Apparently, Jon Venables is in custody for having committed a 'serious sexual offence' (that could mean anything these days!). Jamie Bulger's mother is angry because the government won't tell her what the offence is. Overall, that is the correct decision, but should Venables' current offences, ugly though they may be, be turned into a national story? Surely, it is Jon Venables the adult who should be tried and judged on this matter. Jamie's mother, Denise Fergus, says that the government don't want to admit that all the money spent on protecting and rehabilitating Thompson and Venables was 'a waste'.
While one can understand why Mrs Fergus feels bitter at the unconsolable loss of her 3 year old child, what is society supposed to do with children who kill? Do we brutalise them and lock them up for the rest of their life, so that they will never grow up with the freedom needed to develop into rounded human beings? The 27 year old Venables is not the 10 year old Venables. Any offences committed now should not be seen as having a direct parallel to the killing of Jamie Bulger. No doubt, psychological problems in childhood may not go away completely in all individuals, but Venables should be tried for the current allegations against him as an adult. When Thompson and Venables were 10, they were treated like adults; they were demonised as urban folk devils. The conduct of all governments on this matter has been cowardly, craven and a disgrace; none of them have argued against inciting vengeful feelings because they are too busy endorsing and indulging the victim culture.
I feel like putting to some of those people (not Jamie Bulger's family) who rail against child killers, what they think should happen to them. Incarcerate them forever? Get grown adults to beat them to a pulp? Reason is missing in this whole matter. Thompson and Venables' wrongdoing are not the same as Hindley and Brady's. Hindley and Brady were adults who knew precisely what they were doing, the same cannot be said of two 10 year olds who killed a toddler who could easily have been their little brother.
Another point to add is that under the law a person is innocent until proven guilty. So, before judgement is carried out on the adult Venables, adequate evidence must be provided to show that he is guilty. I also disagree with the view that a jury would not be able to put aside their knowledge of Venables' killing of Jamie Bulger; that is a cynical underestimation of the mental capacity of members of the public. The jury system is one of the most important democratic components of law and I would rather be at the hands of 12 ordinary men and women than unelected judges and unaccountable 'experts'. Being in a jury can expand the capacities of anyone and people should not be judged condescendingly because they are manual workers or they didn't go to university - that is a very stupid thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I put it to someone at facebook (a friend of Jan's with whom I'd argued before) that he must be delighted with the tone of 'the Venables debate' (in so far as it is a debate), because it afforded him the opportunity to indulge his fantasies of torture and murder. I was trying to point out the irony of the situation (lost on him). That is to say, in our previous confrontation he'd said how much he'd like to torture and murder paedophiles and child killers. Once more, he suggested, I was unable to face the facts about Venables. But the toughest fact to face is that, first, Venables at 27 is not Venables at 10, and second, he's a man, not a monster. Once that's accepted the seriousness of every aspect of this sorry tale - moral, legal, philosophical, political - can be faced up to in such a way that reason is allowed breathing space.
ReplyDelete