A Report On Jon Venables And Robert Thompson After Being Set Free To Lead A Normal Lives Sample College Essay

On the afternoon of February 12, 1993, in a shopping centre in Merseyside in north-western England, just outside of Liverpool), two ten-year-olds took two-year-old James Bulger and a long walk which ended his life. Eight years after the horrific murder of James Bulger, the two culprits Jon Venable and Robert Thompson have been set free with new identities to lead normal lives. This has brought up a number of questions some of which are.

.. ‘Was justice served on behalf of James Bulger?’ and ‘Will the two young men Jon Venable and Robert Thompson be able to led real free lives?’The report from The Sunday Times and that from The Mail On Sunday about the characters of Jon Venable and Robert Thompson are very similar. They are similar in the sense that they both highlight the same aspects of the two young men’s characters.

In both reports, reference is made to the failure of both boys to be able to interact well with the public. The reports also highlight the insecurity and fearfulness in both Venables and Thompson; both of then are afraid of being discovered at some point and the retribution they will face if they are discovered.The two articles also make a particular reference to the academic performances of both boys. This portrays the two as hard working and able men, which is a boost of their characters.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are also shown to have a conscience which is not so clear and is where the delicate part of their characters is shown; where Venable became suicidal when jeered at in the street and Thompson feeling that he deserved to die.The imagery used in the Sunday Times and that of the Mail On Sunday can be said to be relatively opposites. While the stereotype image of evil; the expressionless piercing eyes, is used by the Sunday Times to portray the two young killers; Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the imagery used in the Mail On Sunday shows the image of the two scared innocent looking children who are being scolded for a mischief.The imagery used by the Sunday Times to portray the two boys reflects their views of the now grown men; Jon Venable and Robert Thompson.

They probably see these two young men as men that cannot be trusted and may pose a danger to the community. The heading which stands out boldly from the rest of the page; “MASKED MEN”, portrays Jon Venable and Robert Thompson as criminal (‘masked men’ first brings to mind armed robbers). It can also portray the two as people in hiding. Both of the above statements are in a way portrayed in the caption below the picture of the two young murders; ‘criminals’ can be linked to ‘scrutiny for life.

… and killers of the toddler James.

…’ and ‘in hiding’ can be linked with ‘ever fearful of discovery.

… and violent retribution’.

The second image down shows the viewer the deception that Jon Venables especially and Robert Thompson are capable of accomplishing. Taking advantage of James Bulger’s innocence they lure him away from the supermarket while holding his hands with ease like a familiar person. This image can also portray to the reader how very easily these two young murderers can deceive the public and all that come in their was of the guilt which they now feel.The final image in the Sunday Times shows the face of the ‘unforgiving’ mother of James Bulger, whom from the caption below; “advisers want James to move on” it tells the reader that she still has not been able to move on form the horrible past.

The picture shows the sad and yet angry face of a mother who lost her three-year-old son to the cruelty of two bloodthirsty boys.The main picture in the Mail on Sunday shows the opposite of that in the Sunday Times. In this picture, Jon Venable and Robert Thompson are shown as two innocent looking children acquiring a criminal record. In this imagery, the there is no portrayal of danger or wickedness at all, only a portrayal of innocence.

The effect this picture has on the reader is bringing doubt into the readers mind, “they look so innocent, maybe they did not know what they were doing” this is a statement that could easily be made by a person with very limited information on the murder of the toddler James Bulger.The next images all clustered together tell of the past joys and the present pain, anger and hatred. The past is shown here as full of joy, and is labelled “Happy Memories..

.” The present is the direct opposite. The faces of both parents of James Bulger are filled with pain, dissatisfactory, and hatred for the two young men who murdered their beloved son. While Denise Bulger asks for justice for her dead son, her formal husband asks in disgust if his son’s murderers were taken to James’ grave.

In both reports we see images of the past and of the present, the past having both good and bad memories but the present holding only pain, anguish and no forgiveness what so ever.The main images in both the Sunday Times and the Mail On Sunday as a whole bring to mind the questions, “Innocence or Evil?” ” Cured men or Danger to society?” I think what the Sunday Times and the Mail On Sunday are trying to achieve is to make the reader decide for themselves if Jon Venable and his companion in crime, Robert Thomson hold pose as a treat to anybody else’s life and if justice was serviced. Both reports however do not show any signs of taking sides or making judgements of their own.One other question the Sunday Times wants the reader to decide whether Jon Venable and Robert Thompson will ever be really free despite their release.

In the report Jon Venables first lawyer; ” ….

..The strain will be too much. The boys may be at liberty, but they will never be free.

