and paying vast sums for the stories of his milkman and postman, and those who had no idea who he was but will happily talk of their horror in finding out.

But for now, he has not yet been convicted of another crime. So regardless of peoples' feelings on whether he shouldhave a new identity it wouldn't be appropriate to release that information at this stage.

Fwiw am not altogether comfortable with anyone being named at the point of arrest given that many people are released without charge and yet their names and addresses have been plastered all over the papers by then and the damage has been done.

Rockbird there's no way that either of the bulger killers would show up as clean on a CRB. Someone was talking about this recently and explained that there are ways of refusing crb clearance without having to disclose why. E.g. it's aledged that JV applied to join the army but that he would have been rejected at application stage but that the employer would not know why.

"It could be argued that there's no reason for him to maintain anonimity if convicted of another crime, although am not sure what it will achieve"

Justice. It is one thing to have child porn in your computer as a first offense. It is a completely different thing to have child porn in your computer when supposedly rehabilitated after torturing and killing a small child.

If jury can't be told of Venables' past, he will receive a slap on the wrist for this latest offense. Instead, it should be seen as part of the pattern that is Venables' psychology and challenge the rehabilitation assumption.

Have we (the public) had confirmation yet that child pornography is why JV is in prison? If not then why are we discussing this as though the reason is known - it's not. There are rumours but nothing confirmed ...... and we had rumours that his name was David Calvert which has led to an innocent man being threatened. Lets get a grip here and remember that rumours can be incorrect and dangerous.

Jolly and this is one reason why there should be an end put to the anonymity of venables.Make it public and then no innocent man can be mistaken for him ever again.

"Jolly and this is one reason why there should be an end put to the anonymity of venables.Make it public and then no innocent man can be mistaken for him
ever again." and if you do that then there's no chance of him having a fair trial is there? So what would you rather - him be tried and sentenced for this current crime he has potentially committed, or name him and have him walk free because you would not have a chance of getting an unbiased jury.

Whatever this man has done in the past, he is entitled to a fair trial for the crime he is aledged to have committed this time. He is not being tried for JB's murder - so whatever the current charge he is still innocent of that until proven guilty. Except that if you make it known who he is you will find it impossible to find a jury to look past that.

Does it matter what exactly Venables' crime was? Since he is in prison with talk of a trial, I am guessing it was not jaywalking.

The point is that if he has indeed committed a crime, he has forfeited his second chance and also shown that "rehabilitation" has failed.

There should be no more chances and no more anonymity.

Look, the government tried frantically to get an injunction against the Sun publishing the child pornography story last week.

Why would they do that if he'd been accused of stealing a chocolate bar?

"Does it matter what exactly Venables' crime was? Since he is in prison with talk of a trial, I am guessing it was not jaywalking." so the fact he's in prison makes him guilty? No need for evidence or a trial - he's john Venables therefore he's guilty? Because no-one is ever wrongly accused of anything are they? Why not just scrap the whole idea of judge and jury trials and just lock people up based on what we assume them to have done.

No need for evidence or a defence, if you look a bit dodgy then we can lock you up without a defence. If you've committed a previous crime we can lock you up without the need for you to be tried for any future crime you may or may not have committed.

It's utterly bizzare to listen to someone fight about how important venebles 'right to a fair trial' is.
Especially given that he only served 8 years in custody (with day trips and all mod cons) for possibly one of the worst crimes imaginable.

It's not about a "fair trial" though pregnochick - it's about ensuring there IS a trial. Make no mistake that if he is named no court in the land could convict him or if they did every lawyer in the land could have that conviction overturned - if we as a society want to see that happen then fine. Personally I'd rather see a safe trial and conviction if he's guilty.

And no he definitely should not be named - there are absolute nutters out there who would distribute their own vigilante justice - and God forbid anyone should have the same or a similar name. I take it we all remember the thickos who made threats towards a paediatrician (unable to distinguish between that term and paedophile). No - let the justice system deal with this - whatever you believe about the initial justice.

And he served 8 years because the terrible crime he commited was as a 10 year old and I am not of the ilk that believes a 10 year old should be written off for the rest of their life (and I accept we will all have different thoughts about that). The fact is that at least one of these boys appears to have kept out of trouble (lets be honest - the papers would be full of it if he had not). The other has offended in some way that we are not privvy to - and The Sun might well have been stopped from publishing a story but again we have no way of knowing of their story was correct (knowing The Sun more likely a blow up of rumours).

wannabe - Calm down woman I have not said he doesn't have the right to a defense etc.

My point was that it does not look very likely that Venables' reason for recall to prison is some minor offense like jaywalking or going back to a town he was told never to return, since there is talk of a trial and prejudicing that trial. You don't go on trial for visiting the town of your birth, and you don't prejudice someone's jaywalking trial by bringing up a past murder conviction.

As such, it seems to me that Venables' latest crime was serious, and quite probably related in nature to his infamous past crime. If so, we don't really need to know what exactly it was to call for an end to his anonymity on the grounds that he has blown his second chance and to ask for his indeterminate incarceration on grounds that he obviously was not rehabilitated as previously claimed.