Should the new crimes of Jamie Bulger's killer be divulged?

[SiHart]

The righteous fury of the newspapers has once again been at it's most vehement this last week or so about the new crimes committed by one of the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger all those years ago.

The argument apparently goes something like this. A man committed a horrendous crime when he was a boy, something that scarred the nation after which he was punished and given a new identity. Now he has reoffended in some way or another and the courts are refusing to name the crime that he has committed because of the fears that revelaing his identity will have on his future. People are apparenrtly threatening to kill him.

But I wonder really if it's actually any of their business. The murder of Jamie Bulger was an atrocious act- I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but does it matter what he's done now to anyone but him and his alleged victims, if indeed there are any?

What do you think?

Si xx

[Lissa]

He was given a new identity and until whoever decided he should have that new identity rescinds the order then not only should his identity not be revealed, those in the media who are trying to uncover it should be prosecuted. Otherwise there is no point ever granting anyone a second chance as there will always be a grubby newspaper willing to pay good money to expose them.

All this speculation could have damaging results. Anyone of roughly the right age who was arrested at about the right time and who looks roughly like the old photo we've seen a thousand times is going to be at risk of reprisals. Vigilantes aren't exactly noted for their rationality and the storm of indignation may lead to attacks on innocent young men that the mob thinks might have killed Jamie.

If a serious crime has been committed then he will be punished for it. If that crime violated the terms of his release then he'll be punished even more. If he's a danger to anyone then he should never be released. But there are laws to protect the identity of anyone given a new name for whatever reason they get it and those laws must be upheld. We should never have been told anything about this affair because it doesn't - and shouldn't - concern us.

[Si Hunt]

I think the crime should be disclosed, but not because of who he is, just because any crime should be disclosed. I don't approve of giving him special rights - why should he have? The two of them were damn lucky to be given a second chance (at huge expense to the taxpayer) the first time round, there's certainly no reason why he should be treated any differently to any other person under arrest now.

That said, "not treated any differently" cuts both ways. The way that this country chose to deal with him the first time was to give him a punishment, make him serve it, and then give him a new life. He's served the punishment that was given to him for that crime, that can't be taken back now. So he should be treated like anyone else.

Someone posted on a message board in the week and said "We should have hung those two boys when they were 10. Killing children is wrong, and there's no excuse for it".

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

I'm really glad to see Lissa's post, because all week I've been secretly thinking there must be something wrong with me - even on the BBC website earlier this week, when there was an item on the mother of Jamie Bulger, almost insisting that she should be kept informed of what's happening, I just found myself wondering why. I don't think it's heartless to say that what happens now to Venables is actually nothing to do with her. I do wonder whether, when these boys were given new identities they were cut off totally from their family - by which I mean, does Venables' mother have any contact with him any more, and does she know what he's been accused of?

So, to answer the question, the new identity and the new crimes should not be revealed, no.

[SiHart]

I don't approve of giving him special rights - why should he have? The two of them were damn lucky to be given a second chance (at huge expense to the taxpayer) the first time round, there's certainly no reason why he should be treated any differently to any other person under arrest now.

But surely there is. There are so many people, so called vigilantes who'd like to see him suffer for what he did. I think that makes this a case beyond the ordinary. Surely everyone, even criminals deserve some protection from that kind of action, even with what he did when he was a child being such an awful crime? If we don't make a stand and say that's unacceptable then I think we run the risk of creating a society where vigilantism is acceptable, which it never is.

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

Of course vigilantism is unacceptable, but we don't withhold knowledge of the crimes of other people who commit 'public outrage' crimes like rape or against children. As in those cases, he should be given protection against vigilante attacks. But I don't think that extends to hushing up whatever he has done - by the law, he must be treated like everyone else, and that works both ways. Or are we saying that, if he has commited a crime, that it should be kept secret such that any future employer of his will never know about it. Isn't that giving him special treatment? Why should he have that luxury when anyone else who commits a crime has to live with that record in their future life? Arn't we approaching a point where, in the interests of protecting this individual, he can run up a record of crimes without ever having to suffer the hinderence of anyone he meets knowing about anything he has done?

