Notion: Places & Forms of Power
Topic: The James Bulger Case: How it changed the face of youth justice in Britain.
|
|
Pourquoi étudier cette affaire?
Ce fait de société a profondément changé la justice des mineurs au Royaume Uni et a entrainé de nombreux débats parlementaires en ce qui concerne l’éducation, l’autorité scolaire et le rapport des jeunes aux jeux vidéo et autres films violents diffusés à la télévision.
| |||||
1- Introduction: "Children's Reins"
|
Trace écrite rédigée par les TL Spé
On this first document, a child is seen held on what seems like a leash by his mother. Actually it’s not a leash but rather children’s reins which are very mainstream across the UK. They can be used in crowded public places such as landmarks, malls, train stations, streets, airports and so on. They might be seen in theme parks / amusement parks as well. At first glance, we may think that it is a smart idea since it allows the parents to keep an eye on their off-springs so that they don’t get lost nor get abducted. However, I think that I would not do it with my toddlers because it undermines the kids and reduces them to state of pets. Somethings must have happened in Britain to prompt people to use it. |
|
Extrait du livre "Every Mother's Nightmare'
Chapter One
After filling a story from there I took the five minutes’ walk to the Strand Shopping Centre. It was years since I had been there, and I was surprised to find that the drab, run-down precinct I recalled had been refurbished and improved into a typical light, airy modern shopping mall, complete with glasses atriums, potted plants, escalators and top British high street stores like Marks and Spencer and Mothercare.
It was the school half-term holiday week, so I was expecting there to be lots of children milling out. There were very few. Mothers and fathers kept their children in their push-chairs or clutched tightly to their sides. That day, a few toddlers were on reins. These had been fashionable in the 1960s as a way of keeping wandering children in check, but were little used these days. That Monday morning the few shops that still stocked them in Bootle sold out, and found themselves with full order books. By the end of that week, almost every young child you saw was tottering about on the end of a length of sturdy nylon. They were attached to their mothers as surely as if by umbilical cords, and a sharp jerk on the rein ended any notions of striking off in the wrong direction. The children looked a little bewildered at this sudden constraint of their freedom to explore.
Their mothers were grimly resolute, immune to all protests from their offspring. ‘Nobody takes my baby,’ was the message etched clearly in those faces.
Mark Thomas, Every Mother’s Nightmare, 1993
After filling a story from there I took the five minutes’ walk to the Strand Shopping Centre. It was years since I had been there, and I was surprised to find that the drab, run-down precinct I recalled had been refurbished and improved into a typical light, airy modern shopping mall, complete with glasses atriums, potted plants, escalators and top British high street stores like Marks and Spencer and Mothercare.
It was the school half-term holiday week, so I was expecting there to be lots of children milling out. There were very few. Mothers and fathers kept their children in their push-chairs or clutched tightly to their sides. That day, a few toddlers were on reins. These had been fashionable in the 1960s as a way of keeping wandering children in check, but were little used these days. That Monday morning the few shops that still stocked them in Bootle sold out, and found themselves with full order books. By the end of that week, almost every young child you saw was tottering about on the end of a length of sturdy nylon. They were attached to their mothers as surely as if by umbilical cords, and a sharp jerk on the rein ended any notions of striking off in the wrong direction. The children looked a little bewildered at this sudden constraint of their freedom to explore.
Their mothers were grimly resolute, immune to all protests from their offspring. ‘Nobody takes my baby,’ was the message etched clearly in those faces.
Mark Thomas, Every Mother’s Nightmare, 1993
2- Présentation de Bobby & Jon.
Extrait du livre "The Sleep of Reason" by David James Smith (Chapter One)
Télécharger les documents étudiés en cours:
| Chapter One - texte avec questions.pdf |
| Map - Draw the Boys' Journey.pdf |
|
Réponses aux questions D,E,F,G - (1er document ci-dessus).
