Jason Voorhees
Professor-Forum User of the Year 2024
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Posts
- 51,015
- Reputation
- 136,267
The James Bulger case (1993) is one of the most shocking child murder cases in the UK. It happened in Liverpool, where 2-year-old James Bulger was abducted from a shopping center in Bootle by two 10-year-old boys, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. They lured him away while his mother was momentarily distracted and took him on a 4-km walk. Along the way, they tortured him—throwing paint in his eyes, beating him with bricks and stones, kicking and punching him, and even using an iron bar to inflict fatal injuries. In the end, they left him on a railway track, where a train ran over his body, cutting it in half. His remains were discovered two days later by kids searching for footballs.
What’s really interesting about this case is how the UK court handled it. Since the killers were minors, the prosecution had to prove they fully understood what they were doing. Normally, kids under 14 were assumed not to grasp criminal responsibility (doli incapax), but psychiatrists testified that Venables and Thompson knew their actions were seriously wrong.
On November 24, 1993, they were found guilty of murder, becoming the youngest convicted murderers in UK history. They were sentenced to indefinite detention, meaning they could be held as long as necessary. This sparked a huge debate about child crime and human rights. Later, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the trial was unfair because it was held in an adult court with all the formalities—wigs, robes, and a public audience—which was intimidating for two kids and there was Insufficient procedural explanations for the defendants, who were "incapable of participating effectively" The UK government had to cover legal costs, and their sentences were reduced to eight years.
Both were released in 2001 at age 18, given new identities, and granted lifelong anonymity to protect them from vigilante attacks. Thompson has managed to live a normal life in secrecy, but Venables was later re-arrested in 2010 and 2017 for possessing child abuse images but this case brings a bigger question on criminals consent and his rights. Should children under 14 be tried as adults for serious crimes?
CCTV footage of them with James
What’s really interesting about this case is how the UK court handled it. Since the killers were minors, the prosecution had to prove they fully understood what they were doing. Normally, kids under 14 were assumed not to grasp criminal responsibility (doli incapax), but psychiatrists testified that Venables and Thompson knew their actions were seriously wrong.
On November 24, 1993, they were found guilty of murder, becoming the youngest convicted murderers in UK history. They were sentenced to indefinite detention, meaning they could be held as long as necessary. This sparked a huge debate about child crime and human rights. Later, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the trial was unfair because it was held in an adult court with all the formalities—wigs, robes, and a public audience—which was intimidating for two kids and there was Insufficient procedural explanations for the defendants, who were "incapable of participating effectively" The UK government had to cover legal costs, and their sentences were reduced to eight years.
Both were released in 2001 at age 18, given new identities, and granted lifelong anonymity to protect them from vigilante attacks. Thompson has managed to live a normal life in secrecy, but Venables was later re-arrested in 2010 and 2017 for possessing child abuse images but this case brings a bigger question on criminals consent and his rights. Should children under 14 be tried as adults for serious crimes?
CCTV footage of them with James
Last edited:
