Jon Venables - Question

So I have been reading up on the latest Jon Venables news and I have a question - I was hoping some of you might be able to clear it up for me.

Basically, whatever he has been arrested for, whether it be violating the rules of his parole, or having pictures of child abuse, the judge/jury/court that try him won't know about his past offence? How is that fair and how is that justice?! He is basically better off than a lot of the criminals in our society who have commited much less serious cases, because he has no criminal record? Don't judges look more kindly when it's a 'first offence'?!

Is that right?

[Modified by: Doris! on 08 March 2010 21:21:55 ]

not even thought of that, this makes me more angry each passing day.

No,because he has rules of parole then this clearly won't be his 1st offence if that makes sense, as otherwise he wouldn't be on parole in the 1st place.

I don't think there are many people who have ever been given completely new identities but I would imagine that there are strict guidelines about their trials should they ever break their agreements.

I don't think previous offences are mentioned in any trial.

It's a law to stop people basically being considered guilty before they are tried - I can't say that it comforts me as I have no criminal record, but it's good to protect those who may have been picked up for a crime they didn't commit and do have a criminal past they are trying to get away from.

The question is that is it more important to protect people from this happening and ensure a totally fair trial, or is it better to make sure that people like this are judged properly within context? It's tricky. Is it better to accidentally convict an innocent man or to let a gulty man go free?

I also don't think many judges look kindly on pedophiles for first offences!

Mrs Dee - no longer to be there have only ever been 4 cases of new identities, venables and thompson, maxine carr and mary bell

I saw some of replies on the john venables / jamie bulger murderer thread, so was a bit worried on answering this for fear of being lynched...

I never thought of that Doris, if he has a trial under the 'new' identity they will not know of his past as JV... I'm with MrsB - It makes me really angry, that poor little boy.. god bless you Jamie... and his poor mother, it must be like reliving it all again.

I doubt we will ever find out what's really happened though.

Not thought of that either - not sure of the regs but if that the case sounds very unfair.

He should be tried under his name for sure...

i thought it would be the jury wouldnt know his past offences so they dont find him guilty imedietly (as we all would) but the judge would know for sentencing. Thats what I took from it.

You are only punished once for each crime. He has received his punishment for what he did to James Bulger. Therefore when he is tried for whatever he has done now, no one should know what he did before because he'll be receiving a double punishment for it. Its not fair and its not justice to be punished more than once for what you've done, the court/jury should give you an appropriate punishment the first time round, not punish you later on for something you have been tried for previously.

PS this is not my personal view, its just how it works, my h2b is a criminal lawyer!

His previous offences wont be known about if he ios tried under his new identity.

When a person is on trial for any offence though, the court will make a decision on whether or not it is necessary for the jurors to know about previous offences on a case by case basis. It is not just something that a jury will get told.

The jury won't be told of past offences because they are there to judge the facts of that particular case. The judge will know, and will be able to take it into account in his sentencing decision.

i think he should be tried under his original name too... okay so imagine you had comitted this AWFUL crime and you got given a 2nd chance at life... surely you wouldn't break the law again, not even a tiny offence i'm sorry but you would have thought if he was actually remoursful then he would be squeaky clean for the rest of his life out of respect and to prove he was really sorry for what he had done. it looks like he hasn't learnt anything.

The way I understand it, *if* he is back in prison for violating his parole conditions (also known as a licence) he will not be tried, he will have to serve the rest of his sentence.
If it's a 'new' offence, not relating to the conditions of his parole, and he pleads not guilty, he will be on trial. Past offences are taken into account where trials are concerned.

Apologies if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me!

Edited to add: I think past offences are taken into account if they relate to the offence the person has been charged with.

[Modified by: Mrs_MTL on March 08, 2010 09:35 PM]

A jury should never know of previous offences in case people "assume" that someone is guilty because they have a criminal record. The judge would know at sentencing and I'm guessing this is the same. I think, though I could be wrong, that if you are found guilty of an offence when on parole that the years of your previous sentence that you didn't serve can be added on to the new sentence.

Not 100% sure on any of that though.

He is no longer jon venables, so when hes in that court room, he could be anything...Its so so so wrong, why should he be protected ESPECIALLY if he has been looking at child pornography or worse? This country is so messed up