Should Jon Venables have been freed?

I agree with them as well and like you JessM i remember being shocked and disturbed at the level of hatred being aimed at two ten year olds by some adults.

Nellie and when talking sense in my opinion. It was a shocking case and one of the things that shocked me was the demonisation of the children who committed the crime. When women and children commit serious crimes they are judged (by the press) in a very different way to when men commit similar crimes.

Redbank Secure Children's Unit is where Venables was detained till he reached 18. This Ofsted report explains what facilities they provide.

moderngov.sthelens.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10623

No, just no.

They both went into children's secure units till they were 18, nellie. That meant they had regular education and were treated like all other young people in there, a bit like a very disciplined children's home, but with therapy sessions, and family were allowed to visit. They transferred to adult prisons at 18.

I question the use of the word villains and evil. Yes it was an horrific crime, no question of that, but these boys were children from dysfunctional backgrounds. They had little proper education. They had no excuse for what they did, but because of their upbringing I would suggest that they just never achieved normal 10yr old standards of empathy and compassion.

They needed to be in custodial care but not in a standard secure unit full of older criminals. They should never have been tried in an adult court.

Wikipedia on the case stated that.
On 15 March 1999, the court in Strasbourg ruled by 14 votes to five that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the fairness of the trial of Thompson and Venables, stating: "The public trial process in an adult court must be regarded in the case of an 11-year-old child as a severely intimidating procedure".[33]

I feel the home office got carried away on the tide of revulsion about this crime when they decided to put them on trial in an adult court and lost their objectivity and behaved quite wrongly with regard to their legal rights.

Any of us who have had 10 yrs old boys know that they do not always act sensibly. Quite often they act dangerously. It's because they are immature! They are children and act without thinking of consequences.

As to what sort of custody they should have had I don't know. I hhaveno idea what might have been available at the time but they did need custody.

As to letting Venables being released, now it needs the same safeguards as with as with any serious offender. The trouble is the authorities get that wrong. Particularly with men who have been jailed for serious violence and threats to their partners, who are then released and then go back to murder the woman.

Evil as some sort of supernatural thing means nothing to me. I don't see people as being evil, but committing deeds that one could describe as evil, sadistic, intentionally cruel and causing death or lifelong physical and/or psychological damage. Nearly every highly dangerous offender I've come across, who is very high risk of doing the same again, has not recognised the need to change their behaviour, but blamed everyone else for their grievances. The ones who perceive status in their dangerousness aren't safe to be released.

It may be controversial, but Venables doesn't appear to fit that profile. He was a child when he offended, and had continual opportunities to make progress, but his identity and secretive lifestyle weighed heavy and he doesn't appear to have addressed that constructively until this latest return to prison. He will have to demonstrate to the parole board that this has been addressed now, along with numerous other requirements. I wonder whether he is beyond being able to reintegrate with society in any constructive way now, as a marked man who will struggle to make a relationship in which he can be trusted, or trust others.

Jamie Bulger's parents have had their lives ruined by Venables' failure to rehabilitate, but seem to accept Thompson's quiet return to life on the outside. He owes it to them to make the effort this time. If he gets recalled again, he'll really have a fight on his hands to get released before he's an old man.

We don't have access to all the information - psychiatric reports, etc.

The crime was committed when they were children. In other countries they wouldn't have been tried in a Court.

I don't know where I stand on this one. Thomson and Venables were obviously very disturbed boys, and totally lacking in empathy towards their young victim. I was teaching children the same age in Bootle at the time and recognise that a small percentage had difficulty separating right from wrong, reality from fiction. Other child murderers have gone on to lead normal lives and even had children of their own.
Whether Venables is too badly damaged by his upbringing, and the murder to be rehabilitated is a very difficult question to answer, especially when we only have a few bits of information to go on.

Apologies I pressed print before re-reading and finishing my post.
I recognise the dreadful impact on victims and their loved ones of terrible crimes and don't seek to minimise that. I wish we could discuss these issues without reaching for simple solutions to complex issues. Like most people I am anxious about the risk Jon Venables poses to children, to women and who knows what else. But, what does 'evil' mean how do we protect ourselves from it? What does Printmiss mean by saying "a certain type of person" to represent them. Is there a belief here that some people are born evil, and some of them chose to represent other evil people in criminal matters. I don't want to trivialise significant issues, I think the OP raised a very interesting question, one worthy of a considered debate.

This article about the parole board might be of interest?

m.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/19/parole-board-members-speak

I assume that the parole board must have had evidence that is strong enough to persuade them that the risks involved in community supervision of Jon Venables are manageable. Thanks When for confirming that JV will have undertaken specialist sex offender assessment and treatment, with forensic services. Presumably, this information was also considered by the parole board along with other submissions and recommendations.
Moved makes a fair and understandable point in acknowledging she wouldn't want the responsibility of making such decisions, and would never let anyone out. That's why we have parole boards with the expertise and information to make these difficult decisions on our behalf.
The murder of James Bulger by two children remains one of the most horrific events to occur in my lifetime. It is as significant as the Moors Murders in our collective memory, but somehow even more terrifying because the murder was committed by children.

Thank you when. I'll read the judgement later, but your words are reassuring.

Yes, Moved, the Parole Board can decide not to release him and his sentence to be detained under the Children and Young Persons Act at Her Majesty's Pleasure means that the Secretary of State can keep him inside. However, he has entitlement to apply at regular intervals for parole, and if he meets the criteria set at each hearing, they will allow release on a tight licence with increaingly restrictive conditions. He'll have to live in Probation Approved Premises under strict curfew and will be subject to MAPPA public protection oversight at the highest level. One whiff of stepping out of line, media exposure about his whereabouts, or being found by the public and he will be whipped back into prison in the middle of the night, in a disguised vehicle.

Last time, he was living in his own flat and restrictions had been relaxed because he appeared to have made progress, but this time he could be spending years under closer supervision. He will have undertaken specalist sex offender treatment with forensic services, and his licence will no doubt require this to continue. If I was contributing to the MAPPA meeting, I would insist that he travels accompanied to all appointments, especially sex offender treatment. I'm sure that's likely to happen.

Here's his sentence details:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970612/vandt01.htm

It seems to me at times that the villains have more rights than the innocent, and certainly appear to get a 'type' of person to represent them. I believe that in some cases the opinions of the people closest to them whilst in prison, are over-looked (or over-ridden) by clever manipulation, although I am not sure of the details here, but I would have thought that in this case, "once bitten etc".

I don't think he should be let loose but do they have the power to detain him indefinitely? I don't know and would never want to be on the parole board making such decisions, couldn't take that sort of responsibility, I'd never let anyone out.

No. He should not have been freed. He is evil. Sadly.

Should Jon Venables have been freed? No!