Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, when both ten years old, were arrested for the murder of three year old Jamie Bulger in 1993.   Jamie was abducted from a Merseyside shopping centre, taken by the hand and led away while his mother was choosing meat cuts at a butcher's stall.  

The iconic closed-circuit TV footage from the shopping centre that day, shows two small figures taking the toddler by the hand and strolling towards the exit.  Later, Jamie's beaten and tortured body was discovered by some other children, beside the railway tracks two miles away.  The crime shocked the British public at the time, because of its horrific nature and because of the age of both the victim and the attackers.      

Thompson and Venables were arrested a few days later and their arrest photographs show two wide-eyed, waif-like innocents, not the monsters portrayed in the tabloid reports.   Eight months later, these children were tried as adults, found guilty and sentenced to be detained 'at Her Majesty's pleasure', an indeterminate prison term to be reviewed in 2001 when they reached eighteen, the age of majority.   At that time, the Home Secretary, after consultations with the Parole Board, ordered that they be released.  The decision was based upon advice from psychologists and prison staff that the children, now men, posed no further threat to society.  As this had been such a high-profile case, it was feared that the young men would be targets of vigilante attacks on release and so each was given a new identity and a guarantee of anonymity for life.  

They were released under licence, which means that there were certain conditions imposed upon their release.  While these are not in the public domain, it is reasonable to assume that these included:

contacting or attempting to contact the Bolger family;

associating with their co-accused;

returnng to Merseyside, the locality where the crime occurred;

any activity involving inappropriate behaviour towards children, possession of child pornography, etc..

When on March 2nd, the news broke that Jon Venables' licence had been revoked and he was returned to prison, there was public outcry.   Denise Fergus, Jamie Bulger's mother, quickly asserted her belief  that Venables was 'back where he belongs.'  She has always protested at the decision to offer these young men anonymity on release, insisting that it put other children at risk.

Although the precise details of charges to be laid against him were not revealed in March,  Justice Secretary Jack Straw admitted he faced "extremely serious allegations".    The Justice Secretary insisted that to reveal Venables' new identity would prejudice his chances of a fair trial. The decision not to reveal the charges immediately was widely castigated, but the Crown Prosecution has let the system prevail and so the announcement today is shocking.

Jon Venables has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography, under the 1978 Child Protection Act.  He has been charged with downloading images and distributing them on a peer-to-peer network.  

Was the State right in protecting his identity?   Even still, his new identity is not to be released.    Serious concerns have been expressed as to what level of protection this new identity has offered Venables, whether perhaps he has been offered more protection than the average three-year-old in the United Kingdom today.    

There have been other English child killers, for instance,  Mary Bell, a ten year old serial poisoner.   She received a new identity on her release, also, and has never come to the attention of the authorities since. 

Should Venables have been released at all?  Released after eight years and given a new start: was it the right decision? If these had been adults when sentenced, they could expect to serve much longer for such a crime.  Ian Huntley, for example, was sentenced to not less than forty years for abducting and murdering two ten-year-old girls in 2002.  In a 'welfare' state that abhors the death penalty, what is the ultimate sanction?  What punishment acts as a deterrent, guarantees against recidivism?   

There have also been a disturbing number of child-violence and child-assault cases before the courts in recent years, one of which was very similar to the Bulger attack.  The critical comment in these cases has been directed at the State, for its lack of intervention and support for the family, the corner-stone of society.   The psychological debate has focussed on the question of a diagnosis of psychopathy in children, and the possibilty of treating, even curing such psychopathy.  

What offers the best protection for our children: a strong family, a strong individual or  a strong State?   How should the competing demands and desires of each one be regulated?   We have laws prohibiting child pornography, child abuse and paedophilia, for instance.   We do not have a Bill of Rights but we accept generally that every citizen may expect a certain level of freedom, of security, of support from the State.   Parents from all over the UK gathered to threaten Venables and Thompson with dreadful acts of retributive 'justice', baying hysterically as they were led into court.  The laws of the State reflect these various expectations in its system of justice.        

And what is justice?    Is it just that Jon Venables served only eight years for the torture and murder of a three-year-old infant?   Was it just to have tried him as an adult for that crime?  Is it just to have offered him a clean slate on his release?   Was it just to have given him the opportunity to generate more crimes against children by disseminating child pornography?  

All the while, Robert Thompson is secure in his State-administered anonymity.   Perhaps, like Mary Bell, he has made a new life for himself, has a family, a job, pays taxes.   Perhaps, like Jon Venables, he poses an enduring threat to society, to children.   

Who knows?