Should Jon Venables have been freed?

One thing that has always worried me about this sort of rehabilitation is how do you live with yourself if it works? If you come to realise what a terrible thing you did how do you carry on? Perhaps if it's a crime you committed as a child it is possible to view it as done by a different person.
Whether releasing Jon Venables was the right thing to do can only be proved by seeing how he behaves this time.

And we all live in the same world, but for some of us our surroundings and our treatment warp the way those genes are expressed in our development.

Correction - EVERYONE is affected by surroundings and experiences, particularly in the early years. Nature and nurture are no longer considered to be completely separate things. Studies show that outside influences alter how inherited tendencies contribute to personality, and that different gene makeups respond differently to different environments.

We are all individuals.

We all inherit genes though !

Whether we like it or not !

Greatnan I visited what used to be called Obscene Publications (now Abusive Images Unit) at our central police station several times over the years. The have local and international pin maps on the wall, which show current interest in people viewing abusive images of children. People at work in banks, schools, town halls - you name it. The pins are attached by strings to other pins, nationally and internationally, showing possible paedophile rings. It does indeed cut across all social classes and countries.

I have had frequent involvement with boys at the secure unit that Thompson lived in. I have had no direct involvement with either RT or JV but have worked with boys whose criminal activity led to them being placed in secure units, including the two units where RT and JV lived till they were 18. The boys I was involved with benefited from the care they received, and all made progress.
When thanks for pointing to the difference in the ways in which JV and RT appear to be living their lives. I'm sure you are right in pointing out the issue of the impact of early childhood, socialisation and attachment. Increasingly I'm intrigued as to why some children are more resilient than others, despite experiencing very similar levels of care as children. These two young men add to my interest in this. I do not believe that any baby is born "evil" but I remain uncertain about the factors that lead some go on to commit evil acts, and others to be determined to try and live a life where they do not cause harm to others.
Let's hope that JV is able to engage properly with the support / surveillance that he will be given.

He probably abandoned that particular project, merlot, in the circumstances...

And many judges, police officers and teachers! It used to be believed that only working class men beat up their wives - now we know better and we also know that paedophilia cuts across all social classes.
I have often wondered about the personal beliefs of some judges who hand down ridiculously light sentences for sex offenders.

Didn't Pete Townshend get caught in Operation ORE? He got off because he said he was researching pornography for a book.

Has anyone seen or read this book?

Thank you, Nellie, that book certainly gives food for thought. It sometimes seems that people are more inclined to be vicious towards women/children offenders than men.

Of interest in this discussion is the work of of the late Gita Sereny who studied the early life of Mary Bell an 11 yr old who committed such crimes in about 1968.
She wrote two books about this child.
The case of Mary Bell and Cries Unheard.
Mary Bell appears to have lived a reasonably stable life since then.
These two books give a good insight into the difficult backgrounds the children who carry out such crimes have experienced.

Also with regard to Jon Venables child pornography crimes. several years ago now the UK police ran operation ORE. This was the UK end of an international effort, where those accessing online child pornography were identified by their credit card details. Where I was working at the time had notification of those individuals who were in our area. It was sobering about how many otherwise respectable people's names came up.

There was a phone-in about Venables on The Wright Stuff, and one woman said he should be castrated. She obviously has no idea of human anatomy if she doesn't realise that the sexual urge starts in the brain - perhaps she would like him to have a lobotomy.
I do have to wonder, sadly, if some people are damaged irreparably by their early experiences. I would love to believe that there is still hope for this poor young man to be convinced that his viewing of child pornography is actually hurting real children, just as he was hurt.
He cannot be kept in custody for ever because of his thoughts, so constant surveillance, as detailed by When, seems to be the only option.

When thanks once again for your input - it really helps to form a balanced picture.
Nanaej You suggest the question should be ' Can those who are so damaged that even as children they commit atrocious and shocking crimes ever be rehabilitated?'
I too would never describe a child as evil, and I know almost nothing about psychiatry, but my understanding is that there are some psychoses that are untreatable. I have thought of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley too - as far as I know, there was never really any question that they would ever be released.
My question was really prompted by a different thought - that in this era of accountability (surgeons in league tables, flower arrangers in church having to have CRB checks, for example) cases such as those of Venables are subjected to far less public scrutiny - we are told that he is being 'released' but nothing about who has made the clinical judgements that have led to this decision, their reasoning or their validity.
I do understand that if someone has a new identity that has to be protected, and I am glad that Robert Thompson appears to be doing well, but perhaps if there was more openness about the process there would be more understanding.
I don't know.

