Jon Venables back in prison

Gary, the reason I posted the :bat: is because you might notice the picture of Carra on the left. My mother (God bless) was born in in Bootle and I still have relatives in Bootle, Netherton & Aintree. Bootle is where Jamie Bulger was from and he was taken from the Strand shopping centre.

A baseball bat would be the least of his worries if someone inside were to find out that their new room cell mate is Jon Venables.
 
whiteflyer said:
We should not have the death penalty for two reasons.
Click to expand...

I agree - but in cases like these there is also a third, as Collin Powell said

'Execution turns the state into a murderer, but life imprisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon master'
 
onomatopoeia said:
Because at the time of the crime they were children and it can be reasonably argued that a 10 year old is not sufficiently mature to understand the entire consequences of their actions?
Click to expand...

They took a two year old child away from his mother, removed his lower garments, sexually interrered with him, killed him and placed his body on a train track (whereupon it was cut in two) to disguise the crime.

Which part of that suggests that they didn't "understand the entire consequences of their actions"?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
They took a two year old child away from his mother, removed his lower garments, sexually interrered with him, killed him and placed his body on a train track (whereupon it was cut in two) to disguise the crime.

Which part of that suggests that they didn't "understand the entire consequences of their actions"?
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I remember that chilling phrase that came from Thomson - "We got a kid".
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Which part of that suggests that they didn't "understand the entire consequences of their actions"?
Click to expand...
It's pretty academic anyway, at 10 years of age, you reach the age of criminal responsibility and are presumed to be able to distinguish right from wrong. Under 10 years, you have no criminal responsibility and can't be charged with anything.

Certainly it can be argued to what degree they knew right from wrong at that tender age, and I've no doubt all the arguments were made at the trial, but we've all been 10 years old, and I certainly couldn't imagine doing anything like those two did at that age -there is something seriously and scarily amiss with the pair of them.

As FITP points out, the mere fact that they tried to conceal what they'd done shows that they knew exactly how wrong it was.
 
arclight said:
I could never see any good reason why people that murder are ever allowed out.
The parents of Jamie Bulger must have endlessly worried about whether these scumbags would turn up at their door.
Click to expand...

He was always known to his family as James, the media called him Jamie until the parents expressed how upset they were that he was being called by the wrong name.

I did not sit in on the trial, nor have I read a transcript so I do not feel qualified to comment on the original sentence.
 
Far to many monsters get away with horrible unthinkable crimes in the UK its about time we had a deterant like hanging brought back for the more serious offences
 
What I don't like is Jack Straw's attitude that information has to be kept from the public for our own good and politicising this story. No Jack, you're keeping the information from us because if we find out what really went on there will be a political ****-storm for the Labour government in the run up to an election. Yet again you're only thinking of yourselves you weak-willed, self-serving, snivelling excuse for human beings.
 
Kev M said:
What I don't like is Jack Straw's attitude that information has to be kept from the public for our own good and politicising this story. No Jack, you're keeping the information from us because if we find out what really went on there will be a political ****-storm for the Labour government in the run up to an election. Yet again you're only thinking of yourselves you weak-willed, self-serving, snivelling excuse for human beings.
Click to expand...

Yip, the cynic in me had me thinking:-

Election soon and further evidence of another criminal rotter released when he should still be caged = vote loser.
 
gingerjon said:
Because the purpose of justice is not vengeance.

And, before you ask, I have read actual transcripts from the trial. I know exactly what they did.
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop quoting me :bang: I'm not involved in this thread :)
 
Wow, Just read this and it is very emotional.

First these two boys as they were, did not murder any little baby what they did did to take the life of someone else, it happened to be a poor young and innocent Baby, God rest his soul, but murder No.

Now it was seventeen years ago and my view is that the two of them should have gone to prison for the rest of there lives, no remand, no let out,s the rest of there lives natural or UN natural lives. Should this have happened then we would not be discussing this now.

That,s what we should putting across to our politicians not here on this forum.

Anyone sent an e-mail to their MP yet?
 
How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that it wan't murder Richard?
 
Simply, because ten year old boys can not comprehend murder.
 
Do you really believe, Richard, that 10 year old boys cannot comprehend the rights and wrongs of throwing objects at a 2 year old and seeing his blood and his pain?
 
medwaygreen said:
Simply, because ten year old boys can not comprehend murder.
Click to expand...