D. At first glance, they seem rather innocent and angel-like and especially the one with the hair-bowl cut. The second one, whose name is Bobby, looks like a thug – not to say a ‘badass’. Despite their friendly appearance, Jon and Bobby are riot boys and kind of rebels. They are seen as cheeky and reckless little brats. They have a sassy and cocky behavior / demeanor. They used to be disruptive and to sag school. E. The Strand is a big shopping center in Liverpool, in Bootle. Clinton Cards is a shop selling all kind of cards. TJ Hughes is a chocolate shop. Boots is a pharmacy selling also beauty products. F. He asked his friend to take one of Mrs Power’s children / toddlers. ‘These’ refers to the children. He wants to abduct on of the kids. G. Jon and Bobby wants to kidnap a child, to grab the child’s hand to make him follow them. They are trying to lure him away from his mother. |
|
3- Reportage: The James Bulger Case
|
|
Real Crime was a British documentary television series produced by ITV Studios for the ITV network. Each episode examined a notorious crime and included interviews with relatives of the victims.
|
Trace écrite rédigée par les Terminales Spé - Reportage
The document I’ve studied this year/ in class and which I will be dealing with is a five-minute-extract of the TV show « Real Crime » broadcast on a British TV channel. It tackles the well-known James Bulger case which shocked the whole country.
Actually, this case took place in Bootle in the Strand shopping center on Friday 12th February 1993. A young toddler went with his mum Denise on a shopping trip in this mall. At some point, they went to a butcher’s shop. When Denise was paying at the till, James wandered (off) outside. When she turned back, her son was gone. It took only a few seconds. She called the security staff who searched the precinct thoroughly in vain. They contacted the police half an hour later who dispatched a team and launched another search. It didn’t take much time before local journalists became aware of the missing child.
As one of the police officers / constables puts it the initial thought was that James might have hidden in another store. However, those early hopes faded and the police conducted another major search across Bootle.
They decided to use cars with loud speakers to let people know that the child had gone missing. Plus, the family came down to give/lend a hand with the search. Unfortunately, by bedtime they still had no signs of him and this is when the real concerns started to rise. The police spent the whole night looking for James on the CCTV recordings. They came across a frame by frame account of the crucial minutes following the toddler’s disappearance. Indeed, James was spotted on the top floor following two boys. This shot would become the most haunting image of the case : on the blurry CCTV image, James can be made out holding Jon’s hand.
The document I’ve studied this year/ in class and which I will be dealing with is a five-minute-extract of the TV show « Real Crime » broadcast on a British TV channel. It tackles the well-known James Bulger case which shocked the whole country.
Actually, this case took place in Bootle in the Strand shopping center on Friday 12th February 1993. A young toddler went with his mum Denise on a shopping trip in this mall. At some point, they went to a butcher’s shop. When Denise was paying at the till, James wandered (off) outside. When she turned back, her son was gone. It took only a few seconds. She called the security staff who searched the precinct thoroughly in vain. They contacted the police half an hour later who dispatched a team and launched another search. It didn’t take much time before local journalists became aware of the missing child.
As one of the police officers / constables puts it the initial thought was that James might have hidden in another store. However, those early hopes faded and the police conducted another major search across Bootle.
They decided to use cars with loud speakers to let people know that the child had gone missing. Plus, the family came down to give/lend a hand with the search. Unfortunately, by bedtime they still had no signs of him and this is when the real concerns started to rise. The police spent the whole night looking for James on the CCTV recordings. They came across a frame by frame account of the crucial minutes following the toddler’s disappearance. Indeed, James was spotted on the top floor following two boys. This shot would become the most haunting image of the case : on the blurry CCTV image, James can be made out holding Jon’s hand.
4- The Trial (le procès)
After leaving the Strand shopping center, the boys walked across Liverpool for 6 km with James. They were seen by 38 people in the street who thought that James was their younger brother. When the passers-by asked about the bump on James’s forehead, both truants answered that they were taking him to the police station. A few minutes later, they killed him and left the body on the railway tracks. James’s body was found 2 days later on a Sunday (14th February 1993), by two young lads who were playing football.
The Strand CCTV recordings of the two boys were broadcast on TV and made public. The 2 boys were identified by a neighbor who recognized Jon and called the police. The two ten-year-olds were interviewed by the police officers and Jon gave himself away. Indeed he said the opposite of Bobby and affirmed they weren’t in the Strand. He even burst into tears. What is bewildering is that they never referred to James by his name but only as “the baby”.
