The James Bulger Case Criminology Essay

The James Bulger Case Criminology Essay The 1993 murder of James Burger who was two years old by two ten-year olds shocked the UK nation and affected the society’s perception of children and the entire juvenile justice system. Jon Venables and Robert Thomson found guilty in that horrifying crime were subject to imprisonment until reaching their adulthood. They became the youngest murders charged and convicted in the present-day English history, whose criminal motives have never been discovered and explained.[1] Moreover, the investigation and decision of the James Burger case forced interaction and coordination between the successive governments, the media and the public discussing issues of human rights and child’s rights. Before the 1980s, the UK juvenile justice system had not practiced the use of custodial measures towards young offenders much. The new law[2] emphasised rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and their successful re-integration in society. In this respect, the modified juvenile justice law enforced imprisonment of young offenders for re-educating them within the criminal justice system for the benefits of society and their personal interest. In line with that change, the boys suspected of abducting and murdering Jamie Burger were immediately arrested and charged. They reached the age of 11 years when they faced the trial in an adult court and were sentenced to the detainment. The trial judge recommended the eight-year term of their imprisonment, while the Lord Chief Justice suggested the minimum of ten years in custody. The final decision by the then Home Secretary ascribed the convicted boys to stay in custody until 15 years when they would become eligible for release.[3] A raised tar iff was later challenged and debated by the advocated of child’s rights, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. As a result, the convicted murders were restored in their initial eight-year term.[4] The case of James Bulger received an extensive coverage in the popular media, scholarship and the public on the international scale. As such, pre-trial media coverage was further criticised for making witnesses and the jury prejudiced, which undermined fairness of trial procedures. During the trial, the media plays a vital role in informing the public about evidence provided in the court as well as giving their analyses and evaluations of boys’ behaviour in the court and reactions to the heard evidence. Radio, television and newspapers contributed greatly to the post-conviction coverage of the James Bulger case as well. The conducted murder of the two-year-old boy and its perception by the UK juvenile justice system produced a significant impact on the public opinion about juvenile criminals and risks associated with young perpetrators of crime. Indeed, the case enforced a new understanding of the child’s nature and a transition from the traditional association of children with i nnocence to the perception of them being dangerous and violent.[5] The announced decision on the James Bulger murders did not reduce the scholarly and public interest in the case. Moreover, social outcomes and the detriment of child’s rights were primary concern in further discussions and investigations. Contrary to the pre-trial publications dwelling on the horrifying nature of the crime and young age of murders, post-trial coverage pondered in the details of the charged case. Thus, security-camera surveillance images that presented the key piece of evidence against Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in the court were doubted as their quality and the captured body shapes did not give an objective justification of the guilt of the convicted boys.[6] Another point of criticism concerning the quick conviction and imprisonment of James Bulger murders referred to the ignored responsibility of society for creating risk factors and facilitating child’s violence. Violence in childhood is not a reflection of individual’s personality trait, but an outcom e of unfriendly environments, low living conditions and poor functioning families experienced by children.[7] Therefore, the James Bulger case was not that clear; it identified weaknesses in the social policy of the UK nation. Bibliography Criminal Justice Act 1991 Franklin, Bob and Julian Petley, ‘Killing the Age of Innocence: Newspaper Reporting of the Death of James Burger’ in Jane Pilcher and Stephen Wong (eds), Thatcher’s Children?: Politics, Childhood and Society in the 1980s and 1990s (Routledge 2005) Howe, Brian and Katherine Covell, Children, Families and Violence: Challenges for Children’s Rights (Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2008) Jenks, Chris, Childhood: Critical Concepts in Sociology (Taylor Francis 2005) Kember, Sarah, Virtual Anxiety: Photography, New Technologies and Subjectivity (Manchester University Press 1998) Smith, David James, The Sleep of Reason: The James Burger Case (Faber and Faber Ltd 2011) Webley, Lise and Harriet Samuels, Complete Public Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press 2015) [1] David James Smith, The Sleep of Reason: The James Burger Case (Faber and Faber Ltd 2011) xi-xiii [2] Criminal Justice Act 1991 [3] Lise Webley and Harriet Samuels, Complete Public Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press 2015) 519 [4] Chris Jenks, Childhood: Critical Concepts in Sociology (Taylor Francis 2005) 165 [5] Bob Franklin and Julian Petley, ‘Killing the Age of Innocence: Newspaper Reporting of the Death of James Burger’ in Jane Pilcher and Stephen Wong (eds), Thatcher’s Children?: Politics, Childhood and Society in the 1980s and 1990s (Routledge 2005) 136 [6] Sarah Kember, Virtual Anxiety: Photography, New Technologies and Subjectivity (Manchester University Press 1998) 63 [7] Brian Howe and Katherine Covell, Children, Families and Violence: Challenges for Children’s Rights (Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2008) 10