Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]

[Wainy316]

The thing is punishment works in different ways for different people. Look at Thompson, the years he did have rehabilitated him and he has taken to this anonymity.

He could be a killing spree waiting to happen for all we know.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

5 people wanting death sentences for 10 year old kids. Classy.

Kids killing kids = wrong

State killing kids = right

Something doesn't add up folks.

[Chindie]

The thing is punishment works in different ways for different people. Look at Thompson, the years he did have rehabilitated him and he has taken to this anonymity.

He could be a killing spree waiting to happen for all we know.

So could you.

[Wainy316]

The thing is punishment works in different ways for different people. Look at Thompson, the years he did have rehabilitated him and he has taken to this anonymity.

He could be a killing spree waiting to happen for all we know.

So could you.

So could you :winkold:

What I'm saying is, the statement I quoted suggests that just becuase he hasn't done anything yet that Thompson has been successfully rehabilitated. In that case the same could of been said of Venables a week ago.

[kidlewis]

The thing is punishment works in different ways for different people. Look at Thompson, the years he did have rehabilitated him and he has taken to this anonymity.

He could be a killing spree waiting to happen for all we know.

So could you.

true but he is far more likely to do it than me.

[Chindie]

The statement is right however. If they successfully passed the tests required to be considered rehabilitated, then they are. If you're going to start compaigning for the idea of rehabilitation to null unless it's impossible for them to reoffend then you just threw the idea of rehabiliatation into a bin on the far side of Mars.

Again, thats what the life licence is there to enforce - 'You, as far as we are concerned, are rehabilitated and ready for society to be safe with you in it and for you to add to it again. But we will safeguard any doubt by limiting you on pain of reincarceration'.

[Santa_Rosa]

What I'm saying is, the statement I quoted suggests that just becuase he hasn't done anything yet that Thompson has been successfully rehabilitated. In that case the same could of been said of Venables a week ago.

Still can. We don't know what he's supposed to have done, and whatever it is, he hasn't been found guilty of it yet.

[Chindie]

This article was written in the aftermath of the the 2 boys from near Doncaster who last year attacked 2 younger boys, severely injuring one and harming the other. It remains relevant though, and a good read, especially given it's heavy reference to the Bulger case.

In October 1993 Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the 10-year-old killers of two-year-old James Bulger, were taken to Preston crown court to be shown the place where their trial would begin three weeks later. It was a privately arranged visit, not a formal appearance, but the press had been tipped off and a photographer caught one of them sucking a lollipop on the steps outside. The Sun carried the picture next day, pixellated so as to respect a legal requirement that the boys remain anonymous, but with an accompanying text that took the lollipop to be incriminating evidence. One of the boys was described "looking as though he did not have a care in the world" while the other "casually walked along behind". Casual and uncaring; blithely immune to the suffering they'd caused; demons of indifference - no one could miss the subtext.

Many people have been struck by the seeming parallels between the Bulger case and the arrest, this week, of two boys from Edlington, near Doncaster. The evidence has yet to be heard of course, but the boys, brothers aged 10 and 11, both in foster care, have been charged with the attempted murder of two other boys, aged nine and 11; knives and bricks were allegedly involved, and cigarette burns. The brothers' court appearance did not provoke the kind of scenes that took place at Sefton magistrates court when the Bulger killers were remanded in custody and an angry mob threw stones at the police vans carrying them. But that's not to say the reporting of the case has been any less inflammatory.

"Savages" and "'Torture' bruvs" were among the headlines. And as was the case with Thompson and Venables, the boys' behaviour and appearance in court has been subject to minute analysis. Whereas the Times described them as showing "little reaction", and the Guardian reported that they "remained expressionless", the tabloids claimed to have seen smiles, yawns and a lack of fear. Almost every newspaper described the boys as "baby-faced" and emphasised that they were barely tall enough to see over the edge of the dock; the same observations were made about Thompson and Venables 16 years ago. But now as then these allusions to the tender years of the accused weren't offered in mitigation but to imply the opposite: so young and yet (allegedly) so depraved. There was even the equivalent of that lollipop episode, when the Sun asserted that one of the boys' reaction to a mobile phone going off in court showed him to be oblivious to the gravity of the proceedings and his alleged offence.

