[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

No. They were only locked up for their childhood. And children adapt very quickly so it probably didnt even seem like punishment.

They still have their entire adulthood in freedom. Should have been locked up until at least 25 to give them a proper sense of punishment. And a sense of justice to Jamies family.

Except they dont really have freedom, they were released on life licence, argue about that as much as you want, it still means legally they are acting under sentence. I do admit that yes it would seem to some to be freedom but its still a restriction on liberty. Unless you were dealing directly with them in a legal sense the public are unaware as to the full extent of the limitations of that licence.

They were 10 at the time of the offence, it was decided that they were to be held criminally responsible, but were they in fact fully aware of their actions? Even if you hold that they knew the difference between right and wrong did they really comprehend the severity of what they were doing? As an adult of sound mind and judgement would have.

Was the outcry at the time simply peoples disgust at the fact that this sort of crime could happen in todays society, were people really angry at society as a whole and vented this anger out on those two children.

Because the murder of a child in this way is disgusting and because the culprits were children themselves at the time havent we as a whole treated this particular case very differently to other child murders.

Originally Posted by rapunza1977

Nooooooooooooo I do not.

I feel all this secrey surrounding JV should be lifted - it makes it so that he has special privlidges and now it has been reported (allegedly) that they may not even charge him with new charges in fear of public finding out his identity, well this is ridiculous - how will he learn, he will always assume that he will be protected! I think our laws are absolutely incredible and it just looks like Britain says its ok to commit a crime! This was a horrific crime it breaks my heart for little James and his family.

Is it not true that when a person is accused of committing a crime, they are deemed innocent till proven guilty? In the unlikely event of him actually being innocent of the current charges wouldnt releasing his current identity ensure that he didnt receive a fair trial on the fresh allegations?

Why doesnt he have the right to a fair trial same as everyone else?

Even if the the current allegations do not lead to a trial (and please remember its only reported that some advisors are advising the charges not to be pursued so as he isnt in a position to claim for an unfair trial at a later stage.). The current allegations would feature in current and future Parole Board Reviews. This means that he would in fact be punished for an allegation for which he has not been found guilty of in a court of law.

This would in turn create a situation where Venables could take the Ministry of Justice to the Court of Human Rights for a punishment without trial and if his claim was found to be true, end up with him being awarded substantial damages, wouldnt that be great? The mob baying for his blood and later because of the MoJ buckling under this public pressure him being awarded enough money to live a life of relative luxury for the rest of his days.