Jamie Bulger's Killer

Not sure why this hasn't been discussed yet but I just wondered if any of you felt we, the public, had a right to know what he was sent back to prison for?

Is it any of our business now that he is back inside and can no longer pose any threat to any of us?

I think the public has every right to know. I don't think they should have ever been released in the first place. Some people are plain evil, very few admittedly but there are certain cases when 'evil' is the only way to descibe a person and it certainly applied in the case of those two monsters.

The public never wanted these vile creatures to be freed with a new identity and a home
for each of them.

If you can kill a child when you are fully aware what your doing, nothing will make that
person into a decent human being. They were wrong to let these two out and they know
it so I think thats why the public weren't told, they made a big mistake and the public told
them they were.

We have a right to know as it's in the public interest, they have always been in the public
interest.

Another shamed and red faced judge, not doing their job to protect the public. They
should never have been released.

Difficult this, not because these two deserve much consideration, well none but I would say whatever the usual disclosure of information prior to charges or convictions and I don't know 'the usual', perhaps that's never but I don't think so, ought to apply to Venables.
Why do the public have the right to know now;I am interested to know, of course and so is the public and parties involved but law and legal procedure is not fodder for public outrage and gossip, it's not a soap opera...

If it turns out that this murdering bastard has committed a serious and similar offence, to me that will prove unfitness for release ever, ever again!

I heard the first logical argument for disclosing his crimes this evening. With all due respect the opinions stated here so far are just emotionally charged reactions to the reminder of the crime he committed. That's not to say they aren't valid thoughts and opinions but just not what I would call a solid reason for us to be informed.

The argument I heard was that we should always be aware of why people are getting locked up because if we aren't then the system is wide open to abuse. If those that make these decisions are aware that the public will have the chance to scrutinise their judgement then it is much less likely that the individuals personal feelings will affect a verdict.

Does that make sense?

Well I don't think there is any right 'to know'at this stage for the public or James' parents and I agree with Straws statement.

I didn't fully understand your comment LP;our option to scrutinise decisions can come later, after trial or whatever but why is our keeping a check on our decision makers dependent on us knowing 'now'?

Once he's charged, taken to court, legally & fairly tried & sentenced, then we will know. Before that there's no reason why we should know what he has been "Accused" of. It's an accusation & in this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty regardless of what they have been proven guilty of in the past.

He committed a crime many years ago. He served his time (Although I think it should've been longer) so that's that done & dusted. If he's found guilty of whatever he's been accused of this time then we'll hear about it & talk about it. Shouldn't be released before in my opinion.

Tytonidae wrote:Well I don't think there is any right 'to know'at this stage for the public or James' parents and I agree with Straws statement.

I didn't fully understand your comment LP;our option to scrutinise decisions can come later, after trial or whatever but why is our keeping a check on our decision makers dependent on us knowing 'now'?

Don't get me wrong Ty, I don't think we should know. That was just the only reasonable argument for disclosure that I'd heard.

I don't think it's anyones business except the people involved in his case.

ooh I dont know about that - surely as a nation we need to know that our justice system is working and that certain cases arent brushed under the carpet (ok this is not a normal case) if you allow the government to hide things like this how many other serious crimes are not being reported on - what else are they hiding? why cant they tell us? what do they have to hide? they expect us to live in a big brother state where they know every damn thing we do but when we want to know why someone who they said was re-habilitaed is back inside ohh no we have no right to know - of course we have a right to know its a system we rely on and that we are led to believe works - my ass it works - and Sarah's law just approved this means he will be undected under sarah's law because his past crimes dont matter now that he's done time - so whats the point in sarahs law if poeple can get new id's and their previous crimes not linked to that id? lets say he's called john smith now and i meet him in 5 years time and i have a 5 year old child and i phone up the relevant folk and say does john smith have any previous convictions of harming children or violence - NO he doesnt - then he does something to my child and the courts turn round and say well you asked about John Smith and it was when he was venebles he did those things - its a bloody crock

In my opinion

But if he has been arrested and returned to prison then our justice system is working. He served his time and made bail, he broke bail conditions and went back to jail. How does knowing what he did make any difference to you or I?

Be careful you don't confuse your right to know with your natural curiosity.

thats the thing though - it depends what he's done to whether it makes a difference

What I mean is if he's simply swiped a few quid out of the till at work - fair do's I dont care and we dont need to know and the system is working but if he's been found with child porn as some press reports suggest or he indeed has been whacking women about a bit then this surely proves the rehhabilitation (which we are continuing to use on other crims) DIDNT work and we should know it didnt work and we should know WHY it didnt work to look at solutions. I do have a natural curiosity obviously but its more important than being a bit nosey, if the system we have in place at the moment has allowed a supposedly rehabilitated predatory criminal back on the streets to offend again with a new identity and all the trappings then that system is wrong and needs reform-I dont believe you CAN rehabilitate these people - a few years chatting to some shrink istn going to fix you IMO it may teach you to be more careful and the signs they will look for but it cant change your mindset and your beliefs - if only it were that simple - and yet we are releasing more and more crims on soft sentances because they are "rehabilitated" well if it didnt work on one the more high profile cases we've had in a lot of years then that reaffirms the belief that its all a crock and a good way of reducing overcrowding - on such a high profile case they wouldnt have released the lad unl;ess they thought they'd "fixed him" and if they though he was good to go and were wrong then how many more people are out there hiding behind the sham? and pretending to be rehabilitaed and knowing how to hide the fact that they arent until its too late? our entire legal/justice and prison sytem is a joke and if it takes knowing what he did to get a shake up then we should be told

