“The initial issue that needs to be considered concerns the possible risks to the public should Jon be released now. In my opinion, the risks now are so negligible as to not amount to a serious consideration. The main reasons for that view are as follows.
First, Jon’s behaviour during the entire period at Red Bank has never given rise to concerns regarding significant violence to other people. There was only one episode that might give rise to any concern and that involved a rather minor episode of throwing of batteries. That was several years ago. The nine incidents recorded in 1999 nearly all involved swearing or verbally abusive behaviour and none of the incidents gave rise to the need for either restraint or segregation.
Second, especially during the last two years, Jon’s style of interaction with other people (staff and peers) has been harmonious, non-provocative and not attracting provocation from others. Third, Jon’s increasing mobility outside the unit over the last two years has given rise to no concerns . . . about his behaviour. Fourth, there is nothing in Jon’s personality functioning . . . to suggest any risks of violence. Fifth, although the killing of James Bulger was a particularly horrific act, it had not been preceded by any indication of sadistic or violent tendencies to either other people or to animals. Sixth, Jon has made exceptional psychological progress over the last two years, has gained considerable maturity and responsibility, and is realistic in his appraisal of the past, the present and the future. All the evidence with respect to past risk factors, current risk factors, and behaviour during recent years indicates that the risks to the public are so trivial that, strictly in relation to that perspective, immediate release would be justified.”
“First, although the crime was an exceptionally horrific one, it was, perhaps surprisingly, an isolated episode that did not occur in the context of a more prolonged exhibition of violent or sadistic behaviour. Second, the 18-year-old of today is a very different individual from the 10-year-old who committed the crime. Third, from the point of view of Jon Venables’ rehabilitation, the rapid and very substantial progress over the last two years makes it an urgent matter to have an early, and finite, end to the tariff with the question of release being considered in relation to parole in the usual way.”
I conclude that Jon has reached the psychological maturity now to be able to cope with release . . . Jon has had very limited opportunities to exercise responsibility and no opportunities to test his ability to cope when not supervised. In my view, it is an extremely urgent matter to move swiftly to a plan of graded rehabilitation designed to enable him to cope with release . . . It is difficult to put a precise time frame on the process but something of the order of 12 months is likely to be required.”“The changes in Jon’s behaviour since I interviewed in late 1997 are extremely striking. At that time . . . he had made great progress but he was very dependent on staff (so that, for example, he did not want me to interview him without his key worker being present), he readily withdrew into a posture of social anxiety and communicative mumbling in group situations, and he found it quite difficult to talk openly about both the past and future, although he did so with encouragement . . . He is now much more mature, much more forthright and realistic about both the past and the future, much more relaxed in his social interactions, much more insightful into both his own behaviour and the response of others to what had happened, and much more realistic about the remaining tasks to be dealt with. Both Jon and the staff report his marked uncertainty and anxiety with respect to his first forays outside Red Bank, and the huge progress that has been made in gaining confidence in dealing with the outside world . . . He has dealt very well with the range of different outings that have been permitted under the present mobility regulations . . .
“The next question is whether, when Jon is released, it would be appropriate for him to return to his biological family. Clearly it would. Whatever the family difficulties preceding the offence, the family have been quite exceptionally cohesive, supportive and constructively realistic over the whole period of time when Jon has been at Red Bank . . .
Both parents have exhibited strain . . . despite all this, they show every evidence of being strongly, and unequivocally, committed to Jon and utterly realistic in the huge challenges that remain for all of them to deal with in enabling him to be rehabilitated.”
“It is crucial that Jon be able to encounter, and deal with, an increasingly wide range of real life situations requiring responsibility and decision-making and to do so with a carefully graded reduction of supervision. My strong recommendation is that the current requirement of a 2:1 arrangement for mobility outside the immediate local area be withdrawn and replaced by a 1:1 arrangement . . .
It will be necessary . . . to further diminish supervision and then periods of unsupervised activities in the community before total release . . .
Both Jon and his parents have aspirations for him to attend university but his exam record so far, together with the assessments of his educational supervisors . . . indicate that this may prove to be too ambitious. Jon has done exceptionally well, very much to his credit, and further education is both desirable and fully justified. A college placement providing training in information technology would probably be most appropriate in relation to Jon’s skills and interests.”
“Jon has reached an age that is approaching the upper limit for young people normally accommodated at Red Bank. Nevertheless, my strong recommendation is that he should remain there up until the point of his release . . .
The relationships that he has formed with staff provide much the best basis for him to attain independence and autonomy to move into the outside world . . .
Two alternatives need to be considered. The first, that he move to a young offenders’ institution. I can see no advantages in such a move . . . It would undoubtedly make rehabilitation very much more difficult, it would introduce an inappropriate element of punishment in adult life for a crime committed nearly half a lifetime ago (in relation to Jon’s age) and it would introduce the huge risks of placing Jon in a social environment with major risks for pressures for him to engage in both criminal activities and the taking of drugs . . .
In my view . . . this would be a disastrous move that would provide a very major setback to the hugely important gains of the last few years.”
“A more reasonable alternative would be for a move to a residential, custodial, setting that provided a stage between the high security of Red Bank and the total openness of placement in the community.”
“The Jon Venables of today is a very different person to the Jon Venables aged 10. It has been a very important part of his rehabilitation so far that he has come to terms in a wholly realistic way with the awfulness of his behaviour eight years ago . . .
Similarly, I think that it has been very advantageous for him to accept the benefits of going under his own name at Red Bank and having to cope with the reactions of other people to what he did when much younger . . .
At this point, it is crucial for his rehabilitation that he be able to make a clean start. There are no significant risks to the public in his doing that and there are huge benefits to him in being given the opportunity to make a success of such rehabilitation . . .
Of all the risks in relation to his future rehabilitation, those that surround the possibility of identification are the greatest.”
“The last point to consider is the degree of likelihood that Jon could make a successful rehabilitation in order to live independently in the community. The . . . research evidence that is relevant . . . is extremely limited, if only because of the rarity of individuals who kill as children. Nevertheless, for the reasons given in the body of this report, I think that the chances of successful rehabilitation in Jon’s case are very high. That judgment is, however, strictly contingent on it being possible to undertake the process of further rehabilitation along the lines indicated above and on his being protected for the future with respect to identification. If either were not possible, the risks would inevitably be substantially greater — not for further violence of the kind similar to the original crime but rather for social maladaptation and serious psychological difficulties.”
Further reading from the UCC Law society
No comments:
Post a Comment