Jon Venables and Two Awkward Questions

I was on holiday when Jon Venables, one of the two killers of James Bulger, was arrested for the second time. Despite being far away, I was able to view some news items and learned of the heated arguments that ensued about whether or not he should retain his anonymity. According to a tabloid newspaper, Venables can expect a hard time in prison, where inmates will soon see through his false identity. Both James Bulger's parents, who have conducted themselves with admirable dignity while fighting for justice for their son, believe that Venables should either lose his right to privacy or be placed under 24-hour surveillance. MPs are due to debate a petition on this matter. Meanwhile, Robert Thompson, Venables' co-murderer, appears to be living a quiet and blameless life. There are no calls for him to be outed, which is an  ironic term to use, as he is said to be in a stable gay relationship.

I was teaching in Liverpool when James Bulger was murdered, and remember the pervasive collective shock that existed when it was realised that the crime had been committed by two young boys. Sadly, neither myself or my then colleagues were completely surprised. All of us privately watched the infamous film of James being led away to see if we recognised his abductors. I have maintained an interest in this case which is periodically refreshed by the antics of Venables and, like thousands of other people, I retain a sense of outrage at what was done to poor James. Most people do not know or want to know the full details of the killing on that railway bridge back in 1993. I do, and can assure you that they are unforgettable in their horror. If you become familiar with those details, you will understand what drives Denise Fergus and her ex-husband, Ralph Bulger, in their campaigns for justice for their murdered son.

Feelings apart, I am left with two unanswered questions about this crime: 1. Why did the two boys, Thompson and Venables, murder a child unknown to them? 2. How long should children who kill be incarcerated?

In answer to Question 1, there have been a number of attempts to explain the boys' actions. In his book, "Destroying the Baby in Themselves", David Jackson postulates that they were trying to destroy the softer side of themselves and become "hard". They may have been taking out on James their own resentment felt against their own younger siblings. Jonathan Paul, in "When Kids Kill", suggests that there could have been a sexual motive - recent revelations might point to this.

The problem with theories such as these, worthy and accurate as they may be, is that they do not explain why the boys did what they did when they did. Why that particular day? Why did they take James in the direction they did? Albert Kirby, the detective in charge of the investigation, was struck by the degree of planning that Thompson and Venables employed. Why, for instance, did they choose to head for that particular stretch of railway? Why did they persist in their efforts to snatch a child, despite being foiled at least once? Why was the violence of the boys towards James so extensively and comprehensively sadistic? Why did they try to conceal their crime?

Teaching in Liverpool at the time, I was told of a theory, supposedly being examined by Merseyside Police, that answered these queries. According to a very good source, the police were working on the theory that an adult was involved. The adult was a pervert, who wanted to make a "snuff video" of a child being murdered. It was thought that he had bribed Thompson and Venables to snatch a child and take him or her to the railway sector to be killed by them. He would have filmed the whole horrible event and rewarded them handsomely, or so they would have expected. However, so the theory goes, the adult did not show on the day, and the boys took out their disappointment and anger by inflicting gratuitous violence upon James before murdering him anyway. Nothing was heard of this theory, so it must have been discounted. It did, however, provide a plausible explanation for the boys' actions. Thompson and Venables have never fully explained their motives for acting as they did, when they did, but, if they ever do, we might find that they had a more straightforward trigger for their actions than previously thought.

Question 2 is a more vexed question, and may never be satisfactorily answered. The vast majority of people thought that the 8-year sentence given to Thompson and Venables was too lenient. Interestingly enough, the two brothers who murdered Damilola Taylor, Danny and Ricky Preddie, received exactly the same sentence, (from which they were released early), but there was no outcry then about excessive leniency. Compare these British cases, however, with the sentences handed out to child killers in the USA. One example is that of Eric Smith of New York, who murdered a 4-year old boy in 1993, when he was 12 years old; he is still in prison. Another is that of Joshua Phillips, from Florida, who strangled an 8-year old girl when he was 14 years old, in 1998. He was tried as an adult and sentenced to Life Without Parole. The best-known of such cases, however, was that of Jesse Harding Pomeroy (aka "The Boy Fiend") of Boston, who, at the age of 14, attacked a number of younger children, murdering two of them, in 1874. He was imprisoned, mostly in solitary confinement, from 1874 until his death in 1932. So which is the better course of action - a lengthy period of therapy and reformation, followed by release (which seems to have failed with Jon Venables), or sentencing such offenders to life imprisonment into adulthood and beyond?

This is not the place even to attempt to provide a definitive answer, however, and bearing Jon Venables' recent offences in mind, should we not be asking ourselves how justice may be served in dealing with children who kill?

 

Jesse Harding Pomeroy