Is it not possible to try someone anonymously? Although thinking about it, that would just make it obvious it was Venables...the media presence around the trial makes it a given though that he won't get a fair trial.

 

 

Not sure but this guy says he's a lawyer and he'll definitely be tried as Jon Venables as THAT'S HIS NAME. When you think about it he's probably right as the alias probably doesn't have a criminal record does he? Whereas Jon Venables does! He never loses that, under his real name. It'll probably be a closed court case with no-one in the public gallery.

Edited March 7, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Changing your name by deed poll (which is probably what happened? Unless he's just been impersonating someone, as such, for the past nine years...I'm not sure whether deed polls are traceable or not) transfers the criminal record to the new name...

I have kept out of the discussion up until now until more details about what he has (allegedly) done to result him being returned to jail. Now if it is as serious as being reported, that is looking at images of child abuse (as in most of today’s papers and the BBC website), then surely he should be treated like any other adult who indulges in these offences. And make no mistake this is a criminal offence where you can and do get a custodial sentence, and put on the sex offenders list for 5 years. So if it is correct then he should be charged and appear in Court.

 

A lot of people in this thread are giving him the benefit of a very bad start in life, and I understand this, but he has had a lot of therapy and money spent on giving him a better chance to change than most criminals get, these are the same people who bang on about paedos like Gary Glitter, and kiddie fiddlers should be strung up.

 

Now the problems begin. What name does he get charged under? Well he can’t be charged under Venables as it will not be seen as a fair trial and there will be a witch-hunt. So does he get charged under his current name, which apparently is now in the public domain, certainly in prison and where he lived and worked? Unless he gets tried in another location, and given yet another identity it will leak out. But also he can’t not be tried just because of who he is, as he is not above the law. Everyone is subject to the law of the land.

 

But bear in mind the fact that he is now 27, an adult who had a job, managed to keep out of trouble since he was released at 18, he has brought this down upon himself. If no one knew who he was and no way of finding out, apart from him letting it slip, then either his mental state has deteriorated so badly or he has a death wish, maybe his safest option would be to be locked up for good, for his own protection.

 

I remember the original event at the time and I was like most people absolutely horrified at what happened. As the case went through the court details of their terrible upbringing led me to believe why it might have happened, although it was still a terrible crime. If an 18 year old had done it, we would all be agreed they should go to prison for a very long time. But seeing as they were children themselves some people made allowances. I think if you were a parent you might, just might have a different opinion of them than if you weren’t a parent. The thought of this terrible murder happening to your child would be so bad; I doubt you would ever have a normal life again.

 

Thompson who was described as “psychopathic” seems by all accounts to have been rehabilitated, so that no one knows who he is. If this is true then the system works in some cases, but not in every case.

 

So if it turns out all along he has done nothing more than punch a workmate then he should be released and set free. Whether he should get a new expensive identity, well that is another thing.

 

If however it is of a serious sex offence then he should be treated like any other 27 year old male and take the consequences. He cannot hide under I am only 10, I had a poor childhood reason today, as he has had 17 years to learn new life skills, and to grow up. He has had every opportunity. If other prisoners set about him well that is his problem, he is just like any other prisoner in jail who has murdered a child, or is into child porn or abuse. That goes with the territory, we all know people like Ian Huntley get beat up in prison. I am sure the wardens will do their very best to protect him from other inmates.

 

As a civilised Country we have given him a chance to reform, if he has failed to grasp it then how many more chances does he deserve?

 

I for one wouldn't cut him any slack if he is indeed found guilty of some kind of serious sexual assault, and he should receieve the standard sentence for such a crime (and I personally believe standard sentences for sex crimes are too leniant). I agree that his terrible start in life wouldn't excuse any misdemeanours he commits ANYMORE, at the age of 27 and after years of intensive rehabilitation. But even if he is found guilty and consequently receives an appropriate sentence, that wouldn't retroactively make the decision to release him in the first place wrong, nor does it take away from the fact Thompson is seemingly fully rehabilitated.

 

 

This question was asked a lot on the very long Digital Spy thread. A guy posting claiming to be in the legal profession said he'll be tried as Jon Venables, no question. Having a new identity doesn't mean that's your real name now for purposes like this as it's merely an alias for protection purposes. It's like people in Witness Protection he says as they'd be tried under their real birth name too.

 

This "guy on Digital Spy" is chatting absolute bs. No-one can say what name Venables is going to be charged under, because there's absolutely no legal precedent for this case. Only 4 people in British history have ever been granted lifetime anonymity (Venables, Thompson, Mary Bell and Maxine Carr) and none of them until now had ever been recalled, so there's absolutely no telling what's going to happen with regards to his identity.