” Even at this stage, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are said to be paranoid about their true identity being discovered, with Jon Venables becoming nervous whenever he heard a Liverpool accent and Robert Thompson having already suffered an attack of paranoia about being recognised while on a visit to the supermarket. The two are also known to turn of the television set whenever their stories are mentioned.The Mail on Sunday to describes Robert Thompson’s and Jon Venables’ future life to some extent. The report mainly talks are the lack of privacy the two young men will be facing in their new life.

While the police will be closely monitoring to the extent that they will both remain on licence for life, which in itself is a constant reminder to them of their past lives, they will also have to live with the fear of being recognised by the public. This fear is not only shared by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, but also by even the Senior Home Office Officials. The public pose as a great treat to Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. This is evident from statement made by James Bulger’s father, Ralph Bulger, ” ……..anonymous phone calls from people claiming to represent terrorist organisations, military groups and hardened criminals…………they have all claimed that they will find these two and kill them upon release…….”.Personally I do not think everyone should be able to live with such a horrific stain on his or her conscience, however some people are able to just erase every incident they wish not to remember and get on with their lives, some do not even have a conscience, and who is to say that Jon Venables and Robert Thompson cannot choose to wipe their minds clear of the incident which happened nine years ago?

Beowulf Vs. James Bond

Both the timeless saga of Beowulf and the long-standing film franchise of “James Bond” have endured the test of time, with their stories transcending generations and undergoing various adaptations.

Both Beowulf and James Bond resemble each other in multiple aspects. Similar to Beowulf, the character James Bond, known as agent 007, embarks on numerous journeys and his missions often have significant consequences for a nation. Just like Beowulf, James Bond also travels extensively to fulfill his objectives. In Beowulf’s case, he undertakes a long journey to assist a nation in winning their war, as mentioned in the line, “To anyone in Denmark. All of Beowulf’s Band had jumped from their beds, Ancestral; Swords raised and ready” (Beowulf, lines 316-318).

Beowulf and James Bond both demonstrate their loyalty and good intentions in their respective missions. Beowulf, seeking to prove his loyalty to Denmark and the race of men, earns the trust of the Danish people who rely on his decisions. Similarly, James Bond, an agent for the British secret service, continually safeguards the world from destruction by travelling to various nations and thwarting evil organizations. One such instance involves the theft of a Soviet Lektor decoding machine by both the British and the nefarious S. P. organization.

E. C. T. R.

E. re both out to retrieve it and it’s up to James Bond to get it first” (Alan, Resident James Bond Scholar; allwatchers. com). Like Beowulf, James Bond is a hero who is not well noticed by common men but is never forgotten by those few who meet him.

Furthermore, both Beowulf and Bond travel extensively to fulfill their initial goals. In the ancient epic, Beowulf is described as “dead on the sand, their bold; Ring-giver resting in his lat bed; He’d reached the end of his days, their mighty; War-king, the great lord of the Geats,” (Beowulf, lines 866-869). Even in his dying moments, Beowulf aids Wiglaf in battle to ensure the well-being of his people. Similarly, Bond ventures to various countries and successfully accomplishes his missions while never wavering in his allegiance to Britain. The act of traversing great distances is an integral part of both men’s journeys, vital for their ultimate fulfillment.

The “James Bond” series centers around a British Intelligence operative who protects multiple nations, including his own, from impending defeat. Similarly, Beowulf assists the Geats in achieving triumph in their battles. In the film “The World is Not Enough,” James Bond’s assignment involves retrieving a Global Positioning Satellite device that has the potential to cause an armed conflict between the United States and China. Since Britain is an ally of the US, James Bond goes to great lengths to prevent this catastrophe and ensure America’s safety. Despite the immense efforts exerted in recovering the device, Britain may not receive much recognition as James Bond is merely fulfilling his duty.

Additionally, Beowulf, a Geat, assists his people by defeating the dragon who guards the treasure and saving his comrades. He proclaims, “‘I have never known fear; in my youth, I engaged in countless battles. Even though I am now old, if the dragon residing in his fortress dares to confront me, I will continue to fight and seek glory’” (lines 607-611). In contrast to Beowulf, James Bond is constantly replaced by new actors to ensure his immortality and faces numerous life-threatening situations all for the sake of patriotism. Despite being abandoned by the Geats to meet his demise, Beowulf remains loyal as he is an extraordinary hero.

Beowulf and James Bond are both powerful figures who use their authority to aid other nations. The timeless theme of “good vs. evil” has been depicted since before Beowulf’s time and continues to be a prevalent storyline in numerous movies, plays, and books. In the narrative of Beowulf, Grendel represents evil, originating from a supernatural lineage, as expressed in the quote: “He was spawned in that slime, Conceived by a pair of those monsters born; Of Cain, murderous creatures banished” (Beowulf, lines 19-23).