Has nothing changed in 16 years? Are we still caught in the same bind, unable to escape the old dualistic stereotypes: little angels versus little devils; our children (essentially good and well brought-up) versus other people's children (out of control, fecklessly parented and wicked); golden-haired innocents (James Bulger, Madeleine McCann) versus monsters of motiveless malignity; kids with Lego versus kids with knives? The Bulger case prompted moral panic and incredulity: what kind of world was it where children could kill children? Now that stories of teenage stabbings are commonplace, the mood is more cynical. In 1993 the 38 witnesses who saw James Bulger being abducted were condemned for not intervening. In today's atomised society, no one would blame them. Who'd risk it? Kids, even primary school kids, are too dangerous.

Tales of evil children used to be confined to novels and films: Lord of the Flies, A Clockwork Orange, Rosemary's Baby, The Omen. Now they're the property of tabloids. In the months leading up to their trial, Thompson and Venables were compared to Saddam Hussein and Myra Hindley, while doorstepped neighbours spoke of acts of brattishness and barbarity. The past week has seen a similar churning out of stories about the two accused brothers. Most of it is hearsay, and won't be admissible evidence. But now it's on record, in the public prints, it can't be erased or discounted, and potentially infringes the defendants' right to a fair trial.

Robert Thompson came from a family of seven boys and his mother, Ann, divorced and, in the current idiom, "benefit dependent", couldn't cope - the full facts have yet to emerge but some may seek to find parallels there with this week's case. Aside from the ages of the alleged victims, though, and the fact that there were two of them, there is at least one important difference: the charge this time is only attempted murder. Luckily, one of the victims was found wandering and covered in blood; as a result his friend, who had suffered serious head injuries, was discovered, rushed to hospital and survived. But as far as the tabloids are concerned the narrative is the same as it was 16 years ago, even down to the demonising of the place where the crime took place, Edlington, a town allegedly "blighted by antisocial behaviour and feral thuggery", just as Liverpool was said to be in 1993.

"Feral" is much over-used these days and I look forward to it joining "spastic" as a word no self-respecting person would choose to employ. In its original usage, it applies to domesticated animals that have become wild. But reporters and columnists now use it as shorthand for any form of juvenile behaviour they find invidious. It seems a singularly ill-chosen word to describe the current generation of children, with their array of technology, their range of idiom and reference, their global span. You can own an iPod and still be a wild animal, perhaps, but what Thompson and Venables did, and what the Edlington boys are accused of attempting to do, belongs to the world of children, not wolf-packs.

Children have always killed - in anger, panic, envy, avarice, revenge or self-defence, just as adults kill, but often, too, without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions or understanding the irrevocability of death. The Sleep of Reason, David James Smith's book on the Bulger case, opens with a catalogue of child murderers, from John Bell in 1831, who cut the throat of a 13-year-old (and was the last child in Britain to be hanged), to 10-year-old William York, who killed the five-year old girl who shared - and fouled - his bed in 1748, to the nine-year-old in Wales in 1947, who bound the ankles of a four-year-old and threw him into a river ("I went home and was afraid to tell anyone," he told the police, "I won't do it again").

What's striking about these cases is how understanding (some would say lenient) the authorities were in their treatment of these juvenile offenders. Some had their death-sentences revoked; others were placed in care or sent to reformatory; William York was granted a royal pardon on condition he enlist in the navy. As Kate Summerscale recounts in The Suspicions of Mr Whicher, Constance Kent, in 1860, was less fortunate: convicted of killing her three-year-old brother at the age of 16, she spent 21 years in prison. But younger child killers fared better. That "no civilised society regards children as accountable for their actions to the same extent as adults" was the philosophy, and it prevailed until comparatively recently. For strangling two boys, on separate occasions, in 1968, 10-year-old Mary Bell was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder, and was released after 12 years.

