Venables - Have We The Right to Know?

Er, no.

If you've read my previous entries on this here blog, you'll already know that I have my own ideas on how I would deal with Venables. However, whether we like it or not, we do not exercise the death penalty in this country, nor does a life sentence really mean what we'd like it to mean.

So, the matter in hand.

Now that the fuss over the whole issue seems to have died down a bit, I think it's safe now to offer my considered opinion. We can't have it both ways in this country. I'm a firm believer in allowing the law to deal with everyone fairly, regardless of their history. In that respect, Jon Venables is absolutely entitled to a fair trial over whatever it is he is alleged to have done. I don't say that for the sake of it. It takes a bit of deeper thought. It's easy for everyone to jump on the bandwagon and media hype surrounding the subject and say that we all have the right to know who he is and what he's done.

We don't.

I'm a bit tired of people peddling the 'it's in the public interest' line. There's a simple differentiation that needs to be understood. Just because something is interesting to the public, does not make it in the public interest. What do we stand to gain by finding out Venables' new identity? What do we stand to gain by finding out what he is alleged to have done? Some self satisfaction and the right to say 'I told you so'?

If you consider the whole picture, you have to back Jack Straw's decision that we will not find out what he's supposed to have done, or even who he is. The events of last week go to prove two things: Firstly, that innocent people can get caught up in media hype, and end up being on the end of utterly false allegations, and secondly; that if Venables' identity and alleged crimes were all over the media, he could not possibly receive a fair trial - innocent or otherwise.

You have to separate the events of 1993, and the events of 2010. Of course, that is never going to be easy. The level of public revulsion for the murder of James Bulger is completely understandable, and I am of the opinion that they should never have been released in the first place. However it is undoubtedly sensationalist to suggest that Venables is more evil than other murderers purely on the basis that he was involved in the abduction and murder of another child. Those of us who buy newspapers and react to the reports in the media buy into this sensationalism, and take it as fact. It isn't.

In order for the whole issue to be dealt with properly, justice needs to be served on Venables, and if found guilty of any serious crime, the weight of the law should fall on him so heavily that he never is never at liberty again. It should be enough to know that the law in this country will deal with him as it deems reasonable.

The public at large want to know who he is for invalid reasons. Justice is not served by vigilantism or lynch mobs - it's not how we work in the UK. Everyone says that he deserves to be strung up, or murdered himself. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Justice has to be served on Venables - but it most certainly has to be served fairly.