Jamie Bulger

In My Humble Opinion
1

Hello, I’m a new poster but I’ve enjoyed the board for quite a while. We’ve been arguing/debating this issue at work and I’d like to see what the esteemed SDMB’ers think. I thought I’d play it safe and post my rambling thoughts to IMHO.

First, the link:

I don’t think there really is a “good” way to resolve this. I don’t think it’s as simple as findind a punishment to fit the crime, if that were even possible in this case.

I was surprised to find that these boys weren’t “punished”, they were treated and hopefully rehabilitated. Now that they’re being released, I’m disturbed by the threat of vigilantes, and saddened by the pain Jamie’s parents still bear.

Can the two murderers of Jamie Bulger can teach us a bit about ourselves, and the direction we’d like to take our society? What should we do with them now, and what should have been done 8 years ago?

Here’s my take:

First, why were these two particular boys worth the 150k pounds/year cost of therapy and rehabilitation?

There’s thousands of children who haven’t committed atrocities and yet still starve, having less opportunity than these two. I guess they provide a focus. Who needs love more than two 10 year olds, so abused and deprived that they tortured and murdered a 2 year old?

What does this say about us, that we created and live in a society that produces 10 year old monsters? Do we even love ourselves, or invest in our own future beyond our immediate personal goals?

I wonder what defines our culture. It could be rugged individualism, where everyone fends for themselves and market forces rule. Where kids are not “my” problem, and crime happens to other people. Where relying on your community is weakness, and your community doesn’t really know who you are.

I’m going to live in a world run by the adults that today’s children will become. It’s not “for the children”, it’s for our future. We can’t exist without other human beings, and someday that kid is going to fix your car, cook your burger, or increase your shareholder value. Or he could run your company into the ground, rob you, kill you. I’d like to try to affect the odds in my favor.

So, I think their rehab was a good thing. I can only hope they will contribute to society, perhaps reflect some of the compassion they’ve recieved.

Otherwise, we might as well have executed them 8 years ago. I don’t want to live in a society that would execute 10 year-olds.

2

pho,

Congrats on your first post. :slight_smile:

It’s a shame no one else has yet commented on your insightful OP. Most of us Yanks probably don’t recognize the poor boy’s name.

For myself, I think the right thing was done in the boy’s case, as difficult as that may be on a reflexive, emotional level. In any case, I think the two will probably spend the rest of their lives ‘looking over their shoulders’ for the lynch mob.

I am curious, though, from what little I’ve read via the internet, the average ‘Briton on the street’ thinks the boys should never be let out of jail. Some go even further than that. Is this just tabloid journalism, or, in your experience, do most people you know feel that way?

Also, is it true that some bystanders knew the boy was being abducted and did nothing?

Gerry

3

The Jamie Bulger case… I cannot believe it’s been eight years. The abduction and murder of that little boy made headlines here in Australia - and even more shocking was the discovery that two cute little boys were responsible. While it seems like only yesterday, some of the details are fuzzy in the mind’s eye, so I hope all of the below is accurate, and I invite corrections.

As I recall the details of the case, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were both ten years old at the time of the murder. Like other children, they were bored over the school holidays, and wanted to find something to do. Unlike other children, they decided they wanted to kill someone for fun. They went to the local shopping centre, and cruised around, looking for a lost child. Eventually, they spotted little Jamie Bulger who was only two years old and had wandered away from his mother. They swooped in, took the child by the hand and lead him away. I remember how chilling that store security footage was… a child leading another child to his death.

Thompson and Venables had worked out beforehand exactly where they were going to take the child once they had him. They dragged him miles away, to a place near the railway tracks. At some time the two year old became distressed and didn’t want to go further, but the two boys mercilessly kept on. Bystanders saw the trio, but assumed the boys were brothers, and did not intervene. Once the boys reached their destination, they bludgeoned the two year old to death with bricks. Then they threw his body onto the train tracks. They hoped the police would think that Jamie was killed by the train - and I think that intially this was the case, until the autopsy revealed that the train hit the small body AFTER death.

The case is horrific. It was a terrible crime, and seemed worse because it was done by two small boys. I don’t think either of those boys ever showed any remorse at all for what they’d done - the only time they showed any emotion was when their sentences were handed down. For the last eight years, Thompson and Venables have been in prison as they went through their teenage years. They have received a good education at the expense of the taxpayer. They have been “reformed”. But for what? Two ten year olds plan and cold-bloodedly commit a horrific murder like this, and we’re supposed to believe that their characters can be transformed in a mere 8 years? They should never have been released from prison. They should have been made to work like slaves to earn their keep. They gave up the right to be treated like humans the day they killed Jamie Bulger, and right now they should have the rest of their lives sacrificed to pay their debt to Jamie’s mother and the rest of their country.

