Venables Unmasked?

[shazsha]

Jon Venables, who was one of the killers of James Bulger, has been outed on the internet(supposedly).

One website published photos of him as an adult, along with his new name.

These photos have now gone viral and the site that first published them has supposedly been hacked/forced offline, though the photos are now showing on various facebook pages.

Nobody is saying these pictures are definitely of Venables but the Daily Mail and The Sun have reported that these pictures are now online(though again they state that the pictures are "said to be" Venables.

Considering that Venables had a life long anonymity placed on him do you think the webmaster who published the photos is in the right to do so, and do you back his actions?

Or do you think that the webmaster should have respected the law and kept the photos under wrap?

The webmaster claims that nobody who has committed crimes against children should be protected by anonymity and he believes we have a right to view said pictures.

What's your thoughts on it?

[Nanna]

My thoughts are this. If it is NOT Venables, someone innocent could be targetted and, possibly, killed. And what about that person's family ?

[Workingman]

My thoughts on this particular issue are exactly the same as Nanna's.

Releasing these photos is playing a dangerous game.... The State, for whatever reason, has awarded anonymity to Thomson and Venables and that has to stand to prevent vigilantism. Given what has been said by Mrs Bulger of late, understandable as it may be, I suspect that there are people out there who would give her the justice she desires.

However, a roll back, if I may? I am against the State providing criminals with new names and identities except, possibly, in cases where they have become 'grasses' and supplied information to break up organised crime or industrial/state espionage: those sorts of crimes.

[debih]

My thoughts on this particular issue are exactly the same as Nanna's.

Releasing these photos is playing a dangerous game.... The State, for whatever reason, has awarded anonymity to Thomson and Venables and that has to stand to prevent vigilantism. Given what has been said by Mrs Bulger of late, understandable as it may be, I suspect that there are people out there who would give her the justice she desires.

However, a roll back, if I may? I am against the State providing criminals with new names and identities except, possibly, in cases where they have become 'grasses' and supplied information to break up organised crime or industrial/state espionage: those sorts of crimes.

Exactly what WM said!

[shazsha]

I'm undecided on this matter.

Working on the assumption that the images are indeed Venables, and not some innocent, I can see that this could spark vigilantes.

However, when he is released from jail for possession of child porn, should potential neighbours, with children, be kept in the dark as to his past?

I know I wouldn't like him as a neighbour and would be even more freaked out by him if I had children.

[Oojamaflip]

Mixed feelings here too.

I'm against vigilanteism (if that word didn't exist before, it does now), and against trial by media, but on the other hand I'm curious like many people to know exactly who they are, where they are, what they look like now, etc. I don't believe they have been appropriately punished for their crime(s) and my heart is with the parents of Jamie.

[debih]

I don't think any child abuser or rapist who has been released from prison should be allowed any sort of anonymity. People in the neighbourhood, especially schools, should be made aware that they have someone in their vicinity who could cause a threat.

But as that doesn't currently happen to any other "run of the mill" abuser, rapist or murder then the same should, unfortunately, apply to Venables.

It shouldn't be one rule for one and one for another.

[Kaz]

My thoughts are this. If it is NOT Venables, someone innocent could be targetted and, possibly, killed. And what about that person's family ?

That's how I feel too. To be honest I think even if they were the correct photos I just have an inate aversion to vigilante behaviour - I know what they did as 10 year olds was completely unspeakable and evil but we have to let the law deal with this.................

These pictures showed up on my FB newsfeed today...............already people were speculating that one of the pictures had been show to be fake

[TheOstrich]

Another who agrees with Nanna's views on this .....

On a different tack -

I don't think any child abuser or rapist who has been released from prison should be allowed any sort of anonymity.

Sorry, I can't really agree with those sentiments. If you've done your bird, you should be given a chance to move on in life. And so to answer Shaz's initial question:

Or do you think that the webmaster should have respected the law and kept the photos under wrap?

Yes he should. He will have known he was breaching the law and deserves to be hauled up for it. Not that he will be, of course ...

[cromwell]

Venables has done the crime and done the time; I do not think he should be unmasked now.
The law ties itself up in knots sometimes. I know the issue of children is a thorny one and a difficult issue.
But Venables has served his sentence, however unsatisfactory some people (including yours truly) think that sentence was.
To some degree the leniency of the sentence has promoted the desire to unmask him now, imo.