In 1993 civilized Britain experienced one of the most heinous crimes on record, also by the youngest offenders, to date.
Little James Bulger was only two years old when he was abducted from New Strand Shopping center by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson, and Jon Venables. Forty-eight hours later children playing near a railway line discovered James’s body, 4 kilometers from Liverpool.
The toddler had been assaulted and mutilated before his remains were placed on a railway line to give the impression of an accident. It took only six days for police to nab the offenders responsible for the act. Following a difficult start to the interrogation, Robert and Jon later admitted to kidnapping the infant in Bootle and explained the graphic extent of James’s injuries.
Their explanation of events corroborated by the state pathologist expounded how they’d taken heavy metal objects to the toddler’s body and head. In total, 27 bricks had been used in the murder. Medical reports indicated he was dead before the train cut him in half.
Outside the courthouse members of the public were incensed, and with good reason. Here were two children, not yet teenagers, committing crimes that would make the most ambitious murderer blush. But not everyone was angered for the same reasons. The European Court for Human Rights were dissatisfied for two reasons: the children had been separated from their parents during the trial; they had been tried in an adult court. One cannot make up these facts. So ludicrous were their sentiments that it’s little wonder they didn’t present these findings sporting “Team Robert and Jon” t-shirts.
The trial concluded in November of ‘93, nine months following James’s murder. Sentenced to no less than eight years at a detention center, at a 3000-pound weekly cost to the taxpayer. Equipped with a PlayStation and other toys most children would kill to own, the facility received ample criticism. The rationale, it is explained, is to afford offenders an opportunity to be rehabilitated. The children were too young for prison, and this was deemed best for them. At that weekly sum, however, they may as well have sent the kids to live at the Royal Lodge, with nannies and butlers serving hors d’oeuvres.
Evaluated and properly rehabilitated, authorities deemed the children fit for release in 2001. Concern had shifted from society’s safety to that of the boys. Would the pair fall victim to reprisals? Would they be able to live the good life they had so selfishly deprived James Bulger from living? Robert and Jon were issued aliases and false back stories, on condition that no person or media leak their new identities. Learning just how serious Judge Morland was on maintaining their anonymity was Anthony Wixted, who was jailed for nine months after sharing a current photo of Venables. It makes one sit back and wonder on whose side the law really is.
The culmination of the boys’ rehabilitation seemed a slap in the face to the Bulger’s. Here was a toddler gruesomely killed, and yet the punishment didn’t fit the crime. My initial thought after reading the story was that the pair had got away with murder: eight years in a homely facility with gadgets, education, good food, therapy, and other luxuries seemed a miniscule price to pay for their act. I was almost certain this wouldn’t be a deterrent to commit murder in the future.
Emotionally, I felt the pair should hang when they turn 21. But since Britain doesn’t support the death penalty, the next best option is to be locked away for 40 years. But, at what cost to the taxpayer? What about when they’re released back into society? They’ll reoffend, probably. Prison seems like university for thugs.
It takes time to acclimatize to freedom after nearly a decade of incarceration. For Thompson, his reintegration into society was seamless. Since his release, he is said to be living with a male partner and has a normal life. Venables’ assimilation into civilization has been challenging.
Seven years after his release he was embroiled in a bar brawl and was arrested. Charges quickly dropped; he was soon freed. Three months later, another brush with the law, for being in possession of class A narcotics. Still, a small charge compared with murder.
Following concerns about an identity breach in 2010, police arrived at his apartment to find him removing the computer’s hard drive he planned to destroy. It contained child pornography including graphic images of child abuse. Jon Venables was incarcerated for 2 years.
Freed in 2013, it would take only 4 years before Venables was rearrested on similar charges, this time including being in possession of a “paedophile manual”. The question is this: should he have gone to prison upon turning 18 instead of being freed? Many of you will answer in the affirmative, but somehow, I’m not entirely sure.
The option they chose – to give them the semblance of a supportive home in a detention center – seems to have had results. Yes, Venables has reoffended but not to the same degree as the crime for which he was locked up. Meanwhile, Thompson hasn’t ever reoffended.
It doesn’t sit well with me, but I wonder if society has been wrong about prison all along. Look for a moment at Norway. Watching a documentary on Norway’s maximum-security prison, the facility reminded me more of a weekend retreat. Large windows, cozy rooms and an enormous park in which inmates can roam are just some of the features. Norway also boasts the lowest number of reoffenders. By contrast, America holds the highest number of inmates globally. One third more inmates than China, a country with almost 5 times the population. The U.S. also has the highest instances of recidivism.
Convenient as it is to lock away dangerous criminals for lengthy periods at a time, one cannot forget these people are going to be back on the streets again. Maybe not today, or even five years from now.
My issue with Norway’s rehabilitation method is it seems more a reward than a punishment. I want the guilty to pay for their wrongdoings; to feel daily remorse and miss being free with the rest of society. Statistically that method seems ineffective, save from expel a harsher, more learned thug. Certainly, we don’t need them coming out worse than when they went in. The alternative, which is to adopt the Norwegian manner, seems to offer more humane treatment and better prepare them for reintegration into society. Many more debates about this topic are needed with reformed modern methods. Humans have used imprisonment since 1BC, the times of the Egyptian and Mesopotamia civilizations. On a final thought, had Venables moved into a newly built wing at the Royal Lodge, he’d be nearer Prince Andrew. Presently going through his own issues, Andrew could do with a kindred spirit around.