Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]

[starsailor9774]

Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, must not be "prejudged" by speculation over allegations he faces, ministers have said.

Venables, now 27, is back in jail after breaching the terms of his 2001 release in which he was given a new identity.

The Sunday Mirror alleged his recall to prison was linked to images of child abuse, but Ed Balls and Harriet Harman refused to be drawn on these claims.

James's mother, Denise Fergus, has said Venables should now lose his anonymity.

The Sunday Mirror also claims that Venables had sparked concerns by using drugs and revealing his past.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw would only say that he faces "extremely serious allegations" and the government was determined to ensure that justice was done.

Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, told the BBC the government would not be drawn on the report.

"I'm not saying whether it's true or not because I don't want to comment on it," she said.

"At the time that Venables was sentenced, it was said that he should keep his anonymity and, as a general principle, we want to make absolutely sure that nobody can get off a criminal offence by saying 'I can't get a fair trial, there's been too much publicity'."

The stance was backed by Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who said it was important to ensure the public was protected.

"It was a terrible crime, the scars of James Bulger's death are very deep for his family, [and] for all of us," he told Sky News.

"It was right for people to try rehabilitation but the first thing always has to be making sure the public are safe.

"Now you'll understand I'm not going to say anything about this case because I don't want to prejudge any court case and I think it's really important the media and politicians don't prejudge and therefore potentially put at risk any further court action."

Mrs Fergus, 42, is due to meet Jack Straw next week to press him on the reasons for Venables' recall. But Mr Straw is not expected to divulge the reasons.

Venables' solicitor at the time of his trial, Laurence Lee, blamed the Ministry of Justice for creating what he called the "speculation show".

'Serious questions'

"If they'd come clean and give us some information about what he'd done this wouldn't be happening now," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

"I think if we'd been at least drip fed some information this wild speculation wouldn't have gone out of control like it has now."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said he was more concerned about newspaper reports of Venables' activities than discovering the allegations he faced.

"This is somebody who has been released from prison, who is supposed to be on licence, is supposed to be under the control of the probation bodies," he told Sky News.

"Something has gone wrong here and there will certainly be serious questions to be asked."

Venables, alongside Robert Thompson, served eight years for the murder of two-year-old James.

Both boys became the UK's youngest murderers, as 10-year-olds, after abducting James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

His battered body was later found by children playing on a freight railway line more than two miles away.

The Beeb

Right. Can someone please tell me quite why Mrs Fergus needs to be involved in this at all, and also what her calls for his anonymity are going to achieve? (at least in what we perceive to be a civilised nation?).

I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved.

If someone murdered a child of mine i would make it my business to know what they were doing every second of everyday for the rest of their life.

Of course if i had my way, this wouldn't be long cos they would be swinging from the gallows about half hour after being convicted.

[starsailor9774]

Because he tortured and murdered her son?

Which has nothing to do with the justice system. He was tried and convicted and punished (as the law decreed) for the crime. Everything from the moment he was caught had absolutely nothing to do with her, other than that she see what thee justice system decrees her son's murderer's punishment.

Why she is consulted by the government, or feels she has any entitlement to that, or any say in what goes on in the justice system, is what I am concerned with here. It's not her business.

So when two 10 years olds brutalise and murder a 2 year old child of yours you will just accept the paltry sentence given to them and then accept it when they get released under new names and given everything your child was robbed of? And then when one of the killers allegedly offends again, you won't want to know why it happened or why you weren't informed?

[saturdaygig]

So when two 10 years olds brutalise and murder a 2 year old child of yours you will just accept the paltry sentence given to them and then accept it when they get released under new names and given everything your child was robbed of? And then when one of the killers allegedly offends again, you won't want to know why it happened or why you weren't informed?

Its not whether he would want to that's at issue. Sentences are not set by victims and they shouldn't be, or people would get 100 lashes for stealing a bike, and hung for anything more.

[Awol]

The UK injusitce system is a joke and getting worse. Clearly this little bastard should be nowhere near civilised society, ever.

[snowychap]

I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved.

