This isn't about Justice for James

As we have seen this week, John Venables, one of the two 10 year old boys who tortured and murdered toddler James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993, has been recalled to prison after breaking the conditions of the strict terms of his release licence. (for his entire lifetime.)

There was something tangibly ghastly about James Bulgers murder. I was 13 when he was killed on a railway line in a grim estate in Liverpool, and I remember it well. How could two kids do the things they did? Snarling adults pounding at steel mesh windows of a police Transit Van, trying to get at two 10 year old boys inside. The incendiary headlines like the "Star" offering 20 grand to "snare the bastards who slaughtered Jamie", and the Expresses "Monsters", and the infamous grainy CCTV footage of the two boys luring him to his fate. We have a strange dual standard about children in the UK. On the one hand, as a glance at any of the obituaries to dead children, whether Baby P, or yet another hit and run victim, will show -there's talk of angels in heaven, and innocent tots full of love. But then we are castigated by Time magazine for deliberately alienating and fearing our bling crusted, and hoodie wearing teenagers. It is perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that some of the visceral hatred directed towards them was because they shone a dark and shattered mirror in the publics face about something we don't want to see. Pre teen childhood violence. It lead to much soul searching. How do we square that two boys brutally killed a toddler in such a hideous manner, with the circle of the presumption of childhood innocence, and how they could be judged by adult standard. It created a debate on criminality that has never been adequately settled, and still stirs up strong emotions even today, as we have seen.

As the two are subject to lifelong anonymity orders (including new identities) that the press have to (reluctantly as we'll see.) legally abide by, the details of what he has been recalled for are vague, but it seems that if the Sunday Mirror is to be believed, that it may pertain to suspicion of child porn. From what dribs and drabs the press are legally allowed to disclose about Venables, it seems that release has been mentally tough for him, with reports that he uses alcohol and drugs and has, on more than one occasion - blurted out his real identity to strangers. (and even possibly inmates at where he is being held.) The tabloids are of course going to town on him being banged up again. It is in their eyes a vindication of their theories that the pair are monsters beyond the pale of all human redemption, and that if they had been allowed to publish their whereabouts (this theme is recurrent in editorials, and loaded statements in articles on the case) this would not have happened. The government are coming under fire from both the tabloids and emotionally charged interviews with James parents who believe that their sons killers got off too lightly in the first place anyway, and want what alleged terms Venables was recalled for made public, and even Venables new identity to be made known if and when he stands trial. Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have put out rather tenuous statements about how they sympathise with "public opinion" on the issue but are unwilling to interfere with the workings of the legal system. Jack Straw was quoted as:

"I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
That view was shared by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).

Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do."

Now leaving aside the fact that calling for the details (and by extension the identity of the man himself) of the terms of the breach of licence he is only suspected of doing is a complete legal minefield of thorny issues. It would also likely jeopardise any proceedings that could be subsequently brought against him, a judge could easily say that a jury who knew Venables was in the dock could be too easily swayed by this knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion about this separate case, and that the verdict does not stand up to the required standard of acceptable justice. Then you have the legality of breaking an anonymity injunction. It would cause severe problems for any future proceedings against him that may be put in place. On a more personal level, revealing what has happened would make him easily identifiable to other inmates / wardens, and revealing his new identity means everyone can identify him. Now whatever your views on forgiveness of past crimes or punishment and retribution, I find it very hard to swallow that a move that would potentially lead to a vigilante lynching of a man who, although committed a dreadful crime, did so at ten years old. This kind of thing has no place in any civilised society. It would also set a dangerous precedent in legal procedures. If we want a good and humane justice system, it must be fair and applied objectively and evenly, not shook up to cater to the whims of stoked up mob mentality, which means some will be dealt with more severely in relation to others who are not as infamous

As I said before, the tabloids have always had the Bulger killers in their sights. Partly it is due the uniquely awful nature of the killing and with it the enormous amounts of public consciousness the murder resonated, and in that lies stories people want to read, and the tabloids are willing to supply. What also fuels this obsession with the pair is the press injunction that provides them anonymity. Obviously tabloids and their bombastic editors love the enormous influence and ability to make mischief whilst sitting out the consequences of the near useless PCC (I honestly think the Tweenies would do a better job running this organisation). The injunction is a block on their power and they hate that. Also they are thinking of the potential windfall in readers if their identities were allowed to be printed. Probably everyone, to varying degrees is a little curious about what became of them. Memorable murders bring in readers (that's why we all still know the name "Jack the Ripper") and have a strange interest to some people. I'd imagine a "Bulger Killers Revealed" headline would be a goldmine for a red top editor. This injunction is the only thing stopping this happening, and that is why we get comments that subtly hint at this like Carole Malone from the NOTW:

"And if now, Venables knew the public would be told of his every transgression, it might just kick him back on track. No, his identity must never be revealed because he'll be pursued by lynch mobs.
But the result of years of anonymity is he now thinks he's bulletproof, that whatever crime he commits the police will protect him. It's a privilege afforded to no other criminal - except, perversely, the very worst ones.
So what is this government's message to young thugs - the more heinous the crime you commit, the cushier life you'll have?
Nice one! At least it is if you're a child killer!

and the Mail on Sunday editorial. How they typed this with a straight face I'll never know?:

"We do not know. But the bitter irony in this case is that with myriad rumours swirling around, Venables may be being maligned in a way he may not deserve.
Forget the fact that, once again, Labour has put the rights of the criminal ahead of those of the victim and his family.
Forget the £4million that has been spent on rehabilitating Venables and Thompson - giving them new identities and a lifestyle almost certainly more comfortable than they would have enjoyed had they not killed James.
What is truly disturbing is that somebody can be jailed in Britain without the authorities having to reveal why."

The Mail has some considerable sympathy with the need for Venables' anonymity to be preserved. But equally we believe in the sacredness of open justice and that incarcerating people in secret is the first step towards the Kafkaesque world of totalitarian regimes."

Now the press claiming that they are fighting the noble fight, when they are just pursuing naked self interest is nothing new, but there is one person who I do think is being manipulated by all this, and perhaps isn't aware that she is being used as a tool to promote other agendas. That is Denise Fergus, James' mother. Now let me stress I have absolutely nothing but sympathy for her and her plight. Losing your child in the most appalling way possible, and having to relive his last moments through a lengthy trial, and then being denied the sense of catharsis at the trials conclusion, due to the unique and more morally ambiguous nature of the juvenile killers is something no one should ever endure in their lifetime. Although I don't agree with her desire to see her child's killers "outed" I can understand why she feels let down by the system. No-one can tell her that she is wrong to feel the way she feels, because almost no-one endures what she has so tragically had to bear. But sadly Mrs. Fergus is tabloid dynamite for stories like these, and editors keen for the "right" kind of soundbites, and are pounding on her door. She says all the right things (She still hates the pair, and time has not dulled that) and comes out with those hard line unanswerable rhetorical questions (what about my rights over the killers rights. I've got a life sentence, they haven't) that are make great quotes for right wing newspapers. It's hard not to feel for her, constantly being interviewed whenever a particularly salient murder makes the headline. The emotional toll it must take on her? It is sad to think that the Suns "Justice for James" e-petition (over the government not publishing the exact details of what Venables has been recalled for) may be seen as a genuine campaign to help the family of a young murder victim than what it really is, an attempt to flog a shed load of papers.