In November 1993, the boys were found guilty of murder and sentenced to be detained at her Majesty’s pleasure for a minimum of 8 years. They were sent to two different secure children’s units to never meet again.
In 1994, people signed a petition to increase their sentence up to 15 years. It was refused by the European Union which found it unfair for 2 children that age. In 1998, Tony Blair, passed a law to make the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years old. It is one of the lowest in the Western world.
In 2001, Thompson and Venables, were given new identities and released on “life licence”. It means that the terms of their release include the following:
The Strand CCTV recordings of the two boys were broadcast on TV and made public. The 2 boys were identified by a neighbor who recognized Jon and called the police. The two ten-year-olds were interviewed by the police officers and Jon gave himself away. Indeed he said the opposite of Bobby and affirmed they weren’t in the Strand. He even burst into tears. What is bewildering is that they never referred to James by his name but only as “the baby”.
In November 1993, the boys were found guilty of murder and sentenced to be detained at her Majesty’s pleasure for a minimum of 8 years. They were sent to two different secure children’s units to never meet again.
In 1994, people signed a petition to increase their sentence up to 15 years. It was refused by the European Union which found it unfair for 2 children that age. In 1998, Tony Blair, passed a law to make the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years old. It is one of the lowest in the Western world.
In 2001, Thompson and Venables, were given new identities and released on “life licence”. It means that the terms of their release include the following:
- They are not allowed to contact each other or Bulger's family;
- They are not allowed to visit the Merseyside region;
- Curfews may be imposed on them and they must report to probation officers.
|
Documents utilisés et étudiés en cours:
|
|
| ||||
5- The Aftermath - Preface du livre "The Sleep of Reason" publié en 2011
The document under scrutiny is the preface which is some background information about the James Bulger case. The author comes back on the aftermath of the trial. He explains what both murderers became.
A psychiatrist was taking care of Venables and the young lad was said to have made progress in terms of personal development and behavior. Red bank’s medical staff witnessed Venables’ kindness and good demeanor. He was seen as an example for the other disruptive teenagers. This fitted the widely spread thought which used to consider Thompson as the more thuggish and leader of the two. People used to think that Venables was the one who had been led astray.
However, it’s totally the other way round and Jon was the sneakiest of the pair. In 2001, Jon was not considered as a danger nor a threat anymore. This being said, he would feel guilty all his life and the thought would eat him up. The shrinks found out that Thompson had been abused in his childhood. He had trouble turning the leaf and was still struggling with his violent and tormented past. He might have been beaten up by his parents.
Anyway, in2001 they were released and sent to semi-independent flats. The Government also set up a program for them.
Everything went good for Thompson and we have never heard from him again. However, things were more complicated for Venables’ reinsertion. Actually, he was sent back to prison and given a new identity again.
To conclude, we’ll never know what happened and what crossed their minds during the murder of little James. Both boys, may have been victim of child abuse earlier in their life. Investigation still continues today
A psychiatrist was taking care of Venables and the young lad was said to have made progress in terms of personal development and behavior. Red bank’s medical staff witnessed Venables’ kindness and good demeanor. He was seen as an example for the other disruptive teenagers. This fitted the widely spread thought which used to consider Thompson as the more thuggish and leader of the two. People used to think that Venables was the one who had been led astray.
However, it’s totally the other way round and Jon was the sneakiest of the pair. In 2001, Jon was not considered as a danger nor a threat anymore. This being said, he would feel guilty all his life and the thought would eat him up. The shrinks found out that Thompson had been abused in his childhood. He had trouble turning the leaf and was still struggling with his violent and tormented past. He might have been beaten up by his parents.
Anyway, in2001 they were released and sent to semi-independent flats. The Government also set up a program for them.
Everything went good for Thompson and we have never heard from him again. However, things were more complicated for Venables’ reinsertion. Actually, he was sent back to prison and given a new identity again.
To conclude, we’ll never know what happened and what crossed their minds during the murder of little James. Both boys, may have been victim of child abuse earlier in their life. Investigation still continues today
|
Documents téléchargeables:
|
|
| ||||
6- Controversial new motion picture: Detainment (2019)
Pour aller plus loin:
|
|