Jon Venables

So what would you do with a child murderer who has a known interest in child porn?

Lock them up forever or let them loose? Funnily enough, releasing him has not worked.

The very different ways both boys developed as adults just shows how much variation there can be in efforts at rehabilitation.

So the UK should execute on the basis of cumulative crimes?

I'm not aware of any country doing this.

Like I said, some people are born evil and should never be allowed to mix with normal society. Venables is the very epitome of this. There is absolutely zero benefit to anyone in keeping him alive AS OF NOW. He's costing god knows how much in tax payers money, he has been given his chances at rehabilitation and has clearly refused to accept help.

If the death sentence was a possibly then he would be towards the top of the list for me. Of course I know it won't happen, merely stating an opinion.

Can you share what you think should happen with him for the next 40-50 years?

He would have got the same care and therapy as Thompson. One has apparently moved on and is living a normal life, the other is into child porn.

I think if society dumps two 10 year olds into a trash can and washes their hands of them then that says a lot about what that society really is.

It was an extraordinary case - it needs an extraordinary response- while thankfully such cases don’t happen every year they do happen - I think some legislative changes might be required to ensure they get the support required to try and rehabilitate them and prepare them for life and to keep society safe.

Those advocating that they should have been put to death- like WTF?

I never said anything about killing my own child ,

That's was enlightening.

I have already addressed that point, no there should not be a cumulative execution policy in the UK.

For many reasons, but primarily because it is nuts.

My point was about the parole board making decisions based on the evidence before them and not just the magnitude of the crimes.

Charles Bronson or whatever he calls himself now never killed anyone (we know about) and he will die in prison.

Ironically one of the reasons (apart from being a violent nutter) that his most recent parole was denied was because of his treatment in prison.

Someone who spent as long as he did in solitary confinement wouldn't be able to adjust in society.

There is a bit of a difference between a child-killer and a child child-killer.

They were 10 year olds, its still a horrific case, but I dont think its beneficial to treat them like they are adults with adult brains.

Not really, I have given my opinion on him. I am simply asking for that posters opinion on what should be done. It's not a big deal.

And the FACTS are he has been released TWICE and returned to prison both times for possessing and distributing child pornography. He is a danger to children and society in general and will inevitably offend again. Why should he be released?

There is a difference between him being resentenced after additional crimes vs "lock them up for life in case they offend again".

The very fact that they were both involved in the same crime and both had the same experience in court, the media and custody makes it an excellent and unique case study.

And yet, the results can't be proven one way or another: one of them seems to have been successfully rehabilitated while the other hasn't.

The questions as to why this is may give some indication. Is Thompson truly repentant and rehabilitated or just clever enough to keep his head down? Is Venables truly 'evil' and beyond saving or was it that his detention affected him negatively? Why did Thompson succeed where Venables failed? It is fascinating but the topic is far too emotive, even thirty years on, for there to be a cold analysis of it.

Its pointless to focus on Venables and say that they should have been locked up for life because Thompson evidently has been rehabilitated. And its equally pointless to focus on Thompson as proof that rehabilitation works because it hasn't for Venables.

And there's no way of knowing that would have been the outcome thirty years ago when the whole process started. According to Wikipedia, Thompson was labelled a psychopath and Venables was described as unlikely to re-offend and a trivial risk who had a very high chance of rehabilitation.

It is simply unfair and illogical to make such a definitive decision on the lives of two children who still had so much development to go through.

I don't know what the proper course of action should be in these cases but locking them up and throwing away the key or executing them is not the answer.

My memory of the case was that Thompson was the instigator of the killing. Maybe the fact he has avoided jail since is due to more natural cunning than Veneables? You’d have to assume though he’d still be watched unless he disappeared somewhere else in the world

Seemingly, Thompson hasn't done anything since his release, over twenty years ago, to warrant being returned to prison. This despite being labelled a psychopath in reports and supposedly being the leader in the Bulger murder.

Venables has been returned to prison twice for possession of images of child abuse. The second time he also had a 'paedophile manual' in his possession with tips on grooming and how to avoid detection. Given his previous form, I'd label him as a danger to children and wouldn't have a problem with him being kept in prison. He was given the benefit of doubt as an adult the first time and he hasn't changed his behaviour.

However, Venables actions as an adult do not justify both of them being locked up indefinitely or executed as children. There is evidence of rehabilitation in the case of Thompson; that is enough for me to suggest that it's worth trying. Sadly, it could end up not working, as we have seen in the case of Venables.

We'll never know for certain but their attempts to cover up their crimes and their silence during the trial suggests they knew what they did was wrong. I'd suspect if they were truly 'evil', they wouldn't have cared about the consequences of their actions.

Personally, I don't think I would have done that at their age but I can't go back to that age and unlearn everything since then. I'm 35 and its only since my twenties that I've become fully aware of the permanence of death and what that entails. I never had anyone close to me die until I was 18 so if Venables and Thompson hadn't either then I find it conceivable that they didn't know how 'serious' death was.

Also, and this is wild speculation, if they'd seen it on the telly (where actors die in one film and appear in a different one or characters can come back to life) and/or they survived severe abuse themselves, they might think it wasn't permanent. But we don't know.

What we do know is that both murderers went to prison and neither have murdered again since their release. One certainly poses a threat to children but the other is yet to re-offend. As a result, I think it's reasonable to say that they shouldn't have been written off as evil and lost causes at the age of ten.