Not sure but this guy says he's a lawyer and he'll definitely be tried as Jon Venables as THAT'S HIS NAME. When you think about it he's probably right as the alias probably doesn't have a criminal record does he? Whereas Jon Venables does! He never loses that, under his real name. It'll probably be a closed court case with no-one in the public gallery.

It's perfectly possible for him to be tried under his new name with the judge - and only the judge - knowing his past. IF he's found guilty he COULD have his previous life sentence restored. That's what being out on life licence means.

A fantastic article here from The Independent which Chris would do well to read.

 

Joan Smith: The spurious morality that turns Venables into a victim

 

Sunday, 7 March 2010

 

Do you know why one of James Bulger's killers has been returned to custody? If so, it is your civic duty to inform The Sun, which last week launched a campaign demanding "justice for James" and reminded readers that "We pay £££" for information. Yesterday the paper claimed to have discovered why Jon Venables had been recalled, but said it couldn't publish the details because it had been threatened by the Government's lawyers. It also claimed that three out of four people support its demand that Venables's alleged offence be made public, even if it puts him "at risk".

 

The paper had already painted a provocative picture of the convicted child-killer stuffing himself with burgers and chips at taxpayers' expense, treated like a celebrity at a prison it wasn't allowed to name. Rather, I suspect, 27-year-old Venables is being held in isolation for his own protection, which is perfectly reasonable in light of the rage that is being whipped up against him. I don't want to live in a country where prisoners are starved or beaten to death, as under regimes without respect for the rule of law.

 

Nor am I impressed by synthetic rage at the fact that Venables will need to be given another new identity because his cover has been blown. When editors put such stories on their front pages day after day, they know that the name in question is likely to circulate on the internet, even though they are legally constrained from publishing it themselves. Spurious moral arguments are used to justify creating an ugly atmosphere in which vigilante attacks are more likely.

 

The murder of James Bulger in 1993 was a ghastly crime. That his killers were only 10 prompted understandable revulsion, though it also suggested that they were young enough to be rehabilitated. Venables and his co-accused, Robert Thompson, lacked empathy with their victim, but there were reasons to hope that sustained intervention might turn them into decent adults with an understanding of the enormity of what they had done. This is a very different case from the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, who is arguing that he should be given a release date. On at least 22 occasions, Sutcliffe lacked the moral sense which would have prevented him from launching pre-meditated attacks on women, placing him in the category of offenders too dangerous ever to be released.

 

A civilised society has to make such distinctions; the popular press chooses not to. The new identities for notorious offenders who have completed their sentences provide its reporters with an irresistible challenge. They are as eager to expose the identities of offenders who have been successfully rehabilitated – the child-killer Mary Bell was hounded as an adult, even though she had not committed any further offence – as they are in cases where rehabilitation has failed. Venables served his sentence, was released in 2001 and has now behaved in a manner which suggests he poses a risk to the public. There may be a question about whether he was monitored closely enough, but that will emerge when the case is dealt with by the parole board and the courts.

 

The "justice for James" campaign assumes that there is a single course of action that would make victims' relatives feel better, if only unfeeling officials did not stand in the way. In societies which use the death penalty, bereaved families are encouraged to believe that an execution will provide closure, only to discover afterwards that they feel their loss as keenly as ever. The Sun's campaign may be popular with some readers but it's about retribution, not justice.

nice to see that during my weekend break people have shown themselves to be either rational, sensible, intelligent human beings.....or chris.

Edit.

Edited August 26, 201311 yr by Cassandra

We live in a country with some utter f***ing morons in it :manson:

 

Christ on a bike. :rolleyes:

 

I side 100% with Tyron here. Vigilante morons who read the Sun etc are the reason Venables needs to be protected. If the moronic masses didn't have attitudes like Chris' there would be no need for 1] this media circus or 2] him to have another new identity.

I for one think that James' mother's being absolutely ridiculous about the whole thing - it's in the interests of justice that the reasons for his recall aren't released until AFTER the criminal investigation, but you have her:

Ultimately, whatever crime it is isn't a crime against her :/ It all smacks of a desperate attempt to try and get it so he ends up spending more time behind bars regardless of whether or not he's done whatever he's accused of...

 

Although I certainly agree with you on this issue generally, I don't think it's right to criticise James's mother for her comments. If I was in her shoes, I would probably react just as she has done. Her judgement on this issue is understandably compromised.

 

However, that excuse doesn't apply to people like Crazy Chris.

Edited March 8, 201015 yr by Danny

Let me explain something now. I'd feel a lot less angry if they'd gone at 18 in to an adult prison and spent 15-20 years there. This is what a lot of other people who despise these two say in comments on newspaper websites too. Also on a recent radio phone-in I heard. The anger seems to be generally that they weren't inside long enough. Over and over again people say that 8 years wasn't long enough. They'd still have needed new identities but I think a lot of people would feel they'd been better punished if they'd been in a harsh adult prison too. I certainly would.

The nature of the crime gave a chance of rehabilitation. What would another 15-20 years for something they did when they were 10 have achieved other than mindless retribution for its own sake?

Let me explain something now. I'd feel a lot less angry if they'd gone at 18 in to an adult prison and spent 15-20 years there. This is what a lot of other people who despise these two say in comments on newspaper websites too. Also on a recent radio phone-in I heard. The anger seems to be generally that they weren't inside long enough. Over and over again people say that 8 years wasn't long enough. They'd still have needed new identities but I think a lot of people would feel they'd been better punished if they'd been in a harsh adult prison too. I certainly would.

 

Again, you're completely missing the point. I personally don't think they should've been punished AT ALL, because I don't think they should be held accountable for what they did.

 

What I do think needed to be done is that they needed to be rehabilitated into potentially decent members of society. And seemingly, 8 years was enough.

Again, you're completely missing the point. I personally don't think they should've been punished AT ALL, because I don't think they should be held accountable for what they did.

 

What I do think needed to be done is that they needed to be rehabilitated into potentially decent members of society. And seemingly, 8 years was enough.

 

Well turns out 8 years was nowhere near enough was it. ;)

Well turns out 8 years was nowhere near enough was it. ;)

Oh, did I miss the trial? That's a shame. I was looking forward to being really boring and judging the case on the facts.

Oh, did I miss the trial? That's a shame. I was looking forward to being really boring and judging the case on the facts.

 

Indeed. We must have both also missed the announcement that Robert Thompson has also been re-arrested.

It's interesting to see how the opposition parties are playing this. We are less than three months from a General Election - probably only two months. But Dominic Grieve and David Howarth (Tory and Lib Dem justice spokespersons) are broadly supporting the continued secrecy rather than attacking the government. I assume they have been told at least some of the facts to allow them to reach their own conclusion.

We live in a country with some utter f***ing morons in it :manson:

 

Christ on a bike. :rolleyes:

 

I side 100% with Tyron here. Vigilante morons who read the Sun etc are the reason Venables needs to be protected. If the moronic masses didn't have attitudes like Chris' there would be no need for 1] this media circus or 2] him to have another new identity.

 

excellant post, but the morons dont understand that.

 

 

Let me explain something now. I'd feel a lot less angry if they'd gone at 18 in to an adult prison and spent 15-20 years there. This is what a lot of other people who despise these two say in comments on newspaper websites too. Also on a recent radio phone-in I heard. The anger seems to be generally that they weren't inside long enough. Over and over again people say that 8 years wasn't long enough. They'd still have needed new identities but I think a lot of people would feel they'd been better punished if they'd been in a harsh adult prison too. I certainly would.

 

that LAW states that 8 years was appropriate, and what has this offence got to do with the bulger case? stop pointing to the heros on the internet who use annonymnity to spout off their mindless bile as the scource for your support, think abot it for yourself. venebles hasnt gone out and killed again... so how can the rehab have failed?

 

The nature of the crime gave a chance of rehabilitation. What would another 15-20 years for something they did when they were 10 have achieved other than mindless retribution for its own sake?

 

no doubt chris would carry on taking cough medicine for weeks after his cough had cleared up!

Another great article:

 

Don't dismiss rehabilitation

 

Young killers have been successfully rehabilitated – so why did we take a step back with Robert Thompson and Jon Venables?

 

In 1976 a 13-year-old boy battered an elderly woman to death to get money for fireworks. George, not his real name, was convicted of murder and sentenced to serve at Her Majesty's Pleasure, the junior equivalent of a life sentence – the same sentence handed down 17 years later to Robert Thompson and Jon Venables for the murder of James Bulger.

 

Unlike Thompson and Venables, George's identity was not made public. But like them he was taken from the court to begin his sentence in "secure accommodation", a well-equipped and well-resourced home for children – none of whom had ever been identified by the courts or the press – who had killed, raped, burgled and burned their way into the lives of others. Again, like the killers of James Bulger, George thrived in the home. He told the carers it was the first time he felt he had a family. But when he was 18, unlike Thompson and Venables, he was transferred to prison, where he lived on wings and landings among other teenagers who had also committed "grave crimes."

 

There were some very confident, professional prison officers in George's prison. They worked with a voluntary organisation, which they allowed to take their young prisoners for "placements" away from the prison – to work with people who needed help. The groups benefiting from the helping hands of the prisoners included the young, the disabled, the mentally ill – and the elderly. The idea was to teach the young prisoners empathy.

