NCJ Number
210108
Journal
Journal of Law and Society Volume: 27 Issue: 3 Dated: September 2000 Pages: 416-448
Date Published
September 2000
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This article reviews and critiques the legal and public responses to the 1993 British cases of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who were convicted in adult court of the abduction and murder of 2-year-old James Bulger when Venables and Thompson were 10 years old.
Abstract
Venables and Thompson were sentenced to adult prison for a minimum of 15 years, to extend to such time as the court deemed them rehabilitated. The case was processed amidst public outrage at the killing and strong support for a harsh retributive punishment of the boys. This public reaction was pervaded by a perception and fear of the demonic urges of children, which had to be suppressed with punitive discipline and tight control. In December 1999, the European Court of Human Rights held that in the trial and sentencing of Venables and Thompson, the British Government violated the European Convention on Human Rights. This article explains how this case became a "watershed" in juvenile-justice procedure and practice that influenced the Labour Government's proposals for reform and the British 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. As it reviews the progression of appeals through the British and European courts, this article explores the philosophies that distinguished the United Kingdom's and European approaches to the age of criminal responsibility, the prosecution and sentencing of children, and the influence of political policy on judicial decisions. The article also discusses how the case created a backlash against children, the affirmation of adult power over children, and the implications of the European judgments based in a human rights agenda. 187 notes