PRINTMISS It's a dilemma, isn't t? Do we show humanity and keep trying to rehabilitate someone when they show a glimmer of progress, or warehouse them and forget they exist. In monetary terms, it costs more to maintain a prisoner in custody (even more in special hospitals e.g. Ian Brady), than it does to keep them under close surveillance in the community.

I am in favour of giving people a second chance, and capable of realising that a disturbed childhood can lead to acts of cruelty. I am grateful that there are laws and statutes which protect the vulnerable and innocent, but I see no reason why someone who has been given every opportunity to lead a 'normal' life, and has once abused that opportunity should be able to use those laws and again be allowed into the community, costing the tax payer what must be a considerable sum of money. I rather feel that those people who are allowed out on licence (I think that is the right word) might lead very lonely lives, forming a close relationship with anyone must be difficult, and finding employment even more so, perhaps that is why some do commit another crime? No excuse, just perhaps a reason.

Deedaa I guess you're talking metaphorically, but Venables had quite a decent few years before transferring to adult custody. He was taken out of the secure children's unit as part of his rehabilitation, so attended the odd football match, was taken to museums, and the seaside. All had to be with the permission of the Secretary of State. He was educated and offered therapeutic interventions.

The argument about whether they should have been prosecuted in an adult court is separate from how they were treated - they still lived in what were effectively large children's homes, from which they were taken out, and could receive family visits. Thompson never saw Venables again after court - they were separated and required not to be in contact with each other.

It seems unlikely that he can ever live a normal life and the whole exercise is going to be hugely expensive and will tie up resources that might be better used elsewhere, but at the same time can it be right to lock up a 10 year old boy and throw away the key? To do what they did they must surely have been very disturbed and should be given a chance (or even more than one) to redeem themselves.

whenim I am glad to know this.

He probably won't be tagged if he's accompanied everywhere, Flickety. He might even be under surveillance, but with Venables it's the issue of internet access and forming relationships, not being out after curfew or being in a restricted area, which electronic tags can monitor. His curfews will include school times morning, lunch and afternoon - probably signing in with his hostel supervisor or the hostel probation officer every hour at a specified time. By the time he comes to be allowed to attend something like a job centre appointment without supervision (to be agreed by the MAPPA panel), he'll be issued with a basic, non-internet or picture, mobile phone with which to maintain contact with his supervisors. He'll have it checked for calls, and be told to delete any numbers not permitted. His room will be searched regularly, and he'll be expected to participate in college sessions in the hostel. Many offenders complain that this regime is tougher than prison - 'you get in our heads!'

Jon Venables is not evil andalthough he committed a terrible crime I have often wondered how far he and his companion really understood the finality of death. They both came from inadequate and difficult homes and had lacked proper nurturing as small children.

However I do find Jon Venable's crimes as an adult deeply disturbing and would do so in any person of his age without his history. His behaviour suggests a man who is a loner, who still finds building up relationships with others difficult and is still not entirely mentally stable. He has once breached his own security by allowing his real identity to come out and once had it outed on the internet. He is about to be provided with his third new identity. This in itself must be destabilising.

I do not think his release can be refused at present but he must be under the strictest supervision. I hope he will be tagged. Those of us in the world outside prison must have the security of knowing that this kind of cat and mouse game cannot continue indefinitely and he should know that any more offences will mean life imprisonment.

It is worth noting that since his release we have heard nothing of Robert Thompson, suggesting that he has made a successful transition into adulthood.

I agree when ( re you comment on the Venebles/Thompson issue not the tennis or your self -evaluation!)

I have taught so many children who have been so badly damaged by their early life experiences. They are themselves victims who go on to create more victims..as in the case we are discussing. It does not excuse their behaviour but you would hope in a civilised society that there would be a level of understanding that in child on child crimes there are only victims.

Just reported myself for being a numpty!

So sorry, I thought I was on the Wimbledon thread. You idiot, whenim

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nanaej I suppose the short answer is 'it depends.' The prognosis for Venables is dismal, but Thompson has been more compliant and resilient. Really takes you into the realms of early childhood, socialisation and attachment, doesn't it?

Perhaps the question is the wrong one. According to the law he should be freed.

Is the question ' Can those who are so damaged that even as children they commit atrocious and shocking crimes ever be rehabilitated?