English Justice? - Or lack of it?

[Aussie Dave]

Do you remember February 1993 in England , when a young boy of 3 was taken from a Liverpool shopping centre by two 10-year-old boys?


Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only a second, Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson.

They took Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint in his eyes, pushed batteries up his Anus and cut his fingers off with scissors.
(Other mutilations were inflicted but not reported in the press.)

N.B. :- Remember, a 3year old cannot possibly defend themselves against a 10 year old, let alone of 2 them.


What these two boys did was so horrendous that Jamie's mother was actually forbidden to identify his body.

They then left his beaten small body on railway tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created.
These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident.


Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has now awarded the two boys (now men), Anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new Identities.
(They will also leave custody early only serving just over half of their sentence.)
They are also being relocated to Australia to live out the rest of their lives.

They disgustingly and violently took Jamie's life away and in return they each get a new life!

While I do believe in giving people who make mistakes a second chance, I feel no compassion towards Jon Venables and Robert Thompson and actually believe the two of them are evil little bastards that deserve to pay for their crimes in full with no special treatment given to them and to make them live with their own infamous names when they are eventually released.
(And I definately don't want them relocated to Australia thats for sure.)

[RANT OVER]


Cheers,
Dave

[cyberia]

How can any judge in their right mind release these creatures and on top of it, offer them the protection of anonymity?

Yes, there are cases where leniency for juvenile offenders is best, but this can't be one of them!

Also, I was not aware Australia was still a penal colony?

There has to be a way the Australian government can have this "relocation" overturned.

[Wolster]

I agree with all you say Dave, what those children did was beyond belief. It doesn't matter that they were children or had been watching horror movies, they knew what they were doing.

As for the protection, personally, I would reveal who they were and throw them into a maximum security wing and let nature take its course.

The British legal system is a joke and another thing I don't miss about that country.

[Jim O]

I read that they were released into UK society a number of years back with new identities. If I recall correctly, one of the lead investigators felt that one of them was pure evil with no remorse but that the other might have been salvageable.

[cyberia]

Originally Posted by Wolster

As for the protection, personally, I would reveal who they were and throw them into a maximum security wing and let nature take its course.

Wolster for judge!

[Jim O]

I found a reference. They were released in 2001 under a "life license" meaning that they can be returned to custody at any time for any length of time if they are found to present a danger to society.

June 23, 2001
Killers of British 2-Year-Old Win Parole
By SARAH LYALL

The government said today that two British 18-year-olds who kidnapped and killed a toddler when they were 10 have cleared their final hurdle for parole and are to be released imminently with newly constructed identities.

The announcement, which followed months of anguished debate in Britain, was immediately condemned by victims' rights groups and by Denise Fergus, the mother of the slain 2-year-old, who said she was devastated by the impending release and that the young men should have served at least 15 years.

The parole decision comes eight years after the pair, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, stunned the nation by torturing and beating to death the toddler, James Bulger, after abducting him from a shopping center in Liverpool.

The crime provoked a debate about responsibility, redemption and the nature of evil in children even as Britain found itself collectively haunted by the images brought out by the trial, including a grainy security camera picture of a pliant and trusting James being led away by one his killers.

In announcing the pair's impending release, Home Secretary David Blunkett said a parole board panel had ''given very careful consideration'' to interviews with both of the teenagers, various officials and independent experts before determining that they presented ''no unacceptable risk to the public.''

In October a judge ruled that they had served enough time in protective custody and that it would be advisable to release them before they turned 19, when they would have entered prisons for young convicts.

Norman Brennan, a spokesman for Mrs. Fergus, said: ''There has to be a punishment element for such a crime, but all Denise sees is Venables and Thomspon being rewarded. It has never been about revenge. It's about a justice denied.''

Under the terms of their release -- which may have already occurred -- Mr. Thompson and Mr. Venables will be assigned new social security numbers, bank accounts, identification cards, birth certificates and invented pasts, almost as if they were in a witness protection program.

It is unclear whether members of their immediate families are also being given such identities, or even whether the young men are to stay in the United Kingdom.