 

Meetings were held, expert assessments made – and in order to get George working at an old peoples' home the home secretary of the day had to be consulted. After considering all the facts he decided not to intervene and gave the placement his blessing. For eight weeks George lived in the home with the residents – digging and fixing and generally being handy. He even helped a number of the residents shave. The highlight of his stay, for him and for them, was when he organised a charity fund-raising "splash a granny," competition. George dressed up as an old lady and for a few pence the residents were invited to pelt him with wet sponges. They never knew of his childhood horror – never suspected he was a killer – they were just glad he was around. None of this happened of course without careful thought, consideration and scrupulous monitoring by those in authority.

 

George returned to prison when the placement was over and was later released, to begin his "rehabilitation" in the community. What he did to the old lady was terrible, causing grief and pain, as all murder does, beyond measure. That he was a child was no excuse. But the response of the responsible authorities was to try to understand what had driven him to act the way he did and then to do everything possible to resolve it and ensure that he lived on in a positive, constructive and contributing way into adulthood. Which is exactly what happened. His rehabilitation was important to George, but more so to his society and other potential victims.

 

Knowing this story, it occurs to me that somebody needs to ask why 10 years after George was released we took such a backward step – identification followed by constant and public temperature-raising intervention in the case – in relation to Thompson and Venables. Why did the trial judge choose to reveal the identity of James Bulger's killers? Why did the home secretary intervene and award an unlawful extrajudicial penalty of 15 years instead of the trial judge's eight? (A folly described as "institutional vengeance" by the lord chief justice who later quashed it.) And why have those in power at the time been able to get away with allowing this tragedy of three vulnerable children to scar the country and leave wounds that will probably never heal?

as an evolving, intelligent , civilisation we are right to tackle the causes of crime and to try to understand why crimes are committed....especially by the young.

 

im all for trying to 'give them a chance' to become decent citizens, it makes far more sense to rehabilitate criminals and try if possible to treat the cause of their criminality then to simply reach for the rope.

 

with these current speculative reports about what venebles had on his pc... im not so sure... maybe he WAS 'born with an evil streak'... maybe his part in the murder of bulger was sexually driven, if the reports are true then this could be the case. im not so sure sexual tastes can be 'learned' or are as a result of their environment. thinking about my preferances... eg ive always had a fascination for girls arses, i had this long before i knew what sex was and as a child it did hold a fascination which later i discovered was sexual. i firmly believe also that you are born with your sexuality in place .... i dont believe that gays can be 'straightend' or straights be converted to gay. (ok theres a grey bi area but just take the jist of this)..

 

maybe venebles sexuality was already set and dispite his environment he was always going to be a violently driven sexual individual. in which case reaching for the rope might be the only option.

as an evolving, intelligent , civilisation we are right to tackle the causes of crime and to try to understand why crimes are committed....especially by the young.

 

im all for trying to 'give them a chance' to become decent citizens, it makes far more sense to rehabilitate criminals and try if possible to treat the cause of their criminality then to simply reach for the rope.

 

with these current speculative reports about what venebles had on his pc... im not so sure... maybe he WAS 'born with an evil streak'... maybe his part in the murder of bulger was sexually driven, if the reports are true then this could be the case. im not so sure sexual tastes can be 'learned' or are as a result of their environment. thinking about my preferances... eg ive always had a fascination for girls arses, i had this long before i knew what sex was and as a child it did hold a fascination which later i discovered was sexual. i firmly believe also that you are born with your sexuality in place .... i dont believe that gays can be 'straightend' or straights be converted to gay. (ok theres a grey bi area but just take the jist of this)..

 

maybe venebles sexuality was already set and dispite his environment he was always going to be a violently driven sexual individual. in which case reaching for the rope might be the only option.

 

But let's be honest, if he's "only" been looking at child porn (as most reports suggest) then that's a relatively minor crime in the wide scheme of things. I'm not an expert on this area, but I do understand the standard sentence for that would probably only be a couple of years maximum (and probably placed on the Sex Offenders' Register) And I am of the opinion that being a paedophile itself isn't reprehensible - I believe that being sexually attracted to children is an illness that needs to be treated. A paedophile can't help who they're attracted to any more than a gay person can. It's when paedophiles act on their desires that they become reprehensible, i.e. sexually abusing a child. Downloading child porn is inappropriately acting on their desires to an extent (it fuels disgusting p**** rings obviously), but I do believe someone who has "only" done that should be helped more than they should be punished.

 

Of course, if he's convicted of sexually abusing a child (not that I've seen any reliable reports suggesting that), then he needs to be locked up for a long time.