Jon Venables: Some reflections

Jon Venables: Some reflections

There is something wrong when the Daily Mirror reports that Jon Venables has been recalled to prison, for a fight at his place of work, whereas the Ministry of Justice remains mute on the reasons for the recall. I can see the similarity of staff in prison not being made aware of something, and then discovering the information from a prisoner.

Whereas Robert Thompson appears to be keeping his head down and therefore is out of the media spotlight, Jon Venables by his conduct, whilst not courting publicity has nevertheless attracted the attention of the media circus.

I don't recall the MoJ giving a press release when lifer Joe Bloggs was recalled to prison. So, why make an exception for Jon Venables? True, the killing of James Bulger became a high profile case. Therefore, it leads to genuine media interest. But, it also attracts a less savoury media interest. In the same way that Madeleine sells papers, Jon Venables sells papers. My traffic stats are the same with Jon Venables as with Madeleine. There is definitely a public interest in the issue. But, I feel that the MoJ has inadvertantly made it a lot worse by pandering to victims. By informing James Bulger's parents of the fact that Jon Venables had been recalled, on the ground that the MoJ did not want them to read it first in the papers, means that the MoJ was then trapped into making a press release before the family released the information to the media.

I note that the Daily Mirror is reporting that Jon Venables went to night clubs and football matches. These are normal activities. Is Jon Venables not allowed to live a normal life upon release from prison? The Daily Mirror also reports that Jon Venables has difficulty having a meaningful relationship with girls. I know that other lifers whenever they try to establish a meaningful relationship, along comes the probation service to stick its oar in and in many cases causes the relationship to come to an end. Released lifers are required to inform prospective partners of their past. And, just to make sure they do the probation asks the prospective partner whether they have been informed. It's a great chat up line, "Hi, I'm on life licence for murder, would you like a drink?".

The Daily Telegraph reports that Mary "Bell has had three assumed identities and moved at least five times after being identified". So, there are difficulties with resettlement back into the community. There is the difficult balance of protecting the lifers rights and the rights of the general public. What is heartwarming for me is the Daily Telegraph headline "Child killer Mary Bell has become a grandmother aged 51". I would have preferred to have seen "Mary Bell becmes a grandmother". Still, it does show that reintegration is possible and that left alone siblings come along and siblings of siblings.

Integration is not helped when some people and the police and council workers adopt the attitude that they resent a released killer being in their midst. Once again I am being harassed by the police for taking my dog for a walk in my local park. And, for cursing at car driver who attempted to run me over on a Zebra Crossing!

The problem with the gutter press is that not everything a released lifer does poses a risk to the public. Only that conduct which is linked to the original offence is deemed to pose a risk to the public. In my view, the life licence scheme should be scrapped. Ours is the only country in Europe which operates a life licence scheme. In effect, the Parole Board sentences behind closed doors. What should happen is that if a released lifer breaks the law, the case should be disposed of in the same way any other case is dealt with under the Criminal Jstice System. There is something wrong with a system which means released lifers are in limbo until they die.