BALLOT: Should James Bulger's killer, Jon Venables, be identified? (From Worcester News)

"Do Jamie Bulger's parents have the right to know what Jon Venables has done?"
You mean accused of don't you?

At the tender age of 10, these two 'boys' carried out a sickening, brutal and horrific crime. They were not boys but murderers. After carrying out such a barbaric crime at such a young age, how were they ever going to be rehabilited and transformed into normal, decent human beings?

Our soft hearted government gave them a second chance and used the tax payers money to give them anominity and the chance of a new life. Disgraceful. Jamie's family on the other hand had to deal with the loss of a beautiful young boy in a horrendous manner whilst the two boys lived on regardless with little remorse I suspect.

Jamie's family have to live with this crime every day and how they've managed to come this far I've no idea. I can only imagine the torment that has been with them since Jamie's death.

Support and consideration now needs to be given to Jamie's family and not the criminals. They've both had more than than what they deserve from this Government. If Jamie's family feel the need to know the details of Jon Venables crime and if it will help them cope, then I feel they do have the right to know.

As for the two murderers, why protect their identity in the first place - let them live with what they've done and the consequences.

Jamie's parents have no LEGAL right to know.
.
I feel the same as just about everyone else but unfortunately that's the way our good old British Justice System works.
.
They should have been strung up for what they did in the first place.

There were many conditions put on Venables and Thompsons release, I wonder if they should have put one on that said if they ever committed another crime then they would lose the priviledge of anonymity. I have heard people say that they have served their debt and should be allowed to start a new life, in my opinion they can never repay that debt to Jamie or his family. They should never have been released and now their identities should be made known. If they are considered to be 'at risk' in society then give them a cell to live out the rest of their days. Although we only know that Venables is alleged to have committed further offences how do we know that Thompson has led a blameless life? The justice system in this country has a duty to safeguard the public but it seems that taking the decision to release these two has only served to put more people at risk. Using the 'reason' that it could prejudice any forthcoming legal proceedings is weak in my opinion, if our legal system is so strong as Jack Straw is preaching then why should they think a fair trial won't be possible? If the evidence is there then a case will be judged on that unless it's, god forbid, another murder he's committed then that would be a problem for him and his defence.

All these people who say they should have the RIGHT to know! What do people want to do with that right? Other than to fill their voyeuristic urges.
I have no interest whatsoever in knowing who Venables is, knowing what he's done, or knowing what he will be doing in the future. No more so than any other criminal who has been tried and sentenced for their crimes.
If I did know, would I be any the wiser?

Its not about people voyeuristic tendencies, il do a little scenario for you: a new neighbour moves next door. You have two children of your own. If that new neighbour where in fact Venables, would you want to know or live in blissful ignorance, running the risk that something may or may not happen. At least if you know, you are informed.

I live in blissful ignorance and run the risk of something happening regardless of who lives next door to me!
Whoever is there, something may or may not happen. The fact that it is Venables doesnt make it more or less likely that anything might or might not happen.
I'm afraid I can't live my life worrying about things that may or may not happen.

Of course somebody somewhere is living next door to Robert Thompson. do they feel any less safe not knowing whether they are living next door to him or not??

And what is the relevence of having two children of my own? Venables isnt some kind of predator who preys on children. His killing and torturing of a child was because like most killers, they kill people younger or smaller or weaker than themselves and as a 10 year old, there isnt a great deal of choice!!
As an adult, he would probably be more of a threat to me than my children.

We are all in that situation, I could have lived next to a serial killer for the last few years who knows. The question is this person is convicted, they have already done something very serious, if you where able to know would you want to know? Im certainly not talking about everyone’s minor misdemeanours being stapled to their front doors, so everyone knew you have three points on your licence. Im saying this person is a convicted criminal of the highest order, it is proposed to give him a new identity and let him live next door to someone without them having knowledge of his past.

Would I want to know? not really, it serves no purpose.
Many convicted and time served murderers live the rest of their lives without harming their neighbours. I would have no problem with Leslie Grantham living next door to me on licence.

Of course it serves a purpose, you could then make the informed decision on staying or moving from the house. im certainly not one for the big brother state, however I feel in cases such as this those that would be effected should be informed. You cant honestly say that if Venables was re-homed next door to you, it wouldn’t be a problem. I understand it’s a hard subject with many pitfalls, but I do think this individual has been given way to many chances and has shown blatant disregard for the help he has been given to reform himself.

These two boys were given new identities purely to protect them from people who wanted (and still want) to take the law into their own hands.
Comments such as Tulstar's that these two boys should have been "strung up" I find abhorrent. 10 years olds are not morally responsible enough to be tried for murder.
Their anonymity should remain.

