I hate our justice system!

[Lucio]

That's something people forget about our justice system, it works on the principle that *most* people can change their lives around and only certain individuals need to be kept away for longer.

Also, don't forget that there's a big difference from being sentanced to 9 and a half years compared to the life sentance with an 8 year tarriff to serve. The former case, he's a free man at the end of his sentance, in the latter, they can be sent back to prison at any time (as the news stories prove).

[peterb]

Sentencing is about punishment, rehabilitation and very importantly : a deterrent. If the guy got off with a slap on the wrist people would be more inclined to pull a fast one, say in areas that could cause people more damage than possibly a slightly less tasty egg.

Personally I think Venables and Thompson probably got an appropriate sentence. If you believe in rehabilitation, you have to hope that some people will change.

It is also about protecting society.

Given that Venables was ten when he committed his crime, the sentence is less about deterrance (not many 10 years olds comit murder, and doubt that any potential 10 year oold killers sat down after the trial and thought "I'd better not do that". Does a ten year old understand the concept of life imprisonment? I doubt it. So in this case the sentence is more about protecting society and rehabilitation with an element of punishment.

Venables was sentenced to a life sentence, so while he may be released on licence (as he was) that licence can be revoked at any time (as it has been). Sracen made the pojht that the then Home Secretary reccomendation that he serve a minimum period in prison was outside his powers, and the terms of release are set (IIRC) by the parole board, who take a number of factors into account (including the offender's attitude to his crime, the judged success of any rehabilitation, and the risk to society if he is released. (There are probably other factors as well).

What Venables may have done to cause his licence to be suspended or revoked, we (rightly IMHO) don't know as it may prejudice any further legal procedings. Whether or not rehabilitation has failed is not something I (and I suspect most people here) are qualified to comment on, although we may have opinions based on incomplete information.

I expect more information will be revealed in due course, but I hope that the press speculation doesn't result in a miscarriage of justice, in that any potential charges are dropped because a fair trial would be deemed impossible.

As for the punishment aspect - how long should a child be deprived of his liberty to be an adequate punishment? Again - a difficult question to answer and to some extent depends on the childs understanding of what he has done and the impact of his actions. Perhaps at 10 that realisation wasn't there so punishment might have little effect - until he can realise, when punishment is accepted for what it is. In that area, rehabilitation and punishment start to align with each other - and the question then turns to protecting society - how likely is he to re-offend or commit the same or a similar crime again? The fourth strand of a complex problem.

[Saracen]

....

Don't count your Chickens before they hatch..

Indeed .... hence why I said "maybe" it worked. Until we hear differently, we have to assume (and certainly have to hope) that it did. Maybe even in the original offence, Venables was the leader and Thompson just followed along? Maybe.

[Saracen]

....

What Venables may have done to cause his licence to be suspended or revoked, we (rightly IMHO) don't know as it may prejudice any further legal procedings. ....

Despite my gut nosiness about what he did, I agree with that .... with the qualification that we rightly don't know yet.

That "yet" is critical to me.

It is imperative that any proceedings not be jeopardised by early release of information, and I wonder how many people sitting on a jury could truly and honestly not be influenced by James Bulger's murder if that knew it was Venables on trial. Hell, I don't trust myself not to take the chance to nail him for that again, so I sure don't trust you lot.

And, of course, we have to consider the possibility that whatever it is he's accused of and perhaps to be tried for now, he may be innocent of. If so, we're back to whether his anonymity was right in the first place or not. I am in two minds about that, but I certainly understand the argument for it, even if it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If, on the other hand, he has committed serious further offences and is subsequently convicted then that, for me, is a game-changer. If he has committed further offences recently then he's done so as an adult and as far as I'm concerned, can pay the same price as anyone else would for them, and that doesn't include privileged protection and identity hiding. If he is guilty of further offences and the result is his identity becomes known, then so be it and he can face the consequences, as far as I'm concerned. No more special treatment.

[oolon]

As for James Bulger's killers, that's more complex. It was certainly one of the most depraved acts I've ever heard of, partly because of the age of the victim, and partly because of the age of the offenders. But given that they were 10 when they did this, do we write them off for life if there's a possibility of not doing so? At that age, are you entirely responsible for your actions?