I've not commited a crime in my life, aside from getting caught for going 5mph over the limit four years ago... and I have to declare that every time I fill out a form for something!

by which I mean, does Venables' mother have any contact with him any more, and does she know what he's been accused of?

Apparently she visits him, and that had something to do with this whole thing coming to light. Somebody recognised her and him, put two and two together, and contacted the press.

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Like it or not, murder happens.

But occasionally one happens which quite honestly horrifies us as a nation. In a way it's a good thing - the day we read about a child's murder, and turn instead to the Sports page without feeling anything, that will be the day society has died.

Certainly Jamie Bulgers murder was one such event, the details chilled a nation.

With a lot of criminals, they do a crime, they do their time, they're released. And often they reoffend. Whoops!

But some crimes such as murder are so horendous, can you take the opportunity of them reoffending? Should they perhaps be kept in prison indefinitely.

In NZ there has been a case of a violent murderer who was released from prison on parole, and whoops two weeks later he'd killed again. How can the Justice system seriously look the family of the second victim in the eye?

[Jon Masters]

Despite the prescence of a 'rentagob' from liverpooooooooooool who whined on every 2 minutes about the rights of the victim, C4 news had an interesting feature on this the other night, where a lawyer made a very good case.

When you go on trial the jury should not know of any previous offences until after they give a verdict, in case it prejudices their opinion. If Venables is identified before this new offence goes to trial, then he can never have a fair trial and so the prosecution will collapse.

As the lawyer pointed out, if you were the victim of his new crime, how pissed off would you be that you could never get justice ?

As far as CRB checks for e.g. job interviews go, they don't tell you what crime someone has committed, only whether they have a current criminal record or not (AFAIK)

[WhiteCrowNZ]

However I think it is important to know if someone you are trying has a criminal past.

If you're trying someone for fraud, of course it's something you need to know if he's spent 20 years in prison for one fraud activity after another. Esp if the defence describes them as a "man of their word" etc.

[Rob McCow]

Having a 'right to know' should go in hand with the responsibility not to splash it on the front page of every paper.

Perhaps if this country got over their sick morbidity and psychotic lust for revenge, we'd have the entitlement to know the facts.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

You've perhaps underestimated how powerful the drive to protect children is in many.

Regarding this and the right to anonymity ... if he is suspected of keeping and distributing images of sex/violence towards children 2/3 years old, then the fact he is Jon Venables has a heck of a lot of bearing on the case, as he has form regarding violence towards children.

[Rob McCow]

Yes, but if he is suspected of shop-lifting, or driving without insurance then it has no bearing on the case and he would not recieve a fair trial. It should be up to the court to decide what previous form is relevant - not the press.

[Si Hunt]

Also I have to say, shame on Bulger's Mother for basing all her demands for information on the front pages of the tabloids.

These are the same tabloids that ran a story last week entitled "This will make you sick! We logged onto Facebook as as a 13 year old girl and within 90 seconds had been offered a sex act! BAN FACEBOOK!"* followed a few days later by a small box-out on Page 3 reading "We apologise, the article we recently printed was based on a website other than Facebook and was not true."

Si.

* Just think about that! It isn't POSSIBLE is it! It would take at least a week to LOCATE a sex fiend and get him to accept your Friend Request even if you tried!

[Perry Vale]

Someone posted on a message board in the week and said "We should have hung those two boys when they were 10. Killing children is wrong, and there's no excuse for it".

I guess the irony of that statement was lost on them (and they've never seen Brass Eye)....

I agree with Lissa and Andrew on this subject. Also, I found the appearance of Bulger's mother on GMTV quite unpleasant, but it's just an everyday symptom of a sick media. She's set up as a moral "champion" by people who have no other aim than to sell newspapers, imo.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Also I have to say, shame on Bulger's Mother

I have to say, it's one thing to have a go against a tabloid. But to have a cheap swipe like that against a woman who had her two year old son murdered.

So now it's Jamie Bulgers mother making Jon Venables life a misery. Would you just listen to yourself for once. The woman has been through every parents worst nightmare, and you have absolutely no right to take your usual judgemental attitude. Show a little empathy for once.

[Si Hunt]

I just think she shouldn't have raced to conclusions based on a story that was made up by a newspaper - maybe for her own sake, as much as anything else.

