Conclusion of Research

 What have I learnt?

I first learnt about the facts of the case and how both boys behaved in the interviews. This behaviour became extremely useful when then evaluating how guilty and innocent suspects behaved in interviews. I then looked at the trial of the offenders; however this was linked to the facts of the case. After this, I looked at the judicial reports over the constant variation in the sentence of both offenders. This provided me with the first thought that the sentence wasn't just and fair as the Home Secretary overstepped his jurisdiction by altering the sentence.                                                                                                             The next part of my research focused on the morals and ethics of the case. After the research, I felt as though the 2 offenders should have received a much higher sentence than they did, as morally they were able to back out of the offence before killing James. This then led me onto the Nature v Nurture debate (this occurred before the morals and ethics research). This allowed me to look at if it was the background of the offenders or their genetics and DNA that caused them to behave in that particular way. The final part of my research looked at the behaviour of the offenders in interviews, and how that would match to those who were either innocent or guilty. This further made me feel as though the sentence was too lenient as both boys knew exactly what they were doing and what they did. The very last part of research I did was looking at if any outlying factors affected the case, why and the effect it had. From this, I concluded that public opinion affected the politician's view and way they managed the case for re-election. This then led to the home secretary altering the sentence to reflect the punitive approach that was being adopted. 

What is my judgement?

Overall, I can split my judgement on the case into 2 factors- legally fair or publicly fair. 

Legally fair- overall I believe the sentence was not legally fair as the home secretary got involved by altering the tariff, meaning the separation of powers was compromised. 

Publicly fair- overall, I believe that the sentence was not publicly fair as Venables has gone onto prove he is a danger to society, so should have gone onto receive a higher sentence first off to prevent his future offending. However, Thompson has gone onto prove that rehabilitation is effective when used correctly and when the offender wants to change.  

Self-reflection:

Although in my last reflection I aimed to get my research completed by Christmas, I had examinations and personal issues occurring which meant my project had to take a back seat. However, I will now look at the best possible method of publishing my research and any extras I need to look at with that method. I am aiming to get this done by Easter 2022.