As it turned out, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables served an even shorter sentence, eight years, as the trial judge had recommended. But if the then home secretary Michael Howard had had his way, and not been over-ruled by the European court of human rights, it would have been 15 years. And if the readers who signed a petition in the Sun had had their way, Thompson and Venables would still be "rotting in jail for life". It seems we're becoming more punitive towards children, quicker to condemn them, less willing to accept that their failings are in large part down to us. It's a failure of responsibility and a form of neglect, but government policy encourages it. When he first used the soundbite, Tony Blair's "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" sounded marginally more enlightened than John Major's infamous "We must condemn a little more and understand a little less". But in practice New Labour's approach to juvenile crime has been as bad or worse. "No more excuses" is the slogan. The principle that a "child under 14 is less morally culpable for his or her actions than an adult" has been dismissed as "archaic" and "illogical".

Back in 1993, British law still recognised doli incapax, the presumption that children between the ages of 10 and 14 lack the necessary criminal intent or "mischievous discretion" to be fully responsible for their actions. In practice, doli incapax was relatively easy to rebut: at the Bulger trial, it took only half a day for the evidence of teachers and psychiatrists to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Thompson and Venables were intellectually and emotionally mature enough to know they were doing something seriously wrong when they attacked James Bulger. But doli incapax, like free school milk, was a symbolically important safeguard - until the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act abolished it. With its abolition, children between 10 and 14 are no longer given the benefit of the doubt.

If trial and punishment are a measure of social attitudes, then that old adage about the English hating their children seems to be true; we'd rather criminalise them and lock them up than deal with their problems. Despite calls for it to be raised from 10, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales remains scandalously low. Not just lower than it is in Ireland (12), France, Holland and Poland (13), Germany and Italy (14), Spain (16) and Luxembourg (18 ). But lower than in Turkey, China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Egypt and Algeria, countries whose record on human rights and civil liberties we like to think is inferior to our own. James Bulger's mother Denise was quoted this week arguing for the age of criminal responsibility to be lowered to eight. But the UN's standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice - the so-called Beijing rules - call for "a close relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal behaviour and other social rights and responsibilities (such as marital status, civil majority, etc)". In the UK you have to reach 16 legally to have sex or marry, 17 to drive a car, and 18 to drink in a pub, serve on a jury, or vote in a general election. Yet at 10 you can be found guilty of murder or rape.

The Bulger case shamed Britain in the eyes of the world - not because the murder itself was so shocking (though it was) but because of the media circus, the court process, the inability of the boys to instruct their lawyers, and the public's opposition to the possibility of them being rehabilitated. Even the foreman of the jury came to regret the murder verdict: "We should have gone back into court and said yes, we do have a verdict: our verdict is that these boys are in urgent need of social and psychiatric help." If they are guilty, it is highly probable that the two brothers from Edlington are also in need of social and psychiatric help. The proper people to deal with their case aren't barristers in an adversarial crown court setting, but probation officers, social workers and child therapists. The procedures for trying 10-year-olds haven't significantly changed since 1993, however. And because youth courts can impose a maximum sentence of two years, serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm continue to be tried in adult courts.

In other words, the lessons learned from the Bulger case have been forgotten and there's every chance that the two brothers from Edlington will receive the same kind of high-profile trial as Thompson and Venables did. The tabloids will love it. But the rest of us should campaign to change the system.

The Grauniad

[Stevo985]

People are also saying that the rehabilitation has failed. Do we know what Venables did yet to be locked back up? Couldn't it still be that he merely went to Liverpool for a day.

Yeh he's violated his "life license" but he's hardly gone on a killing spree has he?

[Chindie]

There's actually not confirmation yet as far as I'm aware that he actually did anything. The terms of the licence are harsh enough that you can be brought in if they suspect you will break the terms, or if it's alleged you have. Meaning he's not necessarily guilty of anything.

