The man formerly known as Jon Venables should be re-released from prison
Prison is no place for anyone to be if they are suffering from a “fragile mental state”. Even the man formerly known as Jon Venables should be treated with humanity. Perhaps, he should be treated in a mental hospital? In any event, I suspect that he is not deemed a risk to the public and therefore should be released again. I cannot accept that it is justified to continue his detention “for the foreseeable future” on the ground "for his own safety because of the risk that he will reveal his true identity if he is released".
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
2 comments:
You cannot keep a prisoner in custody because people on 'the out' might attack him. The report is clearly nonsense. In fact, I'm almost sure it would be against the law. And I am sick of Denise Fergus making claims she has no right to make. She is not a psychiatrist or criminologist and has no authority to make psychiatric diagnoses.
Yes, she may have suffered a devastating loss but the woman now looks addicted to the press attention. She is a professional victim - getting paid to deliver bile and hatred to the tabloids.
Venables could be sectionned indefinately of course but this would not be because of the risk of attack to his person by a vigilante but because there would be a risk of him harming himself.
In any case, he can't remain in prison forever. Apart from anything, given he probably has to be segregated, he's costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money (probably close to 100k per year while incarcerated).
When is he next up for parole? I think middle of next year? That means he would have spent two and a half years in prison which is an awful lot for the crime he was put away for. (Despite being serious, someone with no record would not have even been given a custodial for that number of images. Moreover, the images were not accompanied with any attempt to groom children).
However, weren't there other parole violations (drug taking, trips into Liverpool I think)?
Clearly he can't be locked up forever and I agree claiming it is for his own safety is bullshit. There is no legal case for keeping a prisoner inside on this basis unless it is for remand purposes.
I don't envy the parole board though. What a dreadful decision to have to make. He SHOULD be released if he is no risk to life and limb (and if he has behaved himself while in prison) but they really are in a position of damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they do, Denise Fergus will run to the gutter press screaming injustice; if they don't - chances are his legal team will slap the MoJ with a massive damages case (and likely win).
And we know that revealing his identity doesn't run counter to the parole conditions because apparently he MUST reveal it to anyone with whom he enters a close relationship.
And I remember Denise Fergus claiming just last year that Thompson and Venables' identities SHOULD be revealed. Now she seems to be suggesting the reverse - exactly what does she want? Apart from attention of course.
Post a Comment