The Forum

Denise Fergus, the mother of murdered toddler James Bulger, has been in the news a lot recently. Since the news broke that Jon Venables is back in prison, she's done numerous interviews, released a few press statements, and even had a private meeting with a senior government minister.

She has:
* Called for Venables' anonymity to be stripped
* Insisted she has a "right" to know what he is back inside for
* Put Jack Straw on the spot in public to meet and explain the latest situation to her
* Called for the sacking of England's Children's Commissoner for stating 10 year olds should not tried in adult court

I'll call short of saying she's exploitng her position, though I do believe she's become more and more bold as the week has gone on and she has realised how much traction she has. The simple truth is, she doesn't have a right to know anything. The new crime, whatever it is, has got nothing to do with her. What happened to her son rocked the nation. She has, and always will, receive the utmost sympathy. However I am becoming uneasy with the effect her emotively charged statements are having on the justice system. Bad cases make terrible laws. I don't see why relatives of former victims of criminals need to be given information on completely unrelated future crimes, and I certainly don't see why they qualify to have that information delivered in person by the Justice Secretary. Fair enough if it's related... but Straw has dropped massive hints it isn't. She's been given the information she needs now. She should respect the fact the government has gone above-and-beyond for her, stop playing politics, and stop suggesting people should be sacked.

I agree totally, with you, Scimitar. However, I'm not sure she's exploiting the situation as much as the media is exploiting her.

'Venables to be charged with sex crime' - let's ask Denise Bulger what she thinks of this.
'Criminal responsibility age should be increased' - let's ask Denise Bulger what she thinks of this.

In the latter case, the question is legitimate, I think; but in the former, it is not a case for her opinion to be considered and I hope Jack Straw told her so, though I wouldn't bet good money on it.

This topic is on the front page of the more respected broadsheets in Sydney...http://www.smh.com.au/world/bulger-kill ... -q5xl.html

It suggests that venables will escape prosecution of this new crime so that they don't have to go to the expense of giving him a new identity again after the trial. If that is so, thats not right.

Personally I think its correct those kids were tried as adults, and if I was the father I would find it difficult to keep my mouth shout about it no matter how much time has passed. I know what you mean about keeping emotions out of decisions about the law, but I think that the one person who should never be expected to do that is the mother. I'd be baying for that doctors head too if I was in her position, thats not to say anyone should listen to me.

In fact Scim, you seem to be suggesting that the mother shouldnt be doing those things you listed. She has every right to ask for and say anything she pleases, again, whether she is granted her resquests is a different story... but she can be as vocal and angry and she wants IMO, I don't think time would ever diminish the anger she would feel, it wouldnt diminish mine.

Yes, and who's to blame her for letting her anger out when she has a platform for her voice to be heard. She has no legal right to know the new crimes Venables committed, but I can see her POV. I'd want to know if it was a crime that hurt another child, and if it was I'd want to be damn sure that he wasn't in a position to hurt a child again.

I think she'd have less of a case if they'd been given a 30 year sentence. As they were let out after 8 years, which seems lenient to me, so it must do to her, she can argue that lenient sentencing is directly responsible for this crime, whatever it is. If he'd still been in prison, he couldn't have committed a crime. I'd say that gives her the right to make the point to men of straw like Jack Straw - if only to remind him that there are real people hurting behind every weak sentence. In fact, she should do so.

Conn

Tbh i think denise fergus can say whatever she wants. lets face it she and Jamies father are the ones living the nightmare not Venables and thompson.
These two were let out on licence on the understanding that they behaved themselves, Well venables obviously hasn't, has he. so who can blame Denise for voicing her opinion. if i was in her shoes i'd be doing exactly the same.

Whilst this is undoubtedly so, what has this new crime got to do with her? What right has she to demand a meeting, with the Secretary of State for Justice, to argue the pros and cons of government guidelines on sentencing? (That she got such a meeting says everything about the Straw Man and/or those who advise him.)

There was an outcry, at the time, about the perceived leniency of the sentence imposed on Thomson and Venables, but, when the Home Secretary of the day, I think it was Michael Howard, tried to have their minimum tariff increased, this got knocked back by the Law Lords, I think.

As for her comments about the Children's Commissioner, I think she is absolutely right. That statement was absurd for so many reasons, but that is a matter for her political masters, not for someone with a clear bias.

James Bulger's killers were convicted and punished according to the law of the land - end of story; end of interest for Denise Bulger.

I see the point, though it would be extraordinary if she took no interest in the fate and activities of those boys/men who tortured and killed her son. I have a two year old by the way. I'd be interested in the fate of anyone imprisoned for killing him - and their physical location, come to think of it.

I have always thought it was wrong to give them new identities. If you do something so awful that society is likely to lynch you for fifty years afterwards, well, that's just tough. Giving them protection in that sort of way was wrong. They'd have had to emigrate, I suppose, or risk being killed. Again, tough.

Technically, perhaps she has no right, but that's too cold for me. She's an interested party because they were let out too early. It's one case where I wouldn't have argued for the death penalty, by the way - they were so young themselves.

Conn

Were they not punished under the law of our land and then the European Court of Human Rights dictated that this punishment was too harsh and let them out? No matter how you look at and regardless of their age at the time, what they did to that boy deserved far longer than 8 years.


Saying that after punishment the interest should end for the mother is wrong. She will always have an interest, especially because as mentioned they were allowed out much too soon. Seeing as one of them has now done something serious enough for them to go through all this bother it shows rehabilitation in his case has failed. Jamie Bulger's mother may well be making impossible demands but she would not be if they were still in a prison, being punished for what they did.

