Last week one of the killers of James Bulger, John Venables, was remanded in custody, for reasons as yet formally unconfirmed. I haven't been able to put the case out of my head since then.
James was battered to death in 1993 when he was only 2 years old. The details of his killing are beyond words, truly horrific. The two killers were only 10 at the time of the murder and so were released on bail in 2001.
This is not right. They have not paid a sufficient price for their crime. Punishment should be determined in terms of relative impact on a criminal's life and in relation to the severity of the crime. That James's killers were released after only 9 years cannot be right - what impact has their jail sentence had? Not enough. Their lives can be re-established and remain effectively in front of them.
James's mum has supported a fundraising campaign to build a facility for bullied children in Liverpool which isn't doing so well, probably because the case is so old and until the events of last week, not high in the public mind. I donated and urge you to as well. Donate here. Rest in peace little James.
Wendover Woods 50
5 days ago
.jpg)
11 comments:
I'm less concerned about the length of Jon Venables sentence than I am about talk of him being given yet another (his third) new identity. Yes, if there was to be any hope of rehabilitation he did need a new identity but now I think he has waived any right to remain anonymous and for his old crime to be kept from any jury.
He knew the risks of offending when out on license but chose to offend anyway.
In my opinion we are all killers needing socialising into the acceptable forms of killing another.
Take that away and society itself is the criminal - us, all of us
The psychological reports found that the two boys had the emotional age of 4 year olds at the time of the crime.
Here are the comments of the judge at the time.
'After the trial, Mr Justice Morland laid the moral responsibility squarely with the parents. He said a public debate about the parenting and family background of Thompson and Venables was required. "In my judgement," he averred, "the home background, upbringing, family circumstances, parental behaviour and relationships were needed in the public domain so that informed and worthwhile debate can take place for the public good in the case of grave crimes by young children."'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships
Don't think the first bit of your comment makes sense Doug. Society can't be criminal, as (i) the concept of criminality doesn't have any absolute or externally referenced basis and (ii) society is not an entity in the same sense as a single human to which intention can be attributed. Criminality is socially constructed but this does not reduce the validity of the concept.
Responsibility for the conditions that created Venables and Thompson is an issue that must be dealt with separately from the process of determining the extent of their criminal culpability. We are all products of our upbringing to some unquantifiable extent, but unless you are to argue against free will, that does not mitigate sufficiently, even at 10 years old, against the severity of this crime.
Au contraire mon ame your statement does not make any sense logically.
'Criminality is socially constructed but this does not reduce the validity of the concept.'
Criminals are people who get caught.
We have been caught out with a highly fractured society / extended family that does not step in when numerous examples of dangerous behaviour manifested.
Attempting to separate corporate from personal responsibility is something white collar people do all the time:
Allegedly a NHS trust board in Staffordshire are not personally responsible for deaths caused by ignoring 10 years worth of warnings, why because they were not personally working on the wards;
Bishops are not responsible when they ignore paedophiles as they were protecting the church.
et al.
See no evil hear no evil - no evil.
We are social animals that is what defines us as Max Webber put it "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the 'legitimate' use of physical force within a given territory."
Perhaps some people are unwilling to face up to the failure of the state of which they are a part.
These boys were not innocents, they were taught behaviours by their society - us.
The judge obviously felt that whipped up by the press he had to declare them criminals rather than their extended family.
His judgement made it clear where he felt responsibility lay.
We will just have to differ on this one you might see the world through a different glass if you had been down my way.
Nice bit of conflict to sharpen the wits - merci.
Brian, that is a brave blog post my friend and I applaud you for it.
However, to your commentor, Doug I'd say that unfortunately discussing the moralistic whys and wherefores of society and criminality results in a fading of the basic fact that a young child was brutally murdered by two people who were, and probably still are, evil.
In allowing the European Courts to overthrow an appropriate sentence and release the killers before they had spent a single day in an adult prison simply trivialises the murder and shits on James's memory and results in further torture for his family.
Our lily-livered, high-minded liberal approach to criminality and soft sentencing has been proven here to be utter pish. In my opinion the two murderers should have spent the rest of their days locked up.
In receiving such soft sentences, and then being given new identities at enormous cost to the tax payer, they received neither rehabilitation nor punishment. Now it seems (if the tabloid press is correct) Venables has been free under his new identity to flout the terms of his licence and much, much worse, involve himself in subjecting more innocent children to misery.
Interesting topic, not very running related..... I'm inclined to agree with Brian and Dave W. The 'sympathy' and £s expended by The State (capital letters intentional) are skewed very much towards the offenders, and not towards the victims.
Some time ago I wrote to various newspapers expressing my view that Myra Hindley was extremely successful as a job creator for the likes of social workers, psychiatrists. lawyers, prison staff etc etc etc. (I was trying to think of something good to credit her with. If that is good). Needless to say, maybe, my letters were not published.
Likewise, now, with Venables who over the past 17 years or so has created a mountain of work for an army of people.
What would all these people have been doing if Venables hadn't given them something to occupy their time, and provide them with employment at massive £s expense? But probably at no £s expense at all to Venables.
It would be interesting to hear the views of those who may feel sorry for Venables, and somehow they can justify his worth to Society at large and the greater good.
Murdo
Murdo
Some medieval Jewish philosophy for you from the Spaniard Maimonides.
I should add that Jews see all mankind having an element of G-d like character.
As Maimonides explains it, the natural evils of the world "are like darkness and blindness, with no real existence of their own. Terrible things like poverty, illness and death are really nothing but the absence of wealth, health and life. Once we recognize this then we see that G-d does not create evils after all, for these evils are not 'actively produced.' Everything G-d creates is in itself good. But goodness is a matter of degree, and when G-d produces things with less goodness than we might like, we call it an 'evil.' But in itself it is just a lesser degree of that healthy goodness we desire."
My position is that the only condition necessary for "evil" to exist is the absence of good.
There is a long history of the "Church" defining itself by taking positions directly opposed to Pagan and Jewish mores.
I invite you to consider:
'Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good.'
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Agora 7.4/10
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/
So my reply to do I feel sorry for Venables is to quote more of the same philosopher and to ask you (Murdo) - to understand my wide eyed awe at the scope of your orbit.
"If something happens against our personal desires or interests we immediately condemn it as evil, as if our own life were the only thing that mattered. But individual people, and even all humanity, are but the tiniest components in this immensely vast world -- a world that is not made worse because some beings enjoy less goodness than others but rather more beautiful by the tremendous variety of beings it contains.
I feel, Anonymous, that what all you say may be fine as an objective academic exercise. But in the real world where people such as Jamie Bulger and his family have to live with the consequences of the 'evil' deeds of others, I don't think that such a philosophical argument would cut much ice.
My own sympathies are with Bulger & co.; and I personally feel that "Society's" pendulum of sympathy is way too much slanted towards the likes of Venables & co, leaving the rest of us ~ whether directly or indirectly ~ to suffer from the anti-social (or however it may be labelled) actions of Venables & co.
Murdo
wow what a deep but relevant post and responses. This dragged me back to first year at uni and Hegel's Philosophy of Right....the concept of punishment annulling the crime. Punishment as a right necessary for both criminal and state (not that the former sees it like that).
I just came across David Mitchell's view on the subject. He's always interesting to read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/14/david-mitchell-column-jon-venables-dangerous-dogs
Interesting Tim, thanks b ut I think David Mitchell misses the point. One would expect social and societal changes and trends to manifest themselves most obviously in the extremes, not in the largely immoveable average mass. The crimes against James and the socialisation of the boys who committed those crimes do speak to us, for they are the manifestation at the extremes of broader social trends.
Post a Comment