Here's an interesting piece on the subject:

Jack Straw is wrong to meet Denise Fergus

He is also equally wrong to make any revelation concerning why Jon Venables has been recalled to prison. The statement Straw has made regarding the reasons for the revocation of Venables's licence is outrageous. It is an attack upon the confidentiality granted by law to a prisoner; a person who for many other legal purposes is regarded as being vulnerable. It cannot stand. Where is Saint Shami Chakrabarti when you need her?

The individual currently in custody would only ever appear to be known as Jon Venables for the purposes of their supervision by the prison system and parole authorities. For better or worse, he has been granted lifelong anonymity. It is not known whether the conduct for which he has been returned to prison has resulted in a conviction; the BBC's quotation of the word 'allegations' suggests that it has not. Accordingly, the only insight that reports of his reincarceration can afford us are into the level of supervision which some of those who live under life licence must live under, and the rigour with which the authorities police life licence.

And it is wrong for Jack Straw to meet Denise Fergus. I can offer Mrs. Fergus no appropriate words of comfort other than that I know a mother who lost her son to a violent end; and no matter how old they are when they are taken or the manner of their passing, I know that that particular pain never goes away. No matter how much counselling is received, there is no manual to help deal with it.

However, as I wrote yesterday, in the UK justice is dispensed by the Queen's courts in her name and for the benefit of all; I should have written 'in her name, and in public, for the benefit of all'. After Thompson and Venables were sent down, the Bulger family had no locus in the case any more. The introduction of 'victim impact statements' into the criminal justice system is to be deplored. For all their faults, the British judiciary tends to be really quite good at hunting down the correct sentence for a particular crime. As the recent case of Munir Hussain has shown, when they do get it wrong they get pulled up for it pretty quickly. Our largely despicable press often likes to claim the credit for such victories, but they are victories for the system just as much as the original failures are failures of the system. Those who dispense justice have their own families; that the death of a child under any circumstances causes their bereaved parent pain and suffering should be considered to be a matter within judicial knowledge, and be allowed to rest at that. At least, that's what good taste and common sense might suggest. The victim impact statement is an assault on the impartiality of the sentencing process, and should be abolished forthwith.

If one feels that way, one cannot see why a minister of Cabinet rank, someone with no judicial function whatsoever, should be meeting with the parent of a crime victim. Justice has been done; it has been seen to be done; the case is closed. Where it becomes actively dangerous for Straw to meet with Mrs. Fergus is on account of his responsibility for administering the prison and probation services. Just as the victim impact statement assaults the impartiality of the sentencing process, meetings between those responsible for administering rehabilitation services and the families of their victims are assaults upon the penal process. Are the views of crime victims or their survivors to be heard not merely upon the level and nature of sentence imposed, but upon how sentence is carried out?

In the UK, prisoners are responsibility of the state. There is a great deal of talk, much of it idle and uninformed, of how 'cushy' prisons are - I stopped visiting them in the late '90's, and things may have changed since then, but by the time I'd done the rounds I'd been inside almost every male prison in Scotland bar Inverness and Dumfries, and had been inside the female prison as well, and the one insight you came away with from all of them was that you wouldn't want to spend a moment on the wrong side of the bars. Talk of cushy prisons is the ignorant populism of the saloon bar; for better or worse, we live in a country of law and the rule of law. What do those who speak of cushy prisons really want? The return of the treadmill? Rockbreaking? The law dictates that prisoners be treated in a certain way. If you don't like it, campaign for the law to be changed. If the government won't change the law, campaign to change the government.

It is possible, perhaps even probable, that Venables has been returned to custody on account of allegations entirely unrelated to his original crime - if nothing else, Mrs. Fergus might hopefully be able to see that, in this case, the system of life licence seems to be working, and perhaps draw some comfort from that. If she does meet with Straw, then she should remember that although he might utter sincere words and might even believe them, he is a politician and his real priority is re-election. That's all he really cares about.

And also from the same bloke about Vorderman (and Boris) on Question Time:

In one of those dopamine-fuelled fits of embarrassment that occasionally overtake me, I had to get up and leave the room when she started talking about Jon Venables and how James Bulger's family has a right to know why Venables has been returned to custody. I'm sure that this will offend someone somewhere, and that's not my intention; however, the state of British civic education seems to be as dire as that of maths instruction, so a few home truths should be pointed out.

