Murder is a shocking crime in the most typical of cases. But when a child kills another child, all sense of morality seems to be distorted, and no reaction is unequivocally justified. At the age of 10 years old, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were each sentenced to eight years in prison for their gruesome murder of two-year-old James Bulger. Now, nine years since his release, Venables is back in custody, and the public demands to know the reason. The questions that surface query the criminal’s right to anonymity as well as appropriate prison sentences for those so young. The attention and high emotion that surround such cases certainly destroy notions of impartiality and make the potential for a fair trial extremely difficult.

In 1993, Venables, together with Thompson, committed a horrific and motiveless crime when they coaxed a two-year-old away from his mother and ultimately murdered the boy alongside railway tracks. After the trial, the judge ruled that the criminals’ identities should be revealed, and so their names and hauntingly vulnerable mug shots were splashed across every newspaper. Ever since then, considerable work has gone into hiding the identity of Thompson and Venables; upon prison release, they were given new identities, and laws banned anyone from revealing their true names. However, last month it was revealed that Jon Venables is now back in custody, and the public is crying to know the reason why.

James Bulger’s mother claims that, as a relative of the original victim, she has a right to know what offense Venables has committed, and, indeed, a typically transparent justice system would condone revealing the nature of the crime. Others claim that Venables’s rehabilitation clearly failed, so he no longer deserves the protection awarded by his veiled identity. However, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has refused to reveal the offense, for fear of revealing Venables’s identity and preventing the opportunity for a fair trial. The case is not typical of any justice system, and should Venables’s new crime be revealed, the resulting hype will likely limit the possibility of a fair trial by an unprejudiced jury.

Demands to know Venables’s new crime reek of hysterical persecution and desire for revenge. The 1993 murder sent a jolt throughout Britain, and disgust at the event lead to adults crowding around the court, where they banged on the children’s van, thirsty for retribution. Similarly, the desire for information about the new crime of an ex-convict seems to be a product of natural but legally unreasonable anger. Comparably strong emotions affected the original trial, and the European Court of Human Rights later ruled that the high scrutiny and “incomprehensible and intimidating” adult court structure for a child of 11 meant that the trial was not a fair one.

The distress that surrounds a crime committed by a supposedly innocent child can create pressure for an unusually harsh sentence. However, such emotion, triggered for example by video evidence of Venables sobbing inconsolably for hours on end, can also create sympathy for excessive lenience. Despite such strong and opposing beliefs founded upon Venables’s and Thompson’s young ages, the legal age for criminal responsibility in England is 10 years old, and psychiatrists ruled that both the children could distinguish between right and wrong. In spite of general cries for vengeance and dismay over the seemingly lenient eight-year sentence, many murderers do not in fact serve much longer, and life sentence is far from the ubiquitous punishment. Although a 10-year-old, according to the legal system and psychiatric analysis, is considered old enough to be responsible, it is also important to consider the purposes of prison: punishment, protection, and rehabilitation. Children have a greater chance of rehabilitation and are also more helplessly embroiled in a traumatic home life (both were from lower-class, violent families) than most criminals. As such, 10-year-olds should face the same trial structure as all criminals, but as with all mitigating factors, their age and social vulnerability should be taken into account.

To this end, the extreme emotions that surround child criminals should not be allowed to impact legal proceedings further. The vengeful desires to know Venables’s crime and identity are unjustified; whether better or worse, the post-adolescent Venables is not the same 10-year-old who was tried 17 years ago. We may have had a right to know Venables’s crime then, but the public no longer has the right to know the details of the rest of his life. Venables’s identity is veiled in order to protect his life, and there is no just reason to change this policy.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether information about Venables’s re-arrest is revealed, it’s uncertain whether a fair trial is possible. Past criminal activity is often pertinent to court cases, and, if the jury learns of his true identity, it seems unlikely that an impartial trial will prevail. According to legal justice, Venables’s previous murder should be taken into account upon new offences but not his shocking age at the time it was committed. The realistic truth is that child criminals shake the bedrocks of society, and typical legal lines don’t necessarily adhere.

Olivia M. Goldhill ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a philosophy concentrator in Kirkland House. Her column appears on alternate Tuesdays.