But given the restrictions on their freedom, it seems unlikely that they will be placed abroad. The teenagers are to remain under probation department supervision for the rest of their lives and will be regularly reassessed to make sure they steer clear of crime and present no threat to anyone, Mr. Blunkett said.

And they are forbidden ever to contact or even try to contact the slain toddler's family or each other, or to enter the Merseyside metropolitan area without the permission of their supervising officers.

''Thompson and Venables are not free,'' Mr. Blunkett said in a written statement to Parliament, adding that they ''are liable to be recalled to custody at any time if there is any evidence that they present a risk to the public.''

In January, a High Court judge ruled that because of the teenagers' notoriety, the news media would be forbidden to reveal details about their post-custody lives, including where they settle, what they look like and who they have become. Nor will the news media be allowed to publish photographs of the two, although it may prove impossible to prevent such photographs, should they exist, from appearing on the Internet.

Already, rumors have circulated that photographs of the young men do exist and that they might be published electronically. And late today, the Home Office said that a judge had begun an inquiry into whether a regional newspaper had breached the injunction by publishing details that might reveal the whereabouts of the two teenagers.

The only known precedent for such a sweeping injunction was the case of Mary Bell, who was also 10 when she killed two younger children in 1968. She was granted anonymity to preserve the privacy of the daughter she had after being released from prison, but was tracked down and unveiled by the news media several years ago after the publication of a book about her case.

The privacy decision in the Bulger case was opposed by some free-speech advocates, who argued that it stifled news organizations' ability to report the news, and by some victims' rights groups that said the two young men were being granted unusual privileges.

''They should take their chances on the streets like every other murderer who is released,'' Dee Warner, a spokeswoman for Mothers Against Murder and Aggression, a lobbying group, said today.

But Mr. Blunkett fiercely defended the restrictions. ''The injunction was granted because there was a real and strong possibility that their lives would be at risk if their identities became known,'' he said.

He also said Britain would spend ''the minimum necessary'' to guarantee the killers' ''self-reliance, further education and training and the safety of themselves and the public.''

Source: Killers of British 2-Year-Old Win Parole - New York Times

Given the restrictions placed on them I doubt that they were relocated so far from Britain.

[cyberia]

Australia or England, they were still released and that amazes me.

I'm sure the same could happen here as well.

What disturbs me most about this story is how, or why, two children age 10 would even consider such and act, let alone carry it out.

[Jim O]

blind-justice.gif

Like it or not, justice is supposed to be blind (hence the blindfold). While I agree that sociopathy/psychopathy can perhaps be recognized at an early age, it often cannot be definitively diagnosed before age 18. Further, not all sociopaths go on to be rapists and murderers, much less commit such grievous acts as these two did. While I agree that the likelihood of recidivism by either or both of these two is quite high, what separates our societies from those like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia is the rule of law that prevails, not the rule of man, at least most of the time. Most of our societies hold that children under a certain age are not held accountable into adulthood for their acts as children up to a certain age. In the US that age varies by state, but is as low as 13, if not lower in some states. One of the side effects of such laws is that people who commit heinous acts under that age are allowed back into society at some given point in time.

In most, if not all US states these two would not only have been released by their 21st birthdays, their juvenile records would be sealed and not even be accessible to law enforcement organizations going forward. At least Britain has them on a relatively short leash insofar as they can be incarcerated at any time for a substantial period of time without trial should they find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

[cyberia]

Sorry, but rule of law does not always add up to justice.

Had this incident been where murder was committed as a result of sudden rage, a blow not intended to take a life or just plain stupidity then yes, perhaps adolescence can be a defense and leniency allowed.

But clearly this was premeditated, cold blooded murder after torture.

To set these two free with a clean slate back into the world solely based on the age is an injustice to the victim, the victim's family, and all others who now have wonder if their three-year-old could be next.

These two don't require a short leash, but a long rope and quick drop.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by cyberia

Sorry, but rule of law does not always add up to justice.

This is true. It never will. The system in place is the worst imaginable, except for all of the others.