Any victim of crime, or their relative, who says they want 'justice', either for themself of their relative, after an accused person has been convicted should be taken to task. They have had justice. In the UK, we do not have personal justice. Justice is dispensed in the Queen's courts in her name and for the benefit of all. Politicians interfere in the criminal justice process all the time, usually to court public popularity with our largely despicable press or else to extend their own power. Our judges sometimes sentence in a way we don't like. However, just as the British state retains a monopoly on force, so too does the British state retain a monopoly on justice. It is only the fact that British justice has largely been so fair over the course of our history that causes us to be shocked by miscarriages of justice. If you don't understand that, you don't understand justice, and what you want is the anarchy of vengeance. And if a superannuated quiz show hostess who came to prominence by being told 'I'll have one number from the top line, Carol, and you pick the rest' by complete strangers gives you succour then she, however unwittingly, is also advocating the anarchy of vengeance as well.

Strong words, perhaps; but having seen a miscarriage of justice take place before my eyes and been powerless to stop it, and also having represented child offenders, I do speak from a position of some knowledge.

[rjw63]

Seems the boy Venables is a bit of a paedo

[Chindie]

So when two 10 years olds brutalise and murder a 2 year old child of yours you will just accept the paltry sentence given to them and then accept it when they get released under new names and given everything your child was robbed of? And then when one of the killers allegedly offends again, you won't want to know why it happened or why you weren't informed?

No, because I understand the justice system and am not a reactionary moron. I'd be furious, distraught, every horrific emotion under the sun.

It is none of my business what sentence they get - it's the laws. It is none of my business what they do after the sentence. The victim has no say in justice, because justice cannot be carried out by anyone other than an impartial witness. To say otherwise is to set yourself on an evil path that will end in lots of things in life being nasty, brutish and short.

What business is it of mine if an offender, who has offended agaisnt me, reoffends on acompletely seperate offence? None thats what.

To say otherwise is to show a lack of udnerstanding of why the legal system is as it is.

[Chindie]

I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved.

Here's an interesting piece on the subject:

Jack Straw is wrong to meet Denise Fergus

He is also equally wrong to make any revelation concerning why Jon Venables has been recalled to prison. The statement Straw has made regarding the reasons for the revocation of Venables's licence is outrageous. It is an attack upon the confidentiality granted by law to a prisoner; a person who for many other legal purposes is regarded as being vulnerable. It cannot stand. Where is Saint Shami Chakrabarti when you need her?

The individual currently in custody would only ever appear to be known as Jon Venables for the purposes of their supervision by the prison system and parole authorities. For better or worse, he has been granted lifelong anonymity. It is not known whether the conduct for which he has been returned to prison has resulted in a conviction; the BBC's quotation of the word 'allegations' suggests that it has not. Accordingly, the only insight that reports of his reincarceration can afford us are into the level of supervision which some of those who live under life licence must live under, and the rigour with which the authorities police life licence.

And it is wrong for Jack Straw to meet Denise Fergus. I can offer Mrs. Fergus no appropriate words of comfort other than that I know a mother who lost her son to a violent end; and no matter how old they are when they are taken or the manner of their passing, I know that that particular pain never goes away. No matter how much counselling is received, there is no manual to help deal with it.

However, as I wrote yesterday, in the UK justice is dispensed by the Queen's courts in her name and for the benefit of all; I should have written 'in her name, and in public, for the benefit of all'. After Thompson and Venables were sent down, the Bulger family had no locus in the case any more. The introduction of 'victim impact statements' into the criminal justice system is to be deplored. For all their faults, the British judiciary tends to be really quite good at hunting down the correct sentence for a particular crime. As the recent case of Munir Hussain has shown, when they do get it wrong they get pulled up for it pretty quickly. Our largely despicable press often likes to claim the credit for such victories, but they are victories for the system just as much as the original failures are failures of the system. Those who dispense justice have their own families; that the death of a child under any circumstances causes their bereaved parent pain and suffering should be considered to be a matter within judicial knowledge, and be allowed to rest at that. At least, that's what good taste and common sense might suggest. The victim impact statement is an assault on the impartiality of the sentencing process, and should be abolished forthwith.