That's a fairly sweeping statement, can you back it up with documentary evidence, especially given the fact that they staged an "accident" in an attempt to cover up their actions....
 
Last edited:
Yves Geza said:
Do you really believe, Richard, that 10 year old boys cannot comprehend the rights and wrongs of throwing objects at a 2 year old and seeing his blood and his pain?
Click to expand...

On that point actually I could see an arguement for the case that they couldn't see the harm (blame television), indeed there may even be a case for the point of view that due to television children may struggle with the concept of harm or death (think of all the actors who are "killed" in one show, only to appear 10 minutes later in fine health on another), however when someone gets to the stage of placing a child's body on a railway line so that it is cut in two in an attempt as to make the death look like an accident then it could reasonably be argued that they had a fairly good idea that what they had done was wrong.
 
Thompson & Venable's parents should also have been locked up for a long, long time. Parents of low life juveniles like these two might take a bit more responsibility for their offspring if the law punished them equally heavily for their children's crimes.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
On that point actually I could see an arguement for the case that they couldn't see the harm (blame television), indeed there may even be a case for the point of view that due to television children may struggle with the concept of harm or death (think of all the actors who are "killed" in one show, only to appear 10 minutes later in fine health on another), however when someone gets to the stage of placing a child's body on a railway line so that it is cut in two in an attempt as to make the death look like an accident then it could reasonably be argued that they had a fairly good idea that what they had done was wrong.
Click to expand...


I hadn't wanted to go into much detail of what we all know about the case but I do share your argument that the two 10 year olds had a shrewd idea of the seriousness of their behaviour.

Your comment about kids' TV exactly echoes my own fears the society we've become and its future. I always cite 'Mighty Morphon Power Rangers' [IIRC] as completely paranoid lunacy that teaches kids they must band together to fight absolutely everyone else who is obviously a dangerous alien in disguise ... and, guess what, we've already found paedophiles behind every camera!!

Flashman said:
Thompson & Venable's parents should also have been locked up for a long, long time. Parents of low life juveniles like these two might take a bit more responsibility for their offspring if the law punished them equally heavily for their children's crimes.
Click to expand...

Staff Edit: Comment Removed..legal minefield..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yves Geza said:
Your comment about kids' TV exactly echoes my own fears the society we've become and its future.
Click to expand...

I remember watching a programme back in the early 90s called "Volvo City" , about the Hasidic community in Stamford Hill (memorable for me mainly due to the Arfur Dailey type car dealer in full Hasidic garb :D), where one of those interviewed explained why he didn't have a television, describing it's output as something along the lines of an "open sewer running through your home" - a tag that could equally be applied to the internet today.
 
medwaygreen said:
Simply, because ten year old boys can not comprehend murder.
Click to expand...

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by a human being with malice of forethought, either expressed or implied. It's for a court to decide what they can comprehend. They were charged with premeditated murder and that's what they were convicted of.
 
hello - my comment has gone.

Thought I posted a link to a very good background article in the Times...
 
Byker28i said:
hello - my comment has gone.

Thought I posted a link to a very good background article in the Times...
Click to expand...

Sorry about that :) I needed to remove the quote but was a bit busy at work. It was easier to remove the post than edit it. Now reinstated :)
 
ok so my son just turned 11 Last year (when he was 10) he knew the difference between death on the telly and death in real life .He did not go out and kill someone cos he thought they would get up and walk again and be fine infact almost all 10yearolds understand the difference and that death is final .
If it was down to tv etc then there would be an awful lot more of this going on
 
Flash In The Pan said:
That's a fairly sweeping statement, can you back it up with documentary evidence, especially given the fact that they staged an "accident" in an attempt to cover up their actions....
Click to expand...

Not only staged an accident, but they set out to drown the child in a canal, but noticed they were being watched so moved on.
 
Unquestionably a heineous crime, children against a child. However, i heard a radio debate today in which figures were quoted regarding the "lifers" within our system. It stated that 800 are in prison, 1400 are in the community and 89 were returned to custody last year for a breach of the conditions that apply.

Surely we should be equally concerned by the 1400 who obviously co-exist amongst us?

The programme suggested that should the new identity of Venables be made public then a further new identify would be created, in order to protect him, if he is re-released at the expense of the taxpayers.