The only comfort I can take in all of this is the knowledge that, for the rest of their lives, they will live in fear of their covers being blown. Imagine every night going to bed, not knowing if you’ll wake to a lynch mob at your door. I predict they will not live to be old men - the stress and strain of living like that is sure to get to them, and with any luck their “reformation” has added guilt over the death of Jamie Bulger to the mix. But they shouldn’t have been released from jail so soon - eight years is a joke.

Oh, I’m a heartless person. But there is so much injustice in the world today - the victims keep on suffering so that the perpetrators aren’t treated unjustly. The rule should be - you violate someone else, you cease to have human rights, and the rest of your life should be served in penance for what you’ve done.

4

<b>cazzle</b> the thing I find disturbing is the British government’s willingness to provide these kids with new identities. The figure I heard quoted in the media for the new identities for the boys and their families, their relocation, and surveillance over the next few years is $AUD 4 million. That seems an extraordinary amount of money to spend to protect the guilty, and I can think of many other high profile murderers who would be at risk upon their release - is the expectation now that criminals who’ve committed heinous crimes but served their sentences should be protected at the taxpayers expense for life?

BTW Ruddock seems to be dodging the issue of their possible resettlement to Australia. While it’s unlikely that they’ll be relocated outside of Britain, I don’t see why we don’t just flat out declare that we won’t allow them entry here under any circumstances.

5

They were released because they were no longer minors so the law which convicted them as minors no longer applied.

Anyone read Cries Unheard by Gitta Sereny? Very interesting, chilling reading about a similar case. Mary Bell served her time in an adult’s prison and was released into the community with a new identity. She’s never re-offended and had a child of her own. As an adult, she was genuinely remorseful.

In this case, I truly don’t know what I think is justice. I cannot imagine the living hell it must be for the Bulgers to see those boys walk free. However if one believes in rehabilitation and redemption (which I do) then what is justice for these boys? The media found Parker and Hulme without too much bother (was anyone creeped out by Juliet Hulme being Anne Perry the novelist?)

And hell, I don’t want those kids in my community and I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one of them! And if Ruddock lets those boys into Australia, he’s even more of a slimebag than I already thought he was.

Are they really relocating the families with the boys? I don’t think that’s the best idea I’ve heard of. I’m averse to parent bashing but geez, one would think that those families were not the safe haven that one would hope.

6

I saw Ruddock interviewed on Meet the Press on Sunday. When he was pressed to rule out allowing the boys into Australia he refused. Eventually, his reason was that such a public refusal issued before they even applied for visas would seriously undermine the government’s case if it went to an appeal. He then went on to make a blanket statement saying that anybody with serious convictions had little chance of getting in. It seemed pretty clear to me what he was getting at.

I found this really interesting because 30 seconds after the interview, there was a promo for the news that night. All they said was that Ruddock refused to rule out the boys being given refuge in Australia.

Now unless I had seen the interview, on the basis of the secondary reporting alone, I would also be dismayed at the possibility of them coming to Australia with new identities. The whole episode really made me question yet again how the media can get even the simplest of facts wrong sometimes. It makes me wonder what they do with situations that are even murkier than this one.

7

Do former convicted murderers who have new identities have a history of serious convictions, or is that slate wiped clean for them too?

It seems that a lot of time, money and effort has gone into looking after two boys who were evil by the age of 10.

8

I saw the Ruddock interview too.

I found the fact that he won’t just declare them persona non grata or make a blanket statement interesting.

While I agree it’s unlikely they and their families will be relocated here, I’m sure that quite a few other nations wouldhave no hesitation in quote flatly and publicly stating that they would refuse to consider such an application.

Prima these young men are going to be released into someone’s backyard and community. They’ve served their gaol time, but another consequence of their actions is extreme hostility in the community.

I’d hate to think that our government would spend millions of dollars creating new identities for Milat, or Bryant, or the Murphys should they be ever be released and I question the wisdom of the British government spending such a huge amount of money to protect the guilty in this instance.

And yes, the families are being given new identities and relocated (one tabloid said the boys will even be provided with credit cards in their new name, but I doubt the validity of that report). These boys are now adults, but relocating their families along with them is treating them like children.

Ultimately, I think the British press will reveal their identities and location. I’d be curious to know whether this level of funds would be allocated for two people in the witness protection programme.

9

Why not? How long did it take you to learn proper moral behaviour?
In my book, the 8 years they’ve been in jail and therapy since they’ve committed the crime is at least equal to the time when their minds started to form.