Beowulf is introduced in the story to eliminate evil. Only someone with good intentions can defeat Grendel. The origin of Grendel’s evil is incomprehensible to humans, but it adds a supernatural aspect to the battle and establishes a timeless conflict between good and evil. Similarly, James Bond consistently prevails in his missions because good always triumphs. In Alec Trevelyan’s words, “Well done, good job, but sorry, old boy, everything you risked your life and limb for has changed.” James Bond replies, “It was the job we were chosen for.”

Alec Trevelyan taunts James Bond, referring to him as “her majesty’s loyal terrier” and the “defender of the so-called faith” (Goldeneye). In the film Goldeneye, Bond is confronted with Trevelyan, a former ally who has betrayed England and now works for evil. This betrayal stems from Trevelyan’s blind desire for revenge, a motive that Bond must combat. Despite both Beowulf and Bond being fighters against evil, they employ different styles and approaches. Beowulf is described as an angry and commanding leader, brandishing his sword and unleashing a powerful battle cry that resonates far and wide (Beowulf, lines 645-647).

Beowulf, an epic war hero, rallied many timid men into battle. Despite playing a solitary role, James Bond’s achievements remain equally significant. These two heroes engage in different games but ultimately achieve the same outcome: good triumphs even when the hero falters. Over time, individuals have enjoyed reading the stories of epic heroes.

Both James Bond and Beowulf are prime examples of beloved characters who will endure through time, their stories possessing immeasurable worth. Each character captivates readers with their captivating adventures, ensuring their appeal for generations to come.

The Authority Conflict: Machiavelli And Martin Luther

Machiavelli and Martin Luther were two of the most profound and controversial historians of the sixteenth century. In The Prince, Machiavelli advocated unconventional measures and instructed the rulers of politically unstable Italy on gaining absolute power and setting aside moral values.

Luther’s On Christian Liberty considers the corruption of the Holy Roman Church and promotes the split of the secular from the spiritual. He instilled complete authority in the word of God.When comparing the different solutions concerning the problem of authority proposed by these pragmatists in the sixteenth century, it is evident that they agreed to some extent on the evil nature of human beings; however, their concepts of virtue were unique and their solutions were targeted to engage and gain support from different groups and figures of authority. Machiavelli and Luther used separate approaches and had different motives for conveying a similar message about human nature; people are inherently bad.

Mankind is more prone to evil than he is to good (Taylor 23).They both agreed that men initially concern themselves with one another as means to satisfy their own desires. Luther quoted Galatians 5:17, “for the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh,” to show the struggles men face upon attempting to act moral and righteous (Luther, 4). While Machiavelli described this evil characteristic of mankind as essential to get ahead of others and hold a position of authority, Luther considered it a problem that must be resolved by believing in Christ alone.

Machiavelli had no notion of human development or progress in pursuit of ends ordained by God or by nature, and he did not condemn the Church because it strayed from the path of righteousness, as did Luther, but because it was not practical (Femia 39). Machiavelli thought that Italian society could not flourish if citizens embodied traditional Christian virtues of humility and passivity. Pursuing an image of human excellence would cause good men to fall prey to others. He considered sin a political error that occurred when rulers tried to follow Christian ethics and the circumstance at hand required ruthlessness or deception (41).

Machiavelli and Luther agreed that people are governed by an evil natural necessity, but the former was against thwarting these desires, while the latter believed it was necessary to accept Christ and earn the grace that turns one virtuous. Though he did recognize the importance of, and therefore promote, morals, ethics, and religious convictions in order to keep the people under control, Machiavelli thought that the ruler himself was under no obligation to live by these same morals.The ruler was duty-bound to act on whatever was necessary to keep and extend his power. Alternatively, Luther endorsed combating the evil nature of mankind and maintaining a strong spiritual side to resist temptation.

He believed that faith would enlighten man on all things in him that are blameworthy, sinful, and damnable (Luther 8). While Luther thought achieving inner goodness through faith alone could achieve eternal salvation and counteract the evil nature instilled in mankind, Machiavelli focused on the external appearance of one’s character.He said that if a prince set about the task of maintaining his state, then he will be universally praised and the common people will be impressed, even if he dishonorably achieves this success (Machiavelli 58). Morality is obtained when man wishes to be, not only appears to be, what others think he is.