Those 10 years old knew exactly what they were doing - a prolonged episode of torturing and murder. They then tried to make it look like an accident.

Their anonminity should be disclosed - they do not deserve to be protected. Then they should be locked away for the rest of their lives to live out a miserable exisitent.

MrStJohns wrote:
Of course it serves a purpose, you could then make the informed decision on staying or moving from the house. im certainly not one for the big brother state, however I feel in cases such as this those that would be effected should be informed. You cant honestly say that if Venables was re-homed next door to you, it wouldn’t be a problem. I understand it’s a hard subject with many pitfalls, but I do think this individual has been given way to many chances and has shown blatant disregard for the help he has been given to reform himself.

You may have been living next door to Robert Thompson for the last 7 years, and has it been a problem to you?

Tell me, in the last 7 years how often have you shown any concern that you may have been living next door to Jon Venables? If the present media scrum hadn't got into a frenzy, you could have lived your whole life living next door to him without any reason for concern. Ironically, it seems only knowing who he is would then give you reason for concern.

And explain the chances this individual has been given? And what has been the blatant disregard for the help he has been given to reform himself? And what is all this help to reform himself?
If this help involves having no identity before the age of 21, then living a lie for every single day afterwards, then this unfortunate individual has no chance in life.
He's done well to live a life of lies and stay a free man (albeit a dead man walking) for 7 years.

Now if society really wanted a reformed character able to cope with adulthood, then he wouldnt have been locked away as a 10 year old. However, UK society is far less forward thinking than our Scandinavian counterparts when it comes to child on child crimes.

Sarah27 wrote:
Those 10 years old knew exactly what they were doing - a prolonged episode of torturing and murder. They then tried to make it look like an accident.

Their anonminity should be disclosed - they do not deserve to be protected. Then they should be locked away for the rest of their lives to live out a miserable exisitent.

And the basis of your clinical diagnosis is??

Read this for an alternative view

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/programmes/co
rrespondent/803151.s
tm

Maybe we have something to learn from the Norwegians

Sarah27 wrote:
Those 10 years old knew exactly what they were doing - a prolonged episode of torturing and murder. They then tried to make it look like an accident.

Their anonminity should be disclosed - they do not deserve to be protected. Then they should be locked away for the rest of their lives to live out a miserable exisitent.

Sarah27, knowing what they were doing is not the same as being fully morally responsible for their actions. My 3 year old often "knows what he's doing" when he does something naughty, but his moral development is at a very early stage. These 10 year olds were still at an early stage of their moral development and so should not have been tried for murder. (Search Google for "kohlberg 6 stages of moral development").

A blatant disregard shown in the fact that under the agreement of he’s release, he returned to his hometown, attended football matches while there, had nights out while there etc etc. He was given an extensive programme of rehabilitation while being detained. We could keep going round in circles about who I do have or haven’t lived next door to, with or without my knowledge. As I have stated I agree I could well be living next door to an un-convicted murderer, however the point I am trying to make is that if someone has committed a crime of the nature that these two boys did, then where do you draw the line, they had a chance to reintegrate back into society, true. Given new identities at the cost of the tax payer, true. Venables has now made the decision to break the law, allegedly, again. And on previous occasion to this however none of this came to light until his recent arrest. So now the decision has to be made to spend more money to once again rename and relocate the offender and I feel whoever they are housed by should be informed as to who they are living next to.

Mr St John's, you only have what you have read in the papers to go on regarding JV's behaviour. Don't believe everything you read.
I agree with Avante. I just can't see what JV's whereabouts has anything to do with anyone except the authorities and (possibly) his family, least of all The Sun or its readership.

Don’t worry Maggie I don’t believe everything I read, however true or not, regarding the subsequent behaviour after this individual’s release. It still doesn’t really change my point, in that if he is convicted again of another crime, after committing such a serious one in the first place, why should the public purse be used to create a new identity for this person again and why shouldn’t who ever he lives by be at least told about their neighbours. I am not saying I personally want to know, that situation would only arise if he was going to live next door to me then yes I would want to know.

My concern is that if Venables has committed substantive offences in addition to breaches of his Order, he should stand trial and be dealt with according to the law. We should not want his trial prejudiced so that he achieves an acquittal though some breach regarding his 'new' identity or speculation and leaks regarding evidence yet to be put to a court. As odious a person we may think him to be, we owe it to those so inclined not to allow them to be placed in situations where they may offend: that includes the 'new' Mr Venables as well as any who may choose to take the law into their own hands and seek to kill him.

Is Jon Venables a danger to society? Or a danger to anyone in society?
How about Robert Thompson?

