There is a story in the press this week about Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger.
James Patrick Bulger, from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, was abducted, tortured and murdered when he was two years old. The boys that abducted and killed James were two 10 year old boys: Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.
James Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993 from a shopping centre when he was shopping with his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line nearby on 14 February.
Thompson and Venables were found guilty of the murder of Bulger on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on lifelong licence in June 2001.
In June 2001, after a six-month review, the parole board ruled the boys were no longer a threat to public safety and could be released as their minimum tariff had expired in the February of that year. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, approved the decision, and both Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were released within weeks. They were given new identities and moved to secret locations under a "witness protection"-style action.
On 2 March 2010, the Ministry of Justice revealed that Jon Venables had been returned to prison for an unspecified violation of the terms of his licence of release. Justice Secretary Jack Straw stated that Venables was returned to prison because of "extremely serious allegations", and stated that he was "unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so."
On 21 June 2010, it was reported that Jon Venables had been charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children. It was alleged that he downloaded 57 indecent images of children over a twelve month period to February 2010, and allowed other people to access the files through a peer-to-peer network. A court hearing of the case is scheduled for 23 July 2010, where he will face two charges under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
This is an absolutely shocking account that makes the iForgiven Angels recoil in horror. The pain caused to James Bulger and his family can never be iForgiven and our thoughts go out to James's family and friends.
As we read this story, one question comes to mind: What happens to a ten year old boy to make him behave in this way? We are absolutely not condoning or iForgiving the actions of these children, but we do believe that there must be a reason for why a ten year old child turns into a killer. What does a child experience in life and what lessons, morals and judgement skills have these boys missed to create this mental state?
The trial judge, Morland J. said when sentencing Jon Venables and Robert Thompson:
"The killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity. This child of two was taken from his mother on a journey of over two miles and then was battered to death without mercy and then his body was placed across the railway line so that his body would be run over by a train in an attempt to conceal his murder. In my judgement your conduct was both cunning and very wicked."
There are many schools of thought on this issue, all very difficult to discuss. The reason it's hard to even begin to contemplate this is because nobody wants to disrespect the Bulger family or James's memory, and nobody wants to excuse the horror James and his family have suffered.
We're going to take a deep breath here at iForgiven, and try to look at this objectively.
The public outcry provoked by the killing was immense. The murder of a young child makes us question the primitive instincts and aggressive urges in young children that, generally, fade as they are taught social rules, morals, affect on others and response to such actions as they grow.
Many of you will be familiar with 'The Lord of the Flies', the theme of which is a group of British schoolboys stuck on a deserted island who try to govern themselves, but with disastrous results, as many turn into savages. Its stances on the already controversial subjects of human nature and individual welfare versus the common good earned it global attention and it is now a required reading in many schools.
There are further examples of this type of behaviour under similar circumstances. Jane Elliott is an American teacher and anti-racism activist. With no formal training in psychology, she created the famous “Blue-eyed/Brown-eyed” exercise, first introduced to primary school children in the 1960s, and which later became the basis for her career in diversity training.
The study took a class of children who were told that those with blue eyes were more superior. They were given extra privileges (like second helpings at lunch), access to the new jungle gym and five minutes extra for breaks. The blue-eyed and brown eyed children were not allowed to drink from the same water fountain, and the teacher offered only the blue-eyed children praise for being hard-working and intelligent. The brown-eyed children, on the other hand, would be disparaged. She even made the brown-eyed children wear ribbons around their necks.
The next day, the roles were reversed, making the brown-eyed children superior. The brown-eyed children did exhibit the same response and actions as the blue-eyed children the day before, however, there was much less intensity in their behaviour. Later the same day, the blue-eyed children were told to take off their ribbons denoting them as inferior and the children cried and hugged one another.
You can see the video of the experiment here
So what does this tell us? This particular study surrounds racial differences, however, the 'pack' mentality and loss of moral judgement dissipates incredibly quickly without any guidance from an adult. Can the actions of a child be iForgiven if it can be proved that they did not receive good moral guidance?
Who, if anyone, is to be blamed for the future of our children? Do we blame the family, the social services, the government, the schools, or the child? Can any of these groups be iForgiven?
It's nearly impossible to even consider iForgiving the actions of the children involved in the James Bulger murder, but here at iForgiven, we Angels most certainly feel that children should be nurtured, taught and invested in, as in many cases, children are the product of their upbringing and surroundings and there has to be a immense degree of responsibility for those caring for children, if not iForgiveness.
Full story here
James Patrick Bulger, from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, was abducted, tortured and murdered when he was two years old. The boys that abducted and killed James were two 10 year old boys: Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.
