Few images are etched as deeply on the public consciousness as those of the Merseyside toddler James Bulger walking through a shopping mall, hand in hand with one of two older boys - led away to his death. It was a moment in the life of Britain, and many other countries besides, that seemed to crystalise an oft-expressed feeling that in urban society at the end of the 20th century something had been lost - a shared sense of community and humanity, a sense that people looked after each other and looked out for each other. Here was an instance when, in broad daylight, evil stalked and struck. In an instant, James Bulger, just two years old, became everyone's child. The manner of his death traumatised all the more: he did not just die - he was beaten, pelted with bricks, bludgeoned with an iron bar, stripped of his clothes, mutilated and left lying across a railway track, discarded like a rag doll. As he went to his death, his distress was noticed by several adults but the two boys with him convinced concerned questioners that everything was all right.
If the details of James Bulger's abduction and murder were not sufficiently horrific, when it emerged that his killers were themselves mere children - Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were just 10 years old at the time - the horror seemed all the more ghastly. A lengthy period of debate and introspection in Britain failed to produce any convenient explanation for their awful crime. Not all children from dysfunctional families become child killers. Not all children who watch unsuitable and violent videos turn into murderers. But the crime had one lasting effect: it prompted an unseemly chorus for revenge against Thompson and Venables. The official expression of this was the intervention by the then Home Secretary, Mr Michael Howard, who decreed, contrary to the decision of the trial judge, that the two should serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. That move was eventually struck down by the House of Lords and later criticised by the European Court of Human Rights.
More of the same was heard yesterday, after the decision of the Parole Board to release Thompson and Venables on licence for life, having served eight years in secure units. Understandably, the parents of James Bulger are distraught by the imminent release of his killers. For them, there can be no release from pain. But they will not be helped by those who see the main function of the justice system in this case as that of extracting revenge and whose shrill demands will be heard elsewhere today.
Thompson and Venables are now 18 years old. Each has effectively grown up in youth custody. The decision to release them was taken not by the British government but by an independent board, chaired by a senior high court judge, and including a consultant psychiatrist and an experienced lay member. They heard evidence from expert witnesses, as well as from others who argued that the two should not be freed. The criteria applied by the board related to whether either youth was likely to offend again, whether either was a danger to the public. In other words, the proper authority - reflecting, in its composition, justice, medicine and common sense - studied both youths and concluded they were rehabilitated. Therefore, beyond a thirst for a longer period in custody, the Parole Board decided that nothing was to be served by keeping them in custody any longer. There, the matter should rest.