Sunday, 7 March 2010

Psycho killer.

Others have commented on the recall to prison of the evil little shit Jon Venables. I am disgusted that he was let out at all. Peter Sutcliffe, now a fat pensioner with diabetes, is still in. The Krays weren't released even though they were convicted of one murder each and their victims weren't exactly innocent. Brady and Hindley weren't released and I am not for a second suggesting they should have been.

Gary Glitter served time for child abuse and despite having served that time, he is still hounded.

So why is it just fine and dandy to let perfectly healthy young psychotic killers out, and to charge us for giving them new identities?

That said, I agree that the reason for his recall should not be made public. If it were, every jury faced with a case similar to whatever he is now accused of will be thinking 'Is it him?' If they think it is, there is no chance of a fair trial for whoever is in the dock whether it's Venables or not.

Strawman Jack really should point that out. Instead, we hear speculation and possibly planted distractions. Boozing. Drugs. A fight at work. An unspecified sex crime. Don't be in the dock for any of those things if you're in his age range. The jury will not be unbiased.

Now it turns out he was discovered because he has been telling people who he is.

The 27-year-old's mental state had become so fragile that he would regularly reveal his identity to strangers – something that had put him at risk of attack.

So he's young, fit and healthy, dangerous and also nuts. Not a viable combination in society as a whole. Note that the Guardian is concerned that HE is at risk of attack. Modern Britain. Kafka would be so proud to see his absurdist imaginings brought to life.

"It's an extremely difficult position for the authorities to be in," said Harry Fletcher, assistant secretary general of the probation union, Napo. "If they go ahead with court proceedings, this could undermine his anonymity but the fact he is self-disclosing his identity means giving him another new identity becomes almost inevitable. This situation is fraught with difficulties."

Personally, I would replace the word 'inevitable' with 'pointless' in that statement. He is nuts and getting worse. As for undermining his anonymity, scrap his anonymity and leave him in jail. So he has to spend all his time in solitary. It won't be the first time a psychotic child killer has had to do that.

What really gets to me here is how it's all about Venables. How the machinery of the State leaps into action to protect him. It didn't bother itself too much about baby P. It hasn't concerned itself with pensioners and with disabled people terrorised and murdered or driven to suicide by its feral thugs.

It does however make a sick kind of sense. Venables is exactly what the State is trying to create in modern youth. He has committed a crime so terrible that he has to hide forever and he is entirely reliant on the State to keep him hidden. They don't want him in prison.

He's their model citizen.


slippery jack said...

It's an amazing case. A known murderer is let loose on the general population and the general population are kept in the dark. Most murderers are highlighted and people are warned to keep clear. But here Slippery Jack Straw thinks it's fine to send this guy out into the world and not tell anyone about his evil past. How can young children and vulnerable females feel safe if they don't even know his identity or facial features ? The whole thing is despicable.

Angry Exile said...

"So he's young, fit and healthy, dangerous and also nuts."

Or just retarded. :-)

TheFatBigot said...

Dare I say it? Yes, OK, I will ...

what do you expect, he's from Liverpool.

Anonymous said...

Handy, isn't it, and a good reason to have a trial without the risk of calling a Jury. They've got to protect him from the public see, can't risk anybody learning what he really looks like.

TBH if I was him I'd consider what the rest of my life would be like, and wonder if it's really worth it.

JuliaM said...

"What really gets to me here is how it's all about Venables."

Well, it has to be. He's the hook on which so many people have hung their theories of 'rehabilitation'.

If he's gone off the rails despite the money and care lavished on him, that might kickstart the 'nature/nurture' debate again. And they don't want that, in case people come to a conclusion that doesn't suit them...

Dave H said...

Reggie Kray shot Cornell in the head for calling him a 'fat poof.'

Given Reggie was overweight and homosexual, I think this betrays a fundamental unreasonableness and lack of proportion, a trait sadly shared by all to many deranged brutal murderers, Venables included.

BTW aren't nightclub doormen beig issued with statutory powers these days? Venables isn't just a model citizen, he could be an official agent of law and order. In a Clockwork Orange, do you remember Dim? Official power and a uniform completely rehabilitated him too.

Kevyn Bodman said...

I haven't often commented here,although I've become a regular reader,because usually you've said it all.
But today I disagree with your opening 'I'm disgusted he was let out at all.'

He was a child when he committed the murder;a child should not be condemned for life.

But I don't argue with his recall if he has proved dangerous when out.

That aside,thanks for a thougtful post.

slippery jack said...


Anna has explained why these two murderers should never be allowed to walk amongst us unsupervised. They aren't capable of socialising and emphasising like normal citizens.
Doing 7 years in an institution where their every whim would have been catered for won't have helped them either. They're timebombs waiting for something to trigger them again....

Anonymous said...

@Dave H - It's a feature of the insanity in today's UK that, while the State demands 'proof' of innocence from the law-abiding, it plays fast and loose with our protection in, apparently, handing out statutory powers with every 'hi-viz vest' issued to get the unemployment figures down.


Leg-iron said...

Kevyn - here's the link to Anna's article (which sounds like it's based on very personal experience):

Some people simply cannot cope with life out here in the world. Most end up as victims.

A few don't appreciate that what they want to do is wrong, and just do it. They're not evil, their brains are just not wired right. Although that's arguable. They're not wired up the same way as the majority, which isn't the same as not being 'right'. It does mean they can't follow the rules set by that majority because they simply don't understand why the rules matter.

There are a few, very few, who are actually born evil. Children aren't all blank slates. There's someone already in there. The difference between 'evil' and 'wrong' would, I'd say, be based on one thing.

Did they do it because they didn't know it was wrong, or because they enjoyed it?

opinions powered by