As soon as they are born they are responsible, its not the death that is the issue, it is the malice of the action, children die due to mistakes in playgrounds, that does not make a person who made a mistake a killer, however these people were, so long as you can prove the malice, I don't care what age they are. Some people do acts so extreme they forfeit the right to live among us period, I don't see there is much point in rehabilitating them, lock them in a box and let them go insane for all I care. I still would not want them living next door to me, so why should someone else? It might be cheaper to transport them to a prison island where they could live along other like mind people for the rest of there "natural" life. I think the "punishment" part of prison has gone we care far to much about the offenders rather than the victims, need cheap labour to help our exports... well there a good source of it You only get human rights if you respect those of others, if you don't your just an animal, so i see little problem in using them as such.

Yay! I sound like Santa!

[Saracen]

As soon as they are born they are responsible, its not the death that is the issue, it is the malice of the action, children die due to mistakes in playgrounds, that does not make a person who made a mistake a killer, however these people were, so long as you can prove the malice, I don't care what age they are. Some people do acts so extreme they forfeit the right to live among us period, I don't see there is much point in rehabilitating them, lock them in a box and let them go insane for all I care. I still would not want them living next door to me, so why should someone else? It might be cheaper to transport them to a prison island where they could live along other like mind people for the rest of there "natural" life. I think the "punishment" part of prison has gone we care far to much about the offenders rather than the victims, need cheap labour to help our exports... well there a good source of it You only get human rights if you respect those of others, if you don't your just an animal, so i see little problem in using them as such.

Yay! I sound like Santa!

I don't think anyone is comparing accidents and murder, and I entirely agree about the malice aspect of it. But what we (or at least, I) don't know is what backgrounds these two little monsters had, and what factor that may have played in their actions. It's easy to blame any aberrant act on a bad childhood, and I'm one of the first to scoff usually, but were these two the victims of abuse? Where they the victims of serious, systematic and long term violence themselves? If so, then while we can't condone what they did in any sense, we might at least start to understand it.

What I can't do is bring myself to condemn these two as utterly and irredeemably evil, at age 10. If they were in that type of background, then it may well be that taking then out of it while still kids changed them, or even one of them, into decent people. After all, kids experiment. The wouldn't be the first kids to pull legs of spiders and some such, and if they've had a background of persistent violence that may have led them to believe that's how life is, then the person(s) to blame and string up is/are the adult(s) that inflicted that on them. If, and I stress if that is the case, then Venables and Thompson are victims themselves as well. It doesn't excuse the disgusting things they did, but it might go towards explaining it.

What I would maintain is irrefutably the case is that as kids, of that age, they do not have the experience or maturity, or sense of judgement, that adults have and that while they may and should know right from wrong, whether they do or not is as much about upbringing as it is abut them.

[oolon]

I don't think anyone is comparing accidents and murder, and I entirely agree about the malice aspect of it. But what we (or at least, I) don't know is what backgrounds these two little monsters had, and what factor that may have played in their actions. It's easy to blame any aberrant act on a bad childhood, and I'm one of the first to scoff usually, but were these two the victims of abuse? Where they the victims of serious, systematic and long term violence themselves? If so, then while we can't condone what they did in any sense, we might at least start to understand it.

I did not say you were, I was just showing it was possible to show at any age if the the action has been the result of a mistake or if it was malice, and if they malice is that bad it should have consequences, pulling legs from a spider should get you told off (or infact smacked as in my case), however killing another child isn't the same. If they could show they didn't understand the difference then may be I could be lighter (but still I don;t think I want them around "normal" people), I don't think there is a magic age for this. Responsibility starts at zero and GROWS from there. We have many people in the country who need help many who have tried their best but still not got anywhere, I don't see why I should care to much about people like this being rehabilitated when there are many more deserving people who could be helped. Its not to me about giving up on people its a choice where its best to spend funds. Keep them clean, feed and watered (the don't NEED any more than that), many people in the world do not even get that.

Yes they might have been victims, if that can be proved bring in the people responsible, however clearly they were not murdered! So I don't really think they could have been treated as badly as they treated James.