Seeing that some people on this message board have made comments similar to "standing him in the street and stoning him" He does need anonimity to protect him from these pillox and the other less civilised.
I'm not going make any excuses for Venable apart from his age at the time of the offence. This is one of not many truly horrific offences that happen very rarely. And now the law is there to protect the rest of us from being dragged back into the dark ages by a crowd of idiots who would tear him limb from limb. He may deserve this in the minds of some but I don't want our society to degenerate that far. Remember the death of PC Keith Blakelock? possibly the most horrific public order offence in living memory - the crowd would do the same to Venables. This is why his identity must be protected. As for the rest of us, we simply don't NEED to know, WANTING to know isn't good enough reason.

Avante wrote:

Sarah27 wrote: Those 10 years old knew exactly what they were doing - a prolonged episode of torturing and murder. They then tried to make it look like an accident. Their anonminity should be disclosed - they do not deserve to be protected. Then they should be locked away for the rest of their lives to live out a miserable exisitent.

And the basis of your clinical diagnosis is?? Read this for an alternative view http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/programmes/co rrespondent/803151.s tm Maybe we have something to learn from the Norwegians

I don't believe we do. Children are taught right from wrong from toddlers. My five year old knows it's wrong to physically a hurt another human being.

Remember, we're not talking a minor crime here. A family lost their child in the most horrific circumstances yet we're saying we must show the criminals compassion? How does help the family?

Of course, the conditions in which they were raised for the first 10 years of their life are highly likely to have a significant impact on their pyschological state - but it's no excuse for the horrific crime they committed.

The tax payers have invested huge sums of money to protect these criminals and now one of them has gone onto to commit another serious offence. Do we go on to show them yet more compassion and blame their past? Thankfully, we don't.

Agreed Olga, somehow both I and MrStJohns have managed to get through our lives for the last 7 years without needing to know the whereabouts of Jon Venables, and we've done it without any fear or paranoia, and without the need to question the validity of our neighbours. I certainly havent thought about going to the police and the courts to ascertain whether the man next door to me is really Jon Venables.
And Sarah27, this "soft " government as you put it hasnt been soft or lenient on the offenders. there are few countries who have a legal age of prosecution of only 10. So these two 10 year olds have been prosecuted, sentenced and institutionalised as adults. They've gone through the same criminal process as adults, many of whom are unable to deal with the legal system in adulthood.

No person accused of a criminal act should have the accusation made public before they have been tried.
How many lives have been ruined by what later turned out to be false accusations?

Avante wrote:
Agreed Olga, somehow both I and MrStJohns have managed to get through our lives for the last 7 years without needing to know the whereabouts of Jon Venables, and we've done it without any fear or paranoia, and without the need to question the validity of our neighbours. I certainly havent thought about going to the police and the courts to ascertain whether the man next door to me is really Jon Venables. And Sarah27, this "soft " government as you put it hasnt been soft or lenient on the offenders. there are few countries who have a legal age of prosecution of only 10. So these two 10 year olds have been prosecuted, sentenced and institutionalised as adults. They've gone through the same criminal process as adults, many of whom are unable to deal with the legal system in adulthood.

Unfortunately JV didn't learn his lesson and went on to reoffend and commit a further serious offence, depsite the priviledge of rehabilitation that was provided.

That's how effective our justice system is i'ts failed the public and The Bulger family. Now support needs to be given to the family in whichever way it's needed. They have no to choice but to relive the most traumatic ordeal every day.

These boys must have known that they were in the wrong when they committed their act but I'd question whether they understood just how wrong. Neither of the boys had a normal loving childhood and one had older siblings who tortured him for fun and a father who condoned it probably leading him to see torture as normal behaviour. Also they may not have been able to grasp what they were doing to James' family if they weren't in close loving relationships themselves.

If I were living next door to RT I'd rather he remained unidentified as I don't want vigilantes coming round. His rehabilitation process involved frequently recounting events from the point of view of James and his mum. He may be no longer behind bars but he'll have to live with what he did for the rest of his life and seeing his accomplice back in the spotlight will no doubt bring it all back to him.

Sarah27 wrote:

Avante wrote:
Agreed Olga, somehow both I and MrStJohns have managed to get through our lives for the last 7 years without needing to know the whereabouts of Jon Venables, and we've done it without any fear or paranoia, and without the need to question the validity of our neighbours. I certainly havent thought about going to the police and the courts to ascertain whether the man next door to me is really Jon Venables. And Sarah27, this "soft " government as you put it hasnt been soft or lenient on the offenders. there are few countries who have a legal age of prosecution of only 10. So these two 10 year olds have been prosecuted, sentenced and institutionalised as adults. They've gone through the same criminal process as adults, many of whom are unable to deal with the legal system in adulthood.