I dont see why criminals get so many rights - you should loose your rights when you break the bloody law - never mind ooh my beds too hard - make em sleep on the floor - we are too soft with criminals and thats why there's overcrowding and re-offending to such a degree - who is scared of a bit of time? I certainly wouldnt be - If i was up shit creek i'd get myself sent down and let them rehabilitate me then they can chuck me back on the streets with a couple of grand and a nice new start - there is no detterent

I have a close friend who staged an armed robbery to go down for a few years because seriously prison life was better than his home life - he got paid to work and then when he got out they gave him so many grants its untrue, they found him a house close to his family and someone came round to check on him for the 1st couple of months and helped him sort his dole claim out and furnish and decorate his new home and as a consequence he reccomends it to people

I see your point YTB, although I happen to believe that rehabilitation can work. I still don't think that the general public is in any way qualified to decide on the fate of offenders though. You only need to look through our history to see that en masse we are a stupid and retaliatory group of people who will mostly go with the crowd as it's in our own personal best interests. Remember hearing about the witch trials? This is the sort of behaviour that I would be keen to avoid, and don't tell me that this wouldn't happen today because you know damn well that it would.

You're right about prison life being a cushy alternative to some people, I've never understood the logic behind that one either.

oh LP I agree fully that its not up to us to decide but we should be made aware when the sytems put in place by those that DO decide arent working, I hate the idea of those in power being able to pick and choose what they tell the people who put them in that position in the first place - I dont advocate any kind of witch hunt and I dont want his new identity revealed because thats just dangerous and would prompt as you say vigillantes who think they know best but Ido think we should be aware of the crime committed and its seriousness purely to add it to the argument for and against rehabilition. As I said i dont believe it works in extreme cases, maybe for petty criminals - get them to face up to things and understand why they are breaking the law and cant follow rules that kind of thing but not for cases such as the bulger case - thats not conditioning and it cant be fixed by talking to them (in my opinion) look at Huntley I dont think he can be rehabilitated either - to be that cold and calculating and show no remorse for me says they cant be fixed its too late but my point was if we arent told of the mistakes made by the parole boards and prison systems then how can we reform them? to hide the crime is just fuelling suspicion and peoples imaginings are probably far worse than the actual deed but we dont know so we cant say.......

theres the guy who raped his daugters countless times and has 9 kids with his kids - I dont think you can rehabilitate people like that

How's the system not working. He was given a chance to prove that he's changed, he fluffed it & is now back inside. Everyone deserves a second chance & I'm pretty sure he's not back inside for the torture & Murder of a young child as that would be big news.............

Rehabilitation is a separate thread on it's own I think, I take your point there YTB that there are some that are beyond rehab but you cannot use black and white rules for the human condition. If rehab works in only 10% of offenders then isn't that worth our efforts? It's hard to be understanding when looking at a case like Ian Huntley but what about a young lad who constantly shoplifts for the buzz of it? Can he not be saved?

Scratch that thought, answer it here:

http://frognbones.forumotion.net/ty-s-bogged-down-f7/rehabilitation-for-criminals-t516.htm#54524

yeah - I think it can work for petty crime, theft etc but I think when it involves the rape and/.or torture and/or murder of another human being then I dont think it can work, most crime is committed without knowing or seeing the effect of it - burglary for example - youre in someones house taking their stuff - its only stuff & you dont see the effect it has on the home owner (I've been burgaled and its not nice but the thief didnt see that) its like a no consedquence crime to the perpatrator - however murdering or inflicting harm on another person the perpatrator can see the effect and they know the consequence so for me its a different kind of crime - sounds a bit jumbled but I know what I mean

I arent anti rehabilitation but our criminal system seems to belive if you rob millions from a bank you need to be locked up for a lonnng time with no chance of parole but if you take away a young child, abuse it and then try to cover up what you've done then you can be rehabilitated and you deserve a new id and a new life because your mum shouted at you a bit - i just dont buy it and the excuses they use for some of these crimes makes me want to punch them - I arent getting into it on here but believe me I havent had it easy i've experienced abuse and poverty and i know others personally that have had all kinds of hardshipe throughout their life and they dont claim to be victims and they dont take it out on others saying its not their fault its because they watched a scary movie when they were young FFS and these councellors seem to not want to find a solution but to find a blame and cry the poor me tale - bollocks it doesnt wash - maybe if they took some responsibility instead of being taught how to pass on the blame they should be learning how to shoulder responsibility for their own actions

Just saw on the news that "Apparently" he's been charged with downloading & distributing indecent images

More to come when I see the rest of the report.............

Well, I'm sure you've all read or seen the news now.........

If he's found guilty....... well.......

Who would be to blame.....??

Bugger! What a total prick!

Still doesn't change my argument here but I can see how it may strengthen the opposition.

I think the main problem is that the 2 crimes are related, even if only loosely. In this case it seems the system f**ked up royally.......

Yes, that is clearly the case.

Sooooooooooooooo that means that everyone who said he shouldn't be let out were right weren't they? Or were they still wrong but have now had their unfounded prejudice unexpectedly vindicated? (4 big words in a row, I'm on fire!!)

Well, their prejudice has been unexpectedly vindicated; however, he had to be given a second chance for it to be vindicated, so no, they were incorrect in their original analysis that he should've remained incarcerated in my opinion.

That what I thought. So how could this have been prevented whilst upholding a fair system?

Exactly It simply couldn't of been prevented with a fair system, but at the same time you could say that whatever "Rehabilitation" was given to venebles as a youngster didn't work. It could also be argued that this crime is a direct result of his incarceration...........