If one feels that way, one cannot see why a minister of Cabinet rank, someone with no judicial function whatsoever, should be meeting with the parent of a crime victim. Justice has been done; it has been seen to be done; the case is closed. Where it becomes actively dangerous for Straw to meet with Mrs. Fergus is on account of his responsibility for administering the prison and probation services. Just as the victim impact statement assaults the impartiality of the sentencing process, meetings between those responsible for administering rehabilitation services and the families of their victims are assaults upon the penal process. Are the views of crime victims or their survivors to be heard not merely upon the level and nature of sentence imposed, but upon how sentence is carried out?

In the UK, prisoners are responsibility of the state. There is a great deal of talk, much of it idle and uninformed, of how 'cushy' prisons are - I stopped visiting them in the late '90's, and things may have changed since then, but by the time I'd done the rounds I'd been inside almost every male prison in Scotland bar Inverness and Dumfries, and had been inside the female prison as well, and the one insight you came away with from all of them was that you wouldn't want to spend a moment on the wrong side of the bars. Talk of cushy prisons is the ignorant populism of the saloon bar; for better or worse, we live in a country of law and the rule of law. What do those who speak of cushy prisons really want? The return of the treadmill? Rockbreaking? The law dictates that prisoners be treated in a certain way. If you don't like it, campaign for the law to be changed. If the government won't change the law, campaign to change the government.

It is possible, perhaps even probable, that Venables has been returned to custody on account of allegations entirely unrelated to his original crime - if nothing else, Mrs. Fergus might hopefully be able to see that, in this case, the system of life licence seems to be working, and perhaps draw some comfort from that. If she does meet with Straw, then she should remember that although he might utter sincere words and might even believe them, he is a politician and his real priority is re-election. That's all he really cares about.

And also from the same bloke about Vorderman (and Boris) on Question Time:

In one of those dopamine-fuelled fits of embarrassment that occasionally overtake me, I had to get up and leave the room when she started talking about Jon Venables and how James Bulger's family has a right to know why Venables has been returned to custody. I'm sure that this will offend someone somewhere, and that's not my intention; however, the state of British civic education seems to be as dire as that of maths instruction, so a few home truths should be pointed out.

Any victim of crime, or their relative, who says they want 'justice', either for themself of their relative, after an accused person has been convicted should be taken to task. They have had justice. In the UK, we do not have personal justice. Justice is dispensed in the Queen's courts in her name and for the benefit of all. Politicians interfere in the criminal justice process all the time, usually to court public popularity with our largely despicable press or else to extend their own power. Our judges sometimes sentence in a way we don't like. However, just as the British state retains a monopoly on force, so too does the British state retain a monopoly on justice. It is only the fact that British justice has largely been so fair over the course of our history that causes us to be shocked by miscarriages of justice. If you don't understand that, you don't understand justice, and what you want is the anarchy of vengeance. And if a superannuated quiz show hostess who came to prominence by being told 'I'll have one number from the top line, Carol, and you pick the rest' by complete strangers gives you succour then she, however unwittingly, is also advocating the anarchy of vengeance as well.

Strong words, perhaps; but having seen a miscarriage of justice take place before my eyes and been powerless to stop it, and also having represented child offenders, I do speak from a position of some knowledge.

I think you'll be unsurprised to find, Darren, that I think this is a man with his head screwed on. Good stuff and something that its somewhat sad isn't above the blogosphere.

[Condimentalist]

To say otherwise is to set yourself on an evil path that will end in lots of things in life being nasty, brutish and short.

I can tell you're a fellow politics student :winkold: I'm actually reading 'The Twenty Years Crisis' by one of your Aber old boys Mr E H Carr this minute for an essay (obviously not this minute, I'm currently procrastinating), does he get much coverage at your Uni?

Seems the boy Venables is a bit of a paedo

Whether this is true or not I don't know, but I wonder if he might have a bit of the 'Michael Jackson' syndrome, an obsession with children and childhood that is linked to him effectively not having one.

[Chindie]

To say otherwise is to set yourself on an evil path that will end in lots of things in life being nasty, brutish and short.

I can tell you're a fellow politics student :winkold: I'm actually reading 'The Twenty Years Crisis' by one of your Aber old boys Mr E H Carr this minute for an essay (obviously not this minute, I'm currently procrastinating), does he get much coverage at your Uni?