Unfortunately JV didn't learn his lesson and went on to reoffend and commit a further serious offence, depsite the priviledge of rehabilitation that was provided.

That's how effective our justice system is i'ts failed the public and The Bulger family. Now support needs to be given to the family in whichever way it's needed. They have no to choice but to relive the most traumatic ordeal every day.

What is this further serious offence Venables has commited?? You have him tried and convicted already.
I do not think he could possibly "learn his lesson" You're talking as if he were a rational adult at the time of the original crime. He was a damaged 10 year boy, the idea of "learning a lesson" was way beyond him. 8 years in a young offenders institution followed by 3 years in an adult prison does not constitute rehabilitation. and in order to rehabilitate, one must have been habilitated in the first place. These kids never really knew normality, how could they be rehabilitated?
And how has the justice system failed the Bulger family? The killers of their child were found, tried, convicted (harsher than most would have thought as they were tried as adults) and served their sentence, which they are still serving, which they will serve for the rest of their lives. Whatever the sentence, if the two boys had been publicly tortured to death immediately after the guilty verdict, the family would still have to relive the traumatic ordeal every day.

Avante wrote:

Sarah27 wrote:

Avante wrote: Agreed Olga, somehow both I and MrStJohns have managed to get through our lives for the last 7 years without needing to know the whereabouts of Jon Venables, and we've done it without any fear or paranoia, and without the need to question the validity of our neighbours. I certainly havent thought about going to the police and the courts to ascertain whether the man next door to me is really Jon Venables. And Sarah27, this "soft " government as you put it hasnt been soft or lenient on the offenders. there are few countries who have a legal age of prosecution of only 10. So these two 10 year olds have been prosecuted, sentenced and institutionalised as adults. They've gone through the same criminal process as adults, many of whom are unable to deal with the legal system in adulthood.

Unfortunately JV didn't learn his lesson and went on to reoffend and commit a further serious offence, depsite the priviledge of rehabilitation that was provided. That's how effective our justice system is i'ts failed the public and The Bulger family. Now support needs to be given to the family in whichever way it's needed. They have no to choice but to relive the most traumatic ordeal every day.

What is this further serious offence Venables has commited?? You have him tried and convicted already. I do not think he could possibly "learn his lesson" You're talking as if he were a rational adult at the time of the original crime. He was a damaged 10 year boy, the idea of "learning a lesson" was way beyond him. 8 years in a young offenders institution followed by 3 years in an adult prison does not constitute rehabilitation. and in order to rehabilitate, one must have been habilitated in the first place. These kids never really knew normality, how could they be rehabilitated? And how has the justice system failed the Bulger family? The killers of their child were found, tried, convicted (harsher than most would have thought as they were tried as adults) and served their sentence, which they are still serving, which they will serve for the rest of their lives. Whatever the sentence, if the two boys had been publicly tortured to death immediately after the guilty verdict, the family would still have to relive the traumatic ordeal every day.

Nobody knows what the offence is but serious enough for him to be recalled back to prison and he now faces extremely serious allegations.

Denise Fergus always felt that both of these two youngsters would go onto reoffend at a later date. I sincerely hope that others have not fallen victim because the Government failed to rehabiliate them successfully. If they have, is that justice for Jamie and his family?

It's the public that need protecting and not the offenders anymore. I would question whether there has been appropriate supervision of the offenders.

'Nobody knows what the offence is but serious enough for him to be recalled back to prison and he now faces extremely serious allegations'

Sarah, your facts are incorrect. He could have been recalled back to prison for stealing a bottle of milk. Those are the terms of his licence. He stands accused of a crime but has not been given the opportunity to plea yet. It may well be that once the case has been though the courts that he is let out again because he is found NOT GUILTY.

He can be recalled back to prison for going to Liverpool! He can be recalled back to prison for telling someone that he is Jon Venables, and he can be recalled back to prison for mentioning anything of his childhood before the age of 10!
Justice (for Jamie and his family as you put it) is about trying and convicting the guilty parties, so yes, justice has been served. Its a good job that Denise Fergus wasn't involved in the legal process as she has, after 7 years of them being released, been wrong in her prognosis.
Lets just suppose that this scenario takes place. Venables has told people who he is, or someone in prison has found out. They've then informed the police out of malice that this person has been involved in some alleged offences involving children. If this happened, the police would be obliged to return him to prison whilst investigating "serious allegations" I'm not saying that has happened as I have no idea, but that could be one reason for a recall to prison whilst allegations are being investigated. It is a little early to have him publicly hung drawn and quartered!