So now it's Jamie Bulgers mother making Jon Venables life a misery.

Yes Mike, that's exactly what I said isn't it?

Si.

[Si Hunt]

and you have absolutely no right to take your usual judgemental attitude. Show a little empathy for once.

Right fine, understood. Goodbye.

Si.

[SiHart]

The woman has been through every parents worst nightmare, and you have absolutely no right to take your usual judgemental attitude. Show a little empathy for once.

OK. I know this is an emotional subject that brings out the passionate side of people, but there is no need for the personal attack Mike. Comments like that have no place on PS. If you have a personal thing you wish to bring up with any member of PS please do it in a PM.

Please keep it friendly on here or the thread will be closed.

Thanks.

Si xx

[Larry]

He's served the punishment that was given to him for that crime,
Si.

no he didn't - the then Home Secretary Michael Howard, said that both Venables and Thompson, should serve 15 years but yet again Europe stuck their nose into our business waving their abhorrent human rights treaty at us.


IMO Venables should of done at least 10 years in an adult prison, and now that he has commited another serious crime not only should we be told what he has done he instantly should loses any rights he as to anonymity.

[SiHart]

We do not know that it was a serious crime that he committed. Under the terms of his licence to be out of prison (a licence that he will have for the rest of his life) there are several conditions that mean he may well end up back in prison:

A criminal's recall to prison is triggered by one of three circumstances. He either committed a crime, showed the signs that he was about to, or breached specific conditions imposed. Breaches can be technical, such as being out of the home at the exact start of a curfew, or far more serious, such as contacting a victim's family.

Venables will be told why he is back inside and he can seek a full oral hearing before the Parole Board. But with public protection being the top priority, the panel will start with the case for keeping him inside, rather than the argument for letting him out.
From BBC News 02 Mar 10

Si xx

[Larry]

We do not know that it was a serious crime that he committed.
Si xx

since the story first broke I think there have been in the papers at least 3 different versions as to why he has been recalled. Had it been a minor offence I think we might of been told . But with the story in the Sun,and the statements from Jack Straw, I think it's almost certain that he has commited a "serious crime.

[Lissa]

Had it been a minor offence I think we might of been told . But with the story in the Sun,and the statements from Jack Straw, I think it's almost certain that he has commited a "serious crime.

Not really - the Sun don't know so you can't base any conclusions on what they do or don't do. Besides, they'll make a big story out of nothing. Jack Straw almost certainly DOES know but he's not going to say anything unless he's absolutely sure he's allowed to, so reading anything into what he does and doesn't say is bootless. Basically, confirming or denying any detail of his alleged crime would potentially identify him and he cannot legally be identified so no one who knows anything can say anything and the rest, who don't know anything, are speculating in the dark.

[Paul Monk]

For me and maybe this is a bit cold is that Lissa is right. We know nothing about his recall. No-one can said anything because it would reveal his new identity. A recall can be caused by breaking any of the conditions, so it looks to me like we have no facts whatsoever. How can I have an opinion when there is nothing to base it on?

Oh except for the speculations and rubbish thats passes itself for news in the tabloids?

[Andrew Curnow]

But to have a cheap swipe like that against a woman who had her two year old son murdered

At the risk of inflaming this, Si didn't do anything of the sort. It's not heartless, or brutal, or unsympathetic or anything really to say, as I did earlier on, that this current situation, actually, is nothing to do with Jamie Bulger's mother. Yes, I can certainly imagine her being very very interested, but really, tell me, what bearing does her opinion, or her feelings towards Venables, have to do with his being recalled to prison and facing possible charges for an unspecified crime?

[Captain Tancredi]

If the incidents which have caused the recall are offences in their own right, then he should be tried under his new identity- anything else would prejudice the fair trial to which he is rightly entitled. Yes, it's an emotional business, but we live in a civilised society (allegedly) and we no longer have lynch mobs.

I do however think that Denise Fergus has been badly advised and/or represented; whatever she may feel, she doesn't have a right to overrule the process of law and the best thing she could say at the moment would be along the lines of "this is a matter for the criminal justice system and I'm leaving justice to work its course".