Having given the matter some consideration, I feel that Heather’s comments merit some kind of response. This is rather unfair on her since I’ve got her argument in front of me and she has no-right-to-reply-in-print, as it were, so I’ll try to stick to addressing the wider issue.

The Bulger case proved a real test for the British justice system. The boys committed crimes which the system, when first ‘designed’ would not have been imaginable. The European Court questioned the validity of the whole process since the killers, as ten year-olds would not have been able to comprehend the process (apparently). Numerous groups, as has become the trend in high publicity cases, questioned the power of the Home Secretary to set the minimum sentence. More fundamentally, however, it raises issues of what we mean by ‘justice’ and the role of prisons, detention centres and so on..

If by justice we mean a kind of ‘eye for an eye’ type system, then Jamie’s killers should be tortured and killed slowly and painfully. And some of you will agree that that is what should have happened to them. But what would that say about the society that we live in? How could we ever then claim to be civilised? There is a saying that you can tell how civilised a society is by the way it treats its prisoners. Killing them isn’t high on the list of civilisation tests. Equally, how do you compensate the parents of James Bulger for their experience? How do you ever go about replacing their son?

If we keep Venables and Thompson in an adult prison, who benefits? Are we ‘cleansing their souls’ or simply exposing them to society’s worst; an environment where drugs and violence are the norm. What sort of preparation is that for the outside world?

I seriously doubt that they are the same people now as they were eight years ago. Hands up all of you who think that you are the same person as you were at ten? Do they still pose the same threat to society that they did that fateful morning, as they entered the shopping centre? I don’t think so.

By the same token, I don’t think that a ‘life of luxury’ is what beckons. Those boys will have to live with their actions forever. They will know that if anyone ever finds out who they are, they face the prospect of vigilante action. For this reason alone, their prospects of untold riches from the press are questionable. Whilst not being placed on an offenders register, they face the same criminal system as the rest of us should they re-offend. Remember that under normal circumstance, a jury will not know about previous convictions. Bear in mind also that the average sentence for murder in Britain is 12 years.

So yes, these boys committed an undoubtedly evil act. Yes, it seems absurd that they are then protected by the state, but that is what happens to all criminals. If they no longer pose a threat, why should they be further punished? Conversely, who decides that they no longer pose a threat? Do we send them into the dead-end route of our prisons, or give them a glimmer of another chance? Who decides? And should justice be solely about punishment? What is the price of life?

Justice is a funny concept, and it seems there are no easy answers.

Christopher Read