The original sentencing is irrelevant. Whether he got 1 year or 100 years, Fergus would undoubtedly think it was too lenient. But that sentence has been and gone. He served his time, he was released on licence, he breached it, he's back inside. For better or worse, the system works... but she's got no more right to know the details of this new crime than I have. Conn's suggestion that because a prevailing thought in the general public is that the original sentence was too light, she is granted special privellige is frankly absurd and would make a mockery of the justice system. Though Straw's acceptance of her demands to be told the details in private has already made a mockery of it.

As for the Children's Commissioner.... she was pointing out that Britain has one of the lowest ages of legal responsibility in Europe, and she expressed an opinion that the current age of 10 is too low and should be brought more in line with the European average of 14. Whether you agree with it or not, calling for the sacking of someone who is expressing a reasoned, professional opinion on a topic within their area of expertise is astonishing. The fact the statement was prefixed with "she should apologise to James" says it all... to be blunt, emotional clap-trap. Her advisors should do her and her family a big favour and keep the microphone away from her. Her focus should now be on bringing up her surviving kids as best she can... not publically torturing herself about the lives of her son's killers.

Nonsense I'm afraid Scim, for a start, she may not have a legal right to be told the details of the new crime are, but she has every right to ask what those crimes were. You can't compare yourself to her, sure in the cold hard clinical eyes of the law you and her are no different (with respect to this new crime) but in the real world she has an emotional investment that dwarf's yours.

No, he showed compassion. Something the law should take into account at these kind of levels



Of course it was emotional, you seem to be suggesting that she should be reasoned about this topic. I'd call for the head of someone who was basically saying the killers of my child should have gone unpunished, which is what reducing the age of legal responsibility would have done. I'd be more concerned if Fergus was reasoned about it to be honest..



Shut up and move on hey? Good advice in theory, but I suspect harder to carry out in real life.

I could and would argue quite strongly that the crimes venables and thompson committed showed why the age of criminal responsiblity can be from 10...as did that case in south yorkshire where 2 lads about their age nearly killed two others.

for better or worse the system has not worked in the case of venables. The mother has a right to see justice done...when one of her childs killers is released and then commits a serious crime again, she has every right to feel angry because "justice" has failed. He was locked up for the original crime and got a better lifestyle relative to the one he was living out of it. Now while free he has obviously commited a crime again.

What was it the poor childrens commissioner refered to the bulger murder as? "Unpleasant" It was more than that.

As Martin Samuel wrote..."This was a ghastly hand unplayable from from the start. No one could be right because what took place was so wrong"

and it was so wrong what they did to James Bulger 10 or not.

Emotion is not a trump card. In fact, emotion is the last thing we need here. Justice must be dispassionate and rational. Mix justice and emotion and before long we'll have pitchfork-waving mobs dunking witches. Whether we like it or not, judges (fortunately) don't sentence based on the amount of tabloid column inches the perpertrator receives.

Can anyone give me any suggestion of what Denise Fergus actually gets out of knowing why Venables is back inside? Other than morbid curiosity. Other than to further consume her life with vengeance \ anger \ hatred. No good can come of this. And what (I wonder!) is her motive for wanting his new identity to be revealed?

When she announced that she "demanded" to know what had happened and that the government were stalling on telling her anything, Straw should have politely and sensitively that while we continue to have the utmost sympathy for her, this really has absolutely nothing to do with her. Let her throw the emotion trump card around all she wants... that's not how I want my Justice system to be ran.

odd, i didnt think anyone was actually suggesting that judges base their decisions on tabloid newspaper inches. Nor is anyone suggesting that emotion is her trump card that means she gets whatever she wants. I think you're being sensationalist to suggest that we'll end up waving pitchforks and lynching people just because some compassion is applied to the law.

I, for one, am simply saying that it's understandable and correct that she is emotional about this topic, she gets presented with a platform and she uses it. I can't say I wouldnt do the same thing even if i knew i had no legal right to do so... i'd be pretty pi*sed at a legal system that allowed this kind of justice to prevail.



I can't speak for her, but you ask for a suggestion, so perhaps what she gets out of knowing the details of his incarceration is some small element of closure. Maybe knowing he was out on the street drove her mad every night and she wanted to know how long he would be put away for again. Maybe knowing he will be in prison for x years may give her some peace for that time.

And i can tell you why I'd want his identity revealed, because as long as he lives under and assumed name somewhere, he doesnt take any responsibility for his actions.



Seems you're taking umbrage at her "demanding" something, would it have been better if she asked nicely? I'm afraid I could not reduce her pain to something like an "emotion trump card", she can demand for anything she likes in my opinion, not all her demands should be met of course but i would never blame someone for making them

I don't want a justice system ruled by emotion rather than the law either, but sometimes exceptions should be made.

I think the point is that the law should be expected to answer questions from the people. Sometimes those questions will be based on emotional motives. That doesn't make them any less valid as questions.

However I think there has to be a balance. Sometimes the answer to those questions will be mind your own business. The law while open to question doesn't have to be held publicly accountable for the answers people want to hear.

I'm positive in this case that the questions were put onto Denise Fergus lips by the tabloids.

This is a good topic to (hopefully) start my reemergence onto the boards...

I'm in the library at the minute and I really need to take the carrel key back so this will be rather short.

I think the real question here is one of a crossover of law & morality. Where should it cross/should it cross at all and what are the consequences when it does [this would be a good thread]? I think we can all say that with high rates of recidivism there are massive issues with those parties harmed by somebody elses acts being horrified when they realise that their attacker has gone on to commit yet another atrocious crime. This isn't just in response to the Bulger case but something that occurs globally with many many complaints.

If the MoJ had to speak out about every one of them then this could surely only be detrimental to our legal system?

J