James Bulger disappeared on 12 February 1993 from a shopping centre when he was shopping with his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line nearby on 14 February.
Thompson and Venables were found guilty of the murder of Bulger on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history. They were sentenced to custody until they reached adulthood, initially until the age of 18, and were released on lifelong licence in June 2001.
In June 2001, after a six-month review, the parole board ruled the boys were no longer a threat to public safety and could be released as their minimum tariff had expired in the February of that year. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, approved the decision, and both Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were released within weeks. They were given new identities and moved to secret locations under a "witness protection"-style action.
On 2 March 2010, the Ministry of Justice revealed that Jon Venables had been returned to prison for an unspecified violation of the terms of his licence of release. Justice Secretary Jack Straw stated that Venables was returned to prison because of "extremely serious allegations", and stated that he was "unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so."
On 21 June 2010, it was reported that Jon Venables had been charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children. It was alleged that he downloaded 57 indecent images of children over a twelve month period to February 2010, and allowed other people to access the files through a peer-to-peer network. A court hearing of the case is scheduled for 23 July 2010, where he will face two charges under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
This is an absolutely shocking account that makes the iForgiven Angels recoil in horror. The pain caused to James Bulger and his family can never be iForgiven and our thoughts go out to James's family and friends.
As we read this story, one question comes to mind: What happens to a ten year old boy to make him behave in this way? We are absolutely not condoning or iForgiving the actions of these children, but we do believe that there must be a reason for why a ten year old child turns into a killer. What does a child experience in life and what lessons, morals and judgement skills have these boys missed to create this mental state?
The trial judge, Morland J. said when sentencing Jon Venables and Robert Thompson:
"The killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity. This child of two was taken from his mother on a journey of over two miles and then was battered to death without mercy and then his body was placed across the railway line so that his body would be run over by a train in an attempt to conceal his murder. In my judgement your conduct was both cunning and very wicked."
There are many schools of thought on this issue, all very difficult to discuss. The reason it's hard to even begin to contemplate this is because nobody wants to disrespect the Bulger family or James's memory, and nobody wants to excuse the horror James and his family have suffered.
We're going to take a deep breath here at iForgiven, and try to look at this objectively.
The public outcry provoked by the killing was immense. The murder of a young child makes us question the primitive instincts and aggressive urges in young children that, generally, fade as they are taught social rules, morals, affect on others and response to such actions as they grow.
Many of you will be familiar with 'The Lord of the Flies', the theme of which is a group of British schoolboys stuck on a deserted island who try to govern themselves, but with disastrous results, as many turn into savages. Its stances on the already controversial subjects of human nature and individual welfare versus the common good earned it global attention and it is now a required reading in many schools.
There are further examples of this type of behaviour under similar circumstances. Jane Elliott is an American teacher and anti-racism activist. With no formal training in psychology, she created the famous “Blue-eyed/Brown-eyed” exercise, first introduced to primary school children in the 1960s, and which later became the basis for her career in diversity training.
The study took a class of children who were told that those with blue eyes were more superior. They were given extra privileges (like second helpings at lunch), access to the new jungle gym and five minutes extra for breaks. The blue-eyed and brown eyed children were not allowed to drink from the same water fountain, and the teacher offered only the blue-eyed children praise for being hard-working and intelligent. The brown-eyed children, on the other hand, would be disparaged. She even made the brown-eyed children wear ribbons around their necks.
The next day, the roles were reversed, making the brown-eyed children superior. The brown-eyed children did exhibit the same response and actions as the blue-eyed children the day before, however, there was much less intensity in their behaviour. Later the same day, the blue-eyed children were told to take off their ribbons denoting them as inferior and the children cried and hugged one another.
You can see the video of the experiment here
So what does this tell us? This particular study surrounds racial differences, however, the 'pack' mentality and loss of moral judgement dissipates incredibly quickly without any guidance from an adult. Can the actions of a child be iForgiven if it can be proved that they did not receive good moral guidance?
Who, if anyone, is to be blamed for the future of our children? Do we blame the family, the social services, the government, the schools, or the child? Can any of these groups be iForgiven?
It's nearly impossible to even consider iForgiving the actions of the children involved in the James Bulger murder, but here at iForgiven, we Angels most certainly feel that children should be nurtured, taught and invested in, as in many cases, children are the product of their upbringing and surroundings and there has to be a immense degree of responsibility for those caring for children, if not iForgiveness.
Full story here
My thoughts and prayers go out to Jamie's family..so tragic and such needless violence (in anyone let alone children).
ReplyDeleteI applaud you for tackling what is undoubtedly a highly sensitive issue...keep up the good work!