** right now they should have the rest of their lives sacrificed to pay their debt to Jamie’s mother and the rest of their country.**

I really hate the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key attitude. If you want revenge, just say so.
Personally, I think revenge is visceral, emotional, but ultimately useless.

10

Look - it’s just not feasible to keep these two in jair for their whole goddamned lives. That’s not what the justice system serves for this kind of murder.

So we’ve spent the last 8 years trying to mould these 10 year olds into rehabilitated and useful members of society. If that rehabilitation is going to stand even a chance of succeeding, then they have to be released now, before they get put into jail and become hardened criminals.

If we keep them locked up for another 10 years, then all we’ll accomplish is the successful release of a couple of 28-year olds who definitely won’t be able to cope in society. What’s the point in that? We might as well try to make use of all that money we’ve spent.

OK - so that’s the argument from the rehabilitation point of view.

From the vengence point of view, I’ll simply say that I think that it is ridiculous to keep on punishing a man for something he did as a ten year old. For fuck’s sake - I barely even remember being 10 and I’m pretty sure I did some nasty things at that age. These two have had their whole childhoods taken from them. That has to be punishment enough.

pan

11

FWIW, I don’t think there is a good way of dealing with this. I think I see two 10 year old kids who (like any children of that age) have spent most of their short lives as sponges and somehow their development went very seriously wrong – like most, I don’t believe they started out that way.

Recently, I listened to some of the tapes from their interviews prior to their admissions. Chilling. And then the details of how the experts couldn’t work out where marks on James’ face had come from. Until someone pointed out they matched the shoe lace eyes on Thompson’s shoes.

What do we do as a society ? I don’t see any other choice except to erase what they experienced and replace that stuff with acceptable moral reasoning. It’s social conditioning just like the rest of go through in more ‘normal’ upbringings. I don’t believe there’s any reason to think, after 8 years of re-education, either of them are a danger to society. Clearly the Parole Board agreed.

I guess I’m still troubled by the role the parents of the two murderers. It doesn’t seem to feel right (to me) that those who are largely responsible for forming the characters of the boys are not in some way (at least partly) responsible for their actions. Parental responsibility seems not to have played any role at any stage in this desperately sad case.

As for as sending the two to Australia: Damn, it’s difficult. It’s so hard to think they will have any chance of developing a normal life here (their notoriety is so great, the Internet so potentially destructive to them (photo’s) ) yet is it right to burden Australia with their potential for re-offending in some way ? One has to worry about the Oz media stirring trouble (no matter how unfounded) and publishing their locations and photos…

So, so damn difficult.

12

I’d just like to point out that “Jamie” is a diminutive applied initially by the UK tabloid press. The child’s parents both apparently called him James. This is of course of no importance whatsoever, but is an example of the way that almost every commentator - in the media at least – is trying to stir up the public’s emotions in what is already an agonising case.

I am not sure that this thread will come to any conclusion. It is cutting to the heart of the debate about whether prison, or whatever form of it for juniors the killers were sent to, is for punishment or rehabilitation. Changing anyone’s mind on that one is going to be very difficult.

Quite apart from the fact that the killers were minors at the time, I understand that 8 years is about the average, possibly a little more than the average time served by a convicted murderer in the UK.

It is of little importance though. Their real sentence starts now, they are said to be petrified of being released and being found by vigilantes. If they are, the crime committed by adult vigilantes wishing to “avenge” James Bulger will be far more heinous even than the original murder.

13

One of the killers mother said that she didn’t think the boys would live more than four weeks after they get released. In context it was hard to tell if this upset her or not.

14

According to the Officer leading the original Police inquiry, Jon Venables continued to deny his involvement until it was decided his mother wouldn’t sit with him any longer during the questioning. As they were going back into the Interview Room (Venable’s father accompanying him now), his mother said to Venables that no matter what he’d done, they (mother and father) would always love him. It was after that, with his father sitting with him, that he confessed.

About Thompson, I don’t know.

15

There’s a whole lot about this particular case and the circumstances of these boys release which troubles me. And I keep coming back to the question of whether the same amoount of time, effort and money would be put into protecting any other killers who had served their time and who were at risk of the community into which they were released exacting vigilante vengeance.

Would America pay $4 million to protect Charles Manson were he ever released? Would Australia pay $4 million to protect the Murphy brothers?

Why are these two particular murderers who committed a heinous crime worthy of greater protection at the expense of the taxpayer than is granted to other murderers who have paid their dues?

I don’t envy Britain in making their decisions in respect of these teenagers and their families, but I sure as hell know that I don’t even want to contemplate them being released in my nation, let alone taxpayers dollars being spent to protect the guilty at a level which is unprecendented for protecting the innocent.