I do believe that James' parents should be advised of what Venables has been detained for; their suffering is beyond comprehension and should be eased in any small way possible.
 
Last edited:
Daily Mirror has published more today and it appears that the Ministry of Justice (oxymoron) has released info to the Press Association (possibly to thwart the Mirror's exclusive).
 
I read on the Telegraph site that Venables has been seen back in Liverpool on several occasions (a breach of his license) and has also been spotted doing drugs (again, in breach of his license). Either of these would be enough to have him sent back to jail.

LINK

ETA Just seen another story about the case.

ANOTHER LINK
 
Last edited:
There have been reports that it will cost another £250,000 of tax payers money to give him another new identity now that his current identity has been compromised.

:shake:
 
AndrewA123 said:
There have been reports that it will cost another £250,000 of tax payers money to give him another new identity now that his current identity has been compromised.

:shake:
Click to expand...

I heard a gink from the gov. last night say it would be very expensive to give a new ID. I wonder how. I'd like to see a breakdown of the costs.

Anyhow, if he is kept in a cell why does he need a new ID.
 
It was interesting on question time last night to find out that there have only been four people in the UK who have been given a new identity. These two scrotes, that harriden Maxine Carr and some other woman I've never heard of.

Personally I don't see why any of them should get new identities. They're all adults now so should have to face society. If someone in society takes the law into their own hands then they in turn should be dealt with by the law.
 
Kev M said:
Personally I don't see why any of them should get new identities. They're all adults now so should have to face society. If someone in society takes the law into their own hands then they in turn should be dealt with by the law.
Click to expand...

I agree fully. His ID has been compromised because of HIS actions, therefore it's his problem and should have to deal with the issues and consequences. He's already had a second chance and threw it away.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Halle-bluddy-lujah! 50 posts in and finally a reasonable post.
Click to expand...

The purpose of Justice, should be to protect the law abiding citizens of this country, by locking up dangerous scum.
I am sure I speak for many, who find it astounding that the government is prepared to spend hundred of thousands of pounds, rebuilding his life.
How much are they prepared to spend to support the family that have been left devestated by their tragic loss.
 
Peter10d said:
The purpose of Justice, should be to protect the law abiding citizens of this country, by locking up dangerous scum.
Click to expand...

I've stayed out of this thread until now because I've had nothing to add that hasn't already been said - however, you do raise an interesting point Peter.

What exactly do we want the purpose of justice to be?
If you say it's purely to protect law abiding citizens, then why bother locking up anyone who is unlikely to re-offend or pose any threat to the rest of the population?
I'm thinking of the drunk drivers who lose control and kill an innocent bystander, or even those who have been locked up, but are deemed to be "rehabilitated".

Most people would agree that there are two other aspects to justice - both as a punishment and as a deterrent to others.

Then you have the question of rehabilitation.
More controversial and almost at odds with it being a punishment or deterrent.
Is it preferable to let somebody serve their time and then return as a useful member of society, or should the focus be so much on punishment that actually that person will probably never re-adapt to normal life?


To get back onto the original topic, IMO the justice system has failed on all the above counts in the case of Jon Venables.
But I just think that it's an interesting question to consider :shrug:
 
According to the CJS their aims are:-
The purpose of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent. It is responsible for detecting crime and bringing it to justice; and carrying out the orders of court, such as collecting fines, and supervising community and custodial punishment.

The key goals for the CJS are:

* To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the CJS in bringing offences to justice;
* To increase public confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the CJS;
* To increase victim satisfaction with the police, and victim and witness satisfaction with the CJS;
* To consistently collect, analyse and use good quality ethnicity data to identify and address race disproportionality in the CJS; and
* To increase the recovery of criminal assets by recovering £250m of assets acquired through crime by 2009-10.

They don't seem to be doing all that great in achieving these aims.

Peter said:-
"The purpose of Justice, should be to protect the law abiding citizens of this country, by locking up dangerous scum.
I am sure I speak for many, who find it astounding that the government is prepared to spend hundred of thousands of pounds, rebuilding his life.
How much are they prepared to spend to support the family that have been left devestated by their tragic loss"
That, of course, is common sense. The lot of the victim seems to readily be forgotten in this country. There is too much emphasis on seeing how quickly criminals can be released from prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top