Carr is someone the department is blatently proud of, he's pretty heavily mentoned in what a few staff members call the 'the Department propaganda' (), and we have regular guest lectures and lectures from staff members on their specialisms or current research points under the title of 'The E.H. Carr Memorial Lectures'.

But he doesn't often come up in standard literature, at least for the modules I've done.

[Witton_Lane]

If someone murdered a child of mine i would make it my business to know what they were doing every second of everyday for the rest of their life.

Of course if i had my way, this wouldn't be long cos they would be swinging from the gallows about half hour after being convicted.

You'd honestly be comfortable with the death penalty for two 10 year old children? I wouldn't, and I'm a strong supporter of bringing it back in certain cases.

[Stevo985]

Agree with the above. i wouldn't be against the death penalty for certain, rare, situations.

But hanging two 10 year olds would definitely not be one of those situations.

[mjmooney]

You could wait until they were 18, and THEN hang them.

Just saying, like.

[wiggyrichard]

Agree with the above. i wouldn't be against the death penalty for certain, rare, situations.

But hanging two 10 year olds would definitely not be one of those situations.

Steve, when you were 10, did you know that it was wrong to punch someone in the face? Did you know that you would get in trouble if you were caught punching someone? At age 10, did you know what murder was and if you commit said crime you will go to prison? At 10 years old they still knew the consequences.

[Stevo985]

Agree with the above. i wouldn't be against the death penalty for certain, rare, situations.

But hanging two 10 year olds would definitely not be one of those situations.

Steve, when you were 10, did you know that it was wrong to punch someone in the face? Did you know that you would get in trouble if you were caught punching someone? At age 10, did you know what murder was and if you commit said crime you will go to prison? At 10 years old they still knew the consequences.

I certainly did know it was wrong. These kids knew it was wrong. Doesn't mean they can be held fully accountable for their actions though.

Are you saying you could honestly hang two 10 year old boys, regardless of what they did? I don't think i could.

[wiganvillain]

If my memory serves we went through all this at the time of their trial.

The prosecution had to prove they knew right from wrong and what they did was wrong before they could even be tried.

Personally I believe we, as a country / society have gone too far down the road of "rehabilitation" and forgotten completely about "punishment" for the crime

We currently treat the offender as a "victim" and forget the true Victim

[wiggyrichard]

Agree with the above. i wouldn't be against the death penalty for certain, rare, situations.

But hanging two 10 year olds would definitely not be one of those situations.

Steve, when you were 10, did you know that it was wrong to punch someone in the face? Did you know that you would get in trouble if you were caught punching someone? At age 10, did you know what murder was and if you commit said crime you will go to prison? At 10 years old they still knew the consequences.

I certainly did know it was wrong. These kids knew it was wrong. Doesn't mean they can be held fully accountable for their actions though.

Are you saying you could honestly hang two 10 year old boys, regardless of what they did? I don't think i could.

You have said it yourself mate, 'these kids knew it was wrong' so yes they can be held fully accountable for their actions. So because they are 10 does it make it a lesser crime?

[wiggyrichard]

Are you saying you could honestly hang two 10 year old boys, regardless of what they did? I don't think i could.

I dont understand the 'regardless of what they did' bit mate? Would i hang two 10 year old boys for stealing sweets...no. Would i hang two 10 year old boys for murdering and torturing a small child...hand on heart i would walk them to the gallows. Society has no place for these two individuals.

[Stevo985]

Well then you're a different person to me. Yes, regardless of what they did, I couldn't hang two 10 year old boys. I'm not saying we should slap them on the wrists, say "boys will be boys" and let them on their merry way. They should be punished.I'd put them in prison for a lot longer than they've been in there already.

But I couldn't kill two 10 year olds.

[LondonLax]

Are you saying you could honestly hang two 10 year old boys, regardless of what they did? I don't think i could.

I dont understand the 'regardless of what they did' bit mate? Would i hang two 10 year old boys for stealing sweets...no. Would i hang two 10 year old boys for murdering and torturing a small child...hand on heart i would walk them to the gallows. Society has no place for these two individuals.

That's pretty messed up dude.

If you buy a puppy and you hit it and beat it and starve it and have it fight other dogs the dog will pretty quickly become agressive and dangerous.

The same thing happened to these kids. If you can reprogramme them and reteach them surely that is better than just killing them and washing your hands of it?