[Wainy316]

We may not know if the rehab has failed, but we will not know if it was successful until they are dead. Who knows what goes through their heads.

[Chindie]

Again that's a rather futile statement Wainy. I don't know what goes through anyone's head, given that I'm apparently an example the root of all problems in society I daresay some might want me doing the hemp fandango. I dunno though.

You can only be considered guilty for an act/preparation to carry out an act, not a thought, and until they show signs of not being rehabilited, they're rehabilitated. You can err on the sid eof caution as was done with both Bulger killers, of course, but it's still assumed they're 'cured'.

If it wasn't, they wouldn't have been released.

[kidlewis]

Again that's a rather futile statement Wainy. I don't know what goes through anyone's head, given that I'm apparently an example the root of all problems in society I daresay some might want me doing the hemp fandango. I dunno though.

You can only be considered guilty for an act/preparation to carry out an act, not a thought, and until they show signs of not being rehabilited, they're rehabilitated. You can err on the sid eof caution as was done with both Bulger killers, of course, but it's still assumed they're 'cured'.

If it wasn't, they wouldn't have been released.

you can be considered not rehabilitated based on your thoughts though.

[Chindie]

Indeed your thoughts are considered with regards rehabilitation, that, your personality, nature, etc are all considered.

And they were released following considerations and testing of those.

They're rehabilitated until proven otherwise. In a similar way you or I are entirely capable of being murderers, but we aren't until we prove we are (/prove we intend wholly to become one).

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

We should deffo develop technology so we can control and restrict peoples thoughts.

....

Seriously though, one having thoughts is all well and good, but there is a thing called common sense which kicks in and tells you not to throw the woman on the table and shag her infront of her husband and everyone else in the restaurant.

If the rehabilitation went well then it would instill this into them, something which their parents didn't teach them and led to their crimes.

But going on ones thoughts is pointless, we all have mad and bizzare thoughts but we aren't going to impliment them. Dangerous territory.

[snowychap]

true but he is far more likely to do it than me.

Ooh, I don't know about that - we've seen you post about the Lisbon (non) referendum.

[snowychap]

Seriously though, one having thoughts is all well and good, but there is a thing called common sense which kicks in and tells you not to throw the woman on the table and shag her infront of her husband and everyone else in the restaurant.

Or at least there should have been. I won't be going back there in a hurry.

Fixed.

[starsailor9774]

I stand by my original statement.

Is it your intention just to come on this site and repeatedly hurl mindless and incorrect insults at other posters on VT?

Incorrect in your opinion, which isn't one i particularly value.

Just to jog your memory on occasions Chindie has labled me, a racist, a moron, scum, On this thread he has said i was "stealing air from the populace" which is a polite way of wishing me dead Plus numerous other insults and snide remarks. So as i say I stand by my original statement and include you in it.

For the record, i voted death.

No option for death following extensive medical experimentation.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Seriously though, one having thoughts is all well and good, but there is a thing called common sense which kicks in and tells you not to throw the woman on the table and shag her infront of her husband and everyone else in the restaurant.

Or at least there should have been. I won't be going back there in a hurry.

Fixed.

[snowychap]

I stand by my original statement.

Is it your intention just to come on this site and repeatedly hurl mindless and incorrect insults at other posters on VT?

Incorrect in your opinion, which isn't one i particularly value.

Actually, when you are talking about me then my knowledge of what I intend carries more weight than your uninformed opinion.

That was, after all, what you were hinting at when you said 'guess'.

Just to jog your memory on occasions Chindie has labled me, a racist, a moron, scum, On this thread he has said i was "stealing air from the populace" which is a polite way of wishing me dead Plus numerous other insults and snide remarks.

No need to jog my memory - if you revisit the one particular thread then you'll see that Chindie pointed out that I had spoken to him about what he had posted.

So as i say I stand by my original statement and include you in it.

So, just for clarification, you are calling me an 'apologist for scum', are you?