This article first appeared  in the Irish News on 11/01/01 

Obscurity recognises the shame 

Jude  Collins 

Say the name 'James Bulger' and  chances are you'll provoke a shudder in your listener. There's something deeply horrible about the way in which that two-year-old was taken by the hand, led from  a shopping centre and beaten to death. The fact that the 1993 murder was perpetrated by a pair of 10-year-olds, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables,  adds to the smell of evil. In its motivation and execution the crime seemed to  mock the innocence of childhood. And now, this week, an English judge, one Dame  Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has ruled that when Bulger's killers leave prison, as they  soon will, their anonymity should be protected for the rest of their20 lives. 

The judge did so because she fears  that James's family or friends might attack Thompson and Venables, if they could  establish their identity and location. James Bulger's mother voiced the  instinctive reaction of a lot of people to the judgement: "It makes my blood  run cold to think they are being patted on the back and rewarded after the cruel,  premeditated murder they carried out." But are Thompson and  Venables uniquely evil? Are ten-year-olds who take human life any more horrible  or culpable than adults who do the same? The answer is a firm No. In fact,  Thompson and Venables's tender age at the time of the murder might be cited as  reason for being more forgiving. We don't let 10-year-olds vote or drive a car or  serve in the army. That's because 10-year-olds aren't judged sufficiently mature  to handle the responsibility involved in these activities. In most other  European countries, Thompson and Venables wouldn't even have been brought to rial, because they'd have been below the age of criminal responsibility. 

Mark  Wright and James Fisher weren't 10 when they took a young life in 1992. They  were 18 [and 21], Scots Guardsmen serving in Belfast. The life they took was  that of Peter McBride, a young man of their own age. When Wright and Fisher left  prison after six years, the question arose as to what should become of them.  The crustier depths of the British establishment, led by the Tory press,  declared that they should be received back into the British army with  understanding and affection. Their action in shooting dead McBride was taken in the heat  of the moment by young lads who thought their lives were in danger. No matter  that the judge in their case had declared the pair liars and guilty of murder.  And no need to conceal their identity or whereabouts either. They were brave  boys, and the British army received them back. When last heard of, they had moved  from the Scots Guards to the Irish Guards (no, I don't understand it either) and  were labouring in the cause of peace in some foreign field. 

Now, if someone  asked what they thought of the murder of James Bulger, I've no doubt the same  crusty British establishment would declare the Merseyside killing foul and  disgusting. Which is odd. Because if you or I were asked "Which should be more responsible for their actions, a pair of 10-year-olds or a pair of 18-year-olds?" we'd point immedia-tely to the 18-year-olds. And if  it were asked "Which should be more ashamed of taking an innocent life, a  couple of disturbed school-children or a couple of soldiers charged with  protecting people?" we'd most likely point to the soldiers. However repulsive the killing of  young Bulger, Thompson and Venables at least weren't acting in direct contravention to  the role they'd been assigned by society. But what about the claim Wright  and Fisher's lives were in danger and they were defending themselves? 

Well,  if you still don't know the answer to that one, maybe you should stop reading  here and go on to the sports page. As one neutral commentator pointed out  recently: the court evidence showed that McBride had just been searched and found to  be unarmed, was some 70 metres from the two soldiers and running when they  shot him in the back and killed him. Peter McBride's mother saw her son reach his  late teens before he was murdered; James Bulger's mother saw her little boy's  life end at two. Cold comfort, I should think, for Mrs McBride. "It makes my blood run cold to  think they are being patted on the back and rewarded after the cruel, premeditated  murder they carried out." If you didn't know, you'd be hard  put to say which mother was speaking. Had Wright and Fisher been given a new  identity on their release, or slipped into obscurity, it would have indicated that  British authorities sensed the loathing felt for the killers by the McBride mily and decent people. 

But that didn't happen. Instead, the unreconstructed British establishment sang the praises of the murderous  pair. 
Shame? What shame? After all,  McBride was Irish, wasn't he? 

email: judejcollins@hotmail.com