[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

.



I still think 8 years which was the maximum they could receive in juvenile prison was too short

I do actually agree with that given their age at the time of it (nearly teenagers), to be honest the most appropriate sentence would probably have been 8 years juvenile followed by an indefinite term of at least 10 years in a secure psychiatric facility... extending all the way up to "permanent" if never deemed safe to release. My feeling is that Venables would probably never have been released at all... He has demonstrated that he is still a serious risk to the public, multiple times now.

[LaLaLand]

No, not at all. That program on C4 the other night left a bad taste in my mouth, was like they were trying to get us to sympathise with the killers. Absolutely awful and I'm glad it's had such a backlash.

Venables should be stripped of his anonymity now and jailed for good, he's clearly a danger and something major waiting to happen (again).

Every time he's back in the press James' poor mother has to relive everything all over again and it's so cruel, she's never found nor never will find peace with it with their protection, like she says they were basically rewarded. Just lock him away and have him never mentioned again.

[LaLaLand]

Sign this btw, it's already surpassed 100K but the more it exceeds the limit the more likely something may (just may) be done.

"We want a Public Inquiry into the James Bulger murder case.

Throughout the conduct of the case there have been a number of issues that have been swept under the carpet. It's high time they were investigated."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/206851

[jaxie]

I did read one article that claims James was sexually assaulted which is particularly surprising in view of their ages. I've never heard that before. Has anyone else heard that?

[LaLaLand]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I did read one article that claims James was sexually assaulted which is particularly surprising in view of their ages. I've never heard that before. Has anyone else heard that?

Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, socks, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report, which was read out in court, found that Bulger's foreskin had been forcibly retracted. When Thompson and Venables were questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and a child psychiatrist, Dr Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details; they also denied inserting some of the batteries into Bulger's anus. At his eventual parole, Venables's psychiatrist, Dr Susan Bailey, reported that "visiting and revisiting the issue with Jon as a child, and now as an adolescent, he gives no account of any sexual element to the offence.

From Wiki ^ So awful.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jonnii

From Wiki ^ So awful.

I didn't know any of that Jonnii but again it opens the question why aren't they taking Venables interest in children more seriously?

But then they killed him, why I am surprised by the additional horror of it?

[user104658]

There were elements that would be considered sexual assault (listed above) but its unlikely that the actual motivation was sexual excitement or gratification. Essentially, it's cruelty and curiosity combined with a lack of empathy.

Venables interest in child pornography now, if I had to guess, is actually the result of what is essentially psychological trauma. I have to be quick to add here (because I know that people won't like terms like that being used, and feel that it's making excuses) that when I say he's traumatised I don't mean that it's an excuse or even that there should be any sympathy for him; I'm talking in purely psychological terms here.

But yes... Basically, I still firmly believe that Thomson is sociopathic, completely, and all accounts of his behaviour back that up. Venables on the other hand, I think was more lead into it at the time (although obviously a willing participant) but has essentially been left psychologically broken by his crime.

Again ; not making excuses, he is clearly a highly dangerous individual.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There were elements that would be considered sexual assault (listed above) but its unlikely that the actual motivation was sexual excitement or gratification. Essentially, it's cruelty and curiosity combined with a lack of empathy.

Venables interest in child pornography now, if I had to guess, is actually the result of what is essentially psychological trauma. I have to be quick to add here (because I know that people won't like terms like that being used, and feel that it's making excuses) that when I say he's traumatised I don't mean that it's an excuse or even that there should be any sympathy for him; I'm talking in purely psychological terms here.

But yes... Basically, I still firmly believe that Thomson is sociopathic, completely, and all accounts of his behaviour back that up. Venables on the other hand, I think was more lead into it at the time (although obviously a willing participant) but has essentially been left psychologically broken by his crime.

Again ; not making excuses, he is clearly a highly dangerous individual.

I was talking to a friend of mine about the case recently and she seemed to feel that Venables repeated convictions might be more a case of trying to recapture the thrill of it all for gratification in the images he is looking at and the material he is seeking out. A very different perspective to your suggestion and hard I think to say which is more accurate.

The more you read the more you realise how truly terrible what they did to that baby was, it was much more than brick throwing and beating and I find it very hard to accept the idea that either was not a more than willing participant.

[Kazanne]

Crime and Punishments is on ITV now on how America deals with child crime.so different to over here,this should be interesting.