It was with complete dismay that I read in the Sunday Times and Daily Mail that Jon Venables, one of the two children convicted of abducting, torturing and murdering James Bulger, apparently had sexual intercourse with a female member of staff at his Secure Unit when aged 17 and the year before he was granted release on Life Licence. I must say I am very suspicious about this story surfacing at this particular moment given that, having been recalled to prison last year by his probation officer and subsequently convicted of downloading pornographic material from the internet, his case will no doubt be coming back before the Parole Board shortly.
I am dismayed at yet another convoluted twist in this very sorry saga of demonisation that was effectively institutionalised the moment that the trial judge allowed publication of the two 11 year-olds identities in the first place following conviction. Rather than certain parts of the press highlighting the appalling breach of trust and responsibility by the member of staff in question, I note that instead they have begun to call into question the basis on which the original Parole decision was made. Somehow it's being portrayed as if it was his fault that sex took place with a member of staff who should have been looking after him.
But then right from the beginning I have never been able to understand why the public couldn't grasp that the appalling and tragic murder of the toddler James Bulger was not so much about these two 'demonic' kids as it was about their background, upbringing and the wider environment in which they developed. Even at their tender age there was reported evidence of a sexual element to the offence which would be indicative of some inappropriate sexualisation. Even if one or other were suspected of showing signs of a personality disorder, I'm fairly sure that at their age a diagnosis would not have been possible or likely to have been reliable.
Naming both boys after conviction effectively condemned them and their families to lifelong assumed identities with the constant risk of discovery and consequent vilification and torment. Not surprisingly the stress is reported to have had a very negative effect on Jon Venables' emotional state and produced a deterioration in his mental health as a result. I note that in the past his solicitor has said that he 'doesn't think he can ever be free and cannot handle the outside world'.
The sad thing is that even as I write this I realise that it will in all probability attract some very negative comment, but it seems particularly dishonest not to make clear what my 'take' is on what remains a very high profile and emotive case. In trying to understand why people do certain things, it is often the past that provides much of the understanding. These two boys were just 10 year-old children when, for whatever reason, they did what they did.
The problem is that the tabloids are written for the hard of thinking, ie: people that just go "OMG they murdered a toddler, they must be totally EVIL!!!" without seeing they themselves were children who seemed to have had very dysfunctional upbringings.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with everything you've written.
ReplyDeleteSomehow it's considered wrong to speak common sense on a subject like this.
Jim
ReplyDeletetotally agree with everything. Looking back for me it's funny as when the boys were released and not sent to adult jail everyone in the office (non-descript call centre) where I worked was scandalised. For some reason I felt the right decision had been taken, they were young boys, they deserved a chance of rehabilitation and if they could be spared adult jail they should be. To me this was simply the right thing to do. Four years later I "fell" into the probation service.
People say whatever was done with the boys didn't work. Yes it did, it worked brilliantly. They have spent years out of jail without getting in trouble and under immense pressure. The people who worked with those boys can be proud of what they achieved.
Given the general rate of recidivism and the degree to which the boys appear to have been damaged before they went into the system, the fact that intervention seems to have worked for one of them is pretty impressive actually. I only wish we had the resources and the political will to do provide the same things for all the other potential Venables and Thompsons' out there.
ReplyDeleteAnd I too believe that the full adult trial and subsequent release of their identities as a very bad day for British justice.
Agree with every word.
ReplyDeleteI am heartily sick of this case. And I'm sorry to say it but I'm also heartily sick of Denise Fergus who seems intent on running to the gutter press on things that, frankly don't concern her. No wonder Ken Clarke has told her where to go and not to contact him. It's about time someone had the guts to tell her that if she chooses to make her (often quite repellent) views public, she needs to be called to task on them occasionally.
If there was a crime committed with regards to these new revelations, it was NOT by Venables. Indeed, given the details are sketchy, there is nothing to indicate that Venables wasn't the victim of a crime - or at least the victim of a predatory carer who saught to cajole a vulnerable teenager into a sexual relationship.
And yes, those charged with their care during their time in custody can (largely) be proud of themselves. Thompson, particularly would have been a hard nut to crack given the extreme levels of abuse (sexual and physical) and neglect in his childhood.
For my part, I thought it was right and humane to release them when they did. But then I think that sticking two traumatised kids in the dock of a crown court, littered with media and subjecting them to the full force of adult criminal proceedings was little more than state sanctioned child abuse.