Critically assess the impact of the way in which media and politicians represented the murder of James Bulger by Venables and Thompson on youth justice policy and practise over the last ten years.

CJS2007

On February 12th 1993 Jon Venables and Robert Thompson abducted a two-year-old boy from a shopping centre in Liverpool. The pair then proceeded to beat and murder him. At the time of the murder Venables and Thompson were only 10 years old. The murder of James Bulger has been one of the most notorious that Britain has ever seen. It caused outrage and disgust, 10 years later the James Bulger murder still causes much controversy.

Venables and Thompson were found guilty of murder and sentenced. The trials judge justice Michael Moorland said they should be locked up for ‘many many years’ he recommended the pair be detained for at least 8 years. The chief lord justice then recommended that the term should be at least 10 years. The final decision rested on the home secretary Michael Howard. He decided the pair should not be considered for parole until they had served at least 15 years. The pair would be detained at secure care homes and a youth offenders home until they were 18 then be moved to an adult prison to serve the rest of their sentence. At the time this seemed like the right sentence to give for such a horrendous crime, but even at the time there was much controversy. The pair were trailed as adults and not as children, this was for the reason that they were over 10 years old and so would have reasonable idea of what they were doing and the difference between right and wrong.

In the year 2000 one of Britains top judges lord Woolf ruled that Thompson and Venables be considered for immediate parole. This meant that the pair would have served 7 years in a care home where they were cared for and educated. The decision to release the pair caused great controversy with the British public.

The British legal system has been criticised for the way Venables and Thompson were tried, it is said their human rights were breached. Firstly the British House of Lords decided it was wrong for the home secretary to set a minimum term child killers should spend in custody. Then the European judges agreed and added it was wrong for 11 year olds to be tried in an adult courtroom it was suggested that they did not fully understand what was happening and so this infringed upon their human rights. Controversy comes from the fact that at the time the jurors, lawyers and court reporters all agreed that both Thompson and Venables knew exactly what they were doing. The pair carried out a cruel cold-blooded pre-meditated murder. At the time even their own lawyers agreed to the pair being trailed in an adult courtroom it was not until later it was contested. BY the year 2000 lord Woolf decided the boys should be considered for immediate parole, he commented on his fear that the boys would be exposed to a corrosive atmosphere if they went to a young offenders institute.

Upon release Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were given new identities and a new life. Court orders were introduced to protect them, the media has been prevented from publishing any information on the new identities, where about and upbringing of the pair. The court orders also prevent any information being released about what the pair has been up to while in custody. Much effort has been made to protect the two, especially since rumours of man hunts and mob violence was perceived against the boys.

Media and politics has been a massive influence on the perception of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Media and politics has been a massive influence on the perception of the James Bulger murder case, there is no doubt that it was a horrendous crime and one that shocked the nation. A question remains of its impact, on youth justice policy over the last 10 years.

Firstly we need to focus on the media reporting and interpretation of the event. The actual reporting was hugely sensational and it made Thompson and Venables out to be monsters and freaks, the coverage and headlines was massive, the reporting was very emotional, prompting moral outrage. The media coverage of this plays a major role in our perception of youth as a social problem. The media interpretation of the event portrayed Jon Venables and Robert Thompson as evil and wicked, they saw the crime as an attack on childhood, it was a consequence of the breakdown in traditional moral values and was portrayed as the end of the age of innocence. There was much criticism of one-parent families and the breakdown of the nuclear family. Discipline in schools, violent video games and films came under heavy blame. Due to the media the story was turned from a terrible murder into a symbol of national malice and social breakdown.

Media attention focused on Venables and Thompson led to greater discussion of the problems in childhood, using the James Bulger case people were able to make more generalisations about childhood. We saw an increase in the distrust of youth and children, there became what was known as a childhood crisis in the 1990’s, moral panic was at a high point and we also saw children being turned from innocent angels to demonic monsters.

After the James Bulger murder government and societies institutions needed to take a look at how they were handling such cases and what should be done to prevent it and punish it. There seemed to be a reinforced discipline view towards children and young people, it was said that more regulation was needed starting with education. It was also decided that greater surveillance was needed. The Criminal justice system came under attack as it was blamed for being too soft on young offenders, punishment and discipline was neglected. New measures needed to be taken to ensure such crimes firstly did not happen again and secondly be punished accordingly. In the later 1990’s an expansion of secure accommodation for youth offenders took place. These were to be institutions where children could be punished, taught discipline, and be educated.

Official response is that anyone found guilty of murder committed when under the age of 18 must be sentenced to ‘detention during Her Majesty’s pleasure’. Currently, a person convicted of murder that is aged 18 or over at the time of the offence but is under 21 on conviction must be sentenced to ‘custody for life’. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill in 2000 changed the law so that all convicted defendants aged 18 or over at the time of conviction will be sentenced as adults.

Normally, the Home Secretary has had the power to set the tariff to be served in cases where an individual has been sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure as a result of committing murder under the age of 18. However, in December 1999, the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables found that this was in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill in 2000 will give the sentencing court the task of setting the tariff to be served. ()

Reducing youth crime and reforming the youth justice system are a major part of the Government's effort to build safer communities and tackle social exclusion.

The reform focuses on preventing offending by children and young people. This being a clear strategy to prevent offending and re-offending by children and young people, helping offenders, and their parents, to face up to their offending behaviour and take responsibility for it. It also aims for earlier, more effective intervention when young people first offend, faster, more efficient procedures from arrest to sentence, and Partnership between all youth justice agencies to deliver a better, faster system.

establishes preventing offending as the principal aim of the youth justice system and places a duty on all those working in the youth justice system to have regard to that aim. What this means in practice for different agencies, professions and individuals is set out in the framework document ‘, published in September 1998.

The Act provides a range of new interventions and punishments to help local communities and youth justice agencies take effective action to tackle youth crime.

These include new powers to enable early, targeted intervention to deal with anti-social behaviour and to divert the very young from crime.

The James Bulger murder was a horrific act of violence and at the time no one could quite believe two 10-year-old boys had committed it. The circumstances surrounding the case and the decisions made about how the boys should be punished could be discussed forever. The youth justice system had never before had to deal with such a crime, it therefore would set a precedent for all future crimes of this nature. At the time the decision to keep the boys in custody for life was once which reflected popular mood and emotion of the time, no other sentence would have been applicable. The emotion of the case and the severity of the crime led to new areas for youth justice. Media played a major role in what would happen to these boys and what would happen in the future concerning policy towards youth justice, Firstly it became a major concern that these boys be punished accordingly, and secondly it became important that something like this never happened again. Youth justice policy in the last 10 years has reflected this.

Governments have made youth policy a major concerns and efforts have been made to tackle the problems of society, which can cause our children to turn to crime. Tackling the problem of youth has been an important one, and it owes a lot to the case of James Bulger. The murder of a two year old boy by two children was a wake up call for society, it may not have been a reflection of society as a whole (as some claim) but it was a reflection of what could happen if things did not change.

In conclusion I feel that the impact of the way the media and politicians represented the James Bulger case had a huge impact on youth justice policy over the last 10 years. The case shocked the country and called for change so that this would never happen again, the media by portraying youth society as it did had major influence on public feeling and on what should be done. Politicians have the power to impliment new policy such as the youth justice acts and so on. Together media and politicians had the most impact on the representation of the james bulger murder. I am in no way lessening the terrible violence that was committed by jon venables and robert thompson but i am concluded that if it hadn'’ been for the media and political influence there might have been a very different outcome. Especislly the outcomes of youth justice policy and practise over the last 10 years.