Revival of past memories

The case, currently prominent in the British press, of the child-killer of a child in 1993 who has for unexplained reasons been returned to prison after ten years of freedom, raises questions and cause for thought.  Here are a few of my ponderings.

The implied suggestion is that he has shown himself to be, potentially or actually, a danger to the public still. After many years of intensive therapy and education, does this mean that rehabilitation for someone like him cannot succeed? If so, is he evil? Is he a "lost soul"? What does this mean?

For his own protection he was given a new identity many years ago, and it is likely he will need to be given another identity because of the public interest and the near-impossibility of maintaining his anonymity. So, a young man may have lived as three different people in the space of nearly thirty years.  His childhood roots have been denied him and the life that was created to help him integrate back into society may be taken from him also.  Many of us struggle with identity problems to a certain degree, but for most of us they are nothing compared to this extra-ordinary situation. Imagine it.....

The story of Jon Venables is seen in black and white terms by many.  Some believe he should be locked up forever, others feel pity for him. It may be that being in prison is what will give him the greatest peace.  He has been used to a disciplined life after ten years growing up with a dominant mother and then eight years in a secure children's unit. Freedom, albeit on licence, may have been too much for him.

We know very little about the facts of the case or about him now, and I try not to judge or presume. I believe more details will come forward - sadly for him and his family - but we will never know everything.  The public discussion has revived the horror of the murder and the debate about human nature and behaviour which raged in 1993. There is nothing wrong with the latter, but I would prefer it if it were objective, as far as possible, and not personalised, particularly when it condemns on flimsy evidence.