16

I don’t want revenge. I think Jamie’s mother is entitled to some say as to when these young men are released - they took so much from her, and no one can guarentee that they won’t come back and murder her other children (as unlikely as that is, I’m sure she lives in fear of it). But more than that, people - any people - who commit such horrific crimes show they are not able to follow the basic rules of our society, and so they should not be allowed live amongst us.

The lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key attitude you dislike in me is a deeply ingrained belief that if someone can’t follow the most basic of rules, and deliberately violates them by causing the worst possible suffering to others, then they forfit the right to live amongst us. The only way society is going to work is if everyone respects everyone else. Premeditated murders like the Jamie Bulger case show the killer/s have/has no regard for the rights of others, no empathy, no respect for individuals or for society as a whole… why should we share our lives with these people? Why should we make ourselves vunerable to them? So the boys who killed James Bulger are reformed (and men)… does that mean that we have to respect them until they kill someone else who doesn’t deserve to die just in case they don’t do it again? I have no sympathy for people who plan and commit murders - this is just a high profile case. I feel no different towards Thompson and Venables than I do towards any sadistic murderers. However, it was disturbing to learn that such young children could be capable of such an evil act.

Surely another argument could be that it took 10 years for them to become so evil, so how could that possibly be undone in only 8 years?

When a dog attacks a human, it is destroyed because it cannot be trusted not to do it again. I do not believe in capital punishment, and don’t believe in putting people to death, but I don’t understand why we have to give them a second chance.

17

Er, because they were children when they did the crime and now they’re adults? Because there comes a time when you have to say enough and reveal your own humanity? Because I refuse to let the crimes of these two children reduce me to a monster?

I’m sure it bust be one of those.

pan

18

Let me see, someone is equating the very unlikely release of Manson with the release of Venables and Thompson on the basis of their crimes ?

Hmmm, the differances are so blindingly obvious that I would not have even made the comment in the first place.

Keepning them incarcerated would be pointless as a preventative measure, completely destroy any hope of leading a normal life, be incredibly expensive and be so unelightened as to be neandrathal in outlook.

We in the UK have professionals whose task is to assess the risk that offenders pose to society, those professionals are paid handsomely for their skills gained through academia and long hard experience.

Seems to me that this is one of those stories that generates lots of print in newspapers whose sole purpose is to make a profit any way they can legally do so, and bugger the human cost.
Now who do you trust?

19

I started a similar thread in Great Debates, pondering what would have happened to the killers if they had committed the crime in the US. I’m almost certain the US wouldn’t pay $4 million to protect a Charles-Manson-style criminal-I say this because I don’t think Manson himself will ever be released. I dimly remember prison officials in California finally giving a paroled sex-offender/killer a trailer on the prison grounds, because there was such an outcry in places where he could be relocated. In the US people are allowed to change their names in prison, but I don’t believe the government would go to such lengths as giving them bank accounts, new identities, etc.
There was a huge outcry over the murder in the US when it occured, and the release of the killers is getting similar attention. I think a lot of the outrage has to with the way the boys were treated in custody. Education and counseling are fine, but did they really frickin’ deserve football tickets? Whitewater rafting?

20

Hey, something I feel I can offer an opinion on. I just read the details of this case not that long ago. I was appalled and nauseated by the things these boys did to that baby. I should warn anyone that what follows is disturbing, but these are the details as I understood them.

They hadn’t planned to kill a baby that day. Initially they intended only to lead him away from him mom and “get him lost”. They walked the whole afternoon, leading James around. They comforted him when he got upset and punched him and kicked him. At one point, down by the canal, they dropped him on his head and left him there. They returned a short while later to find him still there, so they continued on together. 38 separate people saw the three together. Some of them only saw two young boys with a younger third, but at least some of them saw a bleeding, upset baby being led and carried by an older boy. A few saw them hit or kick James. Down by the tracks at least one woman saw them actually beating him, but she drew the curtains.

Once they got to the tracks they threw paint in his eyes and then threw a brick at his head. They continued to stone him and hit him with a bar. They kicked him over and over again in his face and groin. Both boys commented, “He kept sitting back up.” They took his pants and underwear off, which were soaked with blood. They shoved batteries into his rectum. They dragged him onto the tracks and covered him with stones. He later died, before the train came and tore his little body in two.

When I think about what these boys did, possible rehabilitation doesn’t come to mind, however I did read about Mary Bell and it seemed possible in her case. I don’t know, maybe I am just vengeful, but when I think of the terror and the pain that three-year-old went through, and I look at my little four-year-old nephew, I want those boys to stay in jail for life. I want them to feel just a fraction of what they did to him. I know it may never happen and I know I’m supposed to forgive, but how to forgive what they did to James? I guess I’m a weak person, because I don’t think I could ever let it go.