His motives must be pure and transparent. Machiavelli states it the other way around, whereas Luther strives for Christian morality that demands doing the right thing for the right reason. Corresponding with their notions of morality and human nature are their concepts of virtue and its separation from the conventional definition.Machiavelli’s pamphlet is well-known for abandoning the traditional meaning of virtue as the quality of doing what is “right” and avoiding what is “wrong”, and associating it with the maintenance and improvement of ones power.

George Bull uses the word ‘prowess’ to capture the concepts of potency, efficiency, and ability that Machiavelli attributed to the word. Virtue is generally employed in The Prince to mean an exceptional capacity for the kind of action that brings success in military and civic affairs, which will in turn allow the prince to maintain control.He illustrates his concept of virtue when he recommends that a ruler know how to suppress his human nature and assume the characteristics of a beast. “The lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against wolves; therefore, [a prince] must be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves” (Machiavelli 56).

He used symbolism of the fox and bear to represent deceptiveness and strength or brutality, respectively. In his view it is legitimate and necessary for a prince to deceive his adversaries and employ violence against them if the state will benefit.He referred to Alexander VI, a pope whom possessed Machiavelli’s virtue, as an example showing the successfulness of being deceptive. “[Alexander’s] deceptions always had the result he intended, because he was a past master in the art” (57).

Though Machiavelli used ironic characteristics to illustrate his ideal of virtue, he did exclude from the definition anything that Christians would have considered morally wicked behavior. He wrote, “It cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious (29).He does recommend to the ruler generally admirable things; however his conception of virtue is rooted in his appetite for power and the idea of getting power by any means. While Machiavelli’s definition of virtue was intended to teach people to rule, Luther’s was aimed at reforming society and accepting the government without reducing Christ’s authority.

Instead of ignoring the moral connotation and subverting the Christian ideal of virtue as did Machiavelli, Luther used it conventionally. He recognized the importance of theological virtues like faith, hope, and charity in Christians, so that they act well and rightly.Since Luther believed in the authority of the textual scriptures and God’s word, he would have been opposed to Machiavelli’s definition of virtue that was based on man having the ability and means to disregard morals and gain power. Throughout On Christian Liberty Luther discussed the necessity of laws.

The laws are essential so that those who lack virtue and ethics are compelled to act rightly as well; however, the laws established by princes, kings, lords, and the government do not suffice for replacing Christ’s word.The aforementioned philosophies of Machiavelli and Luther are several attributing factors to the different kinds of authority that each man favored and addressed in his pamphlet. Machiavelli was willing to support any government that would defend Florentine independence and act as a positive force in the unification of Italy (Femia 12). He dedicated The Prince to the Medici lords in hopes that they might employ him; therefore, his work is most likely tailored to appeal to an authoritarian ruler.

However, this pamphlet proved to be self-defeating in terms of the career that Machiavelli sought to revive. He did not explicitly state what the ideal prince and principality was, but explained what actions and qualities enabled a prince to best rule a certain principality. He was clearly opposed to the antics of the papacy, which caused rejection from popes and clerical authority. Though his work was extremely controversial at the time of its publication, many tyrants throughout history have acknowledged this treatise and its contents (Rudowski 10).

Because The Prince condoned the use of unethical acts on behalf of a higher political goal it is plausible that it appealed to and affected more recent tyrants like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or even Sadam Hussein. It would have contributed to their dominions by enabling the followers to overlook the immoral deeds of their leaders. Luther’s argument was controversially equivalent to Machiavelli’s. He placed the authority of the Bible above that of the Pope.

According to Luther the scriptures provided the sole and authoritative source of truth.By removing the seat of religious authority from the Church to the Christian consciousness, Luther’s pamphlet established a new conception of religion (Davies 39). He also believed that the Word of God demanded complete submission in affairs of State. Princes and rulers, who held authority over all men, are subjected to God’s word, but this recognition of secular authority over man did gain support from the government.

In On Christian Liberty, Luther prohibited the rebellion of citizens against the government under any circumstance.He said, “Christians should be subject to the governing authorities and be ready to do every good work…

hat in the liberty of the Spirit they shall by so doing serve others and the authorities themselves and obey their will freely and out of love” (Luther 58). The only exception to this rule was if the government interfered with religious matter, and then the subject could only disobey on right grounds, still submitting to the Word of God. Though these two contemporaries used distinctly different approaches to discuss the problem of conflicting authorities in 16th century Europe, they each impacted politics, religion, and thought on levels that have had lasting effects on society today.Machiavelli’s principles of gaining power and authority can be applied in various fields of the modern world.

Five hundred years after its introduction, the “Machiavellian” style of leadership, with its deceiving and dishonest connotation, is still used to get ahead in politics and business. Luther’s notions sparked the Protestant Reformation, a testament to the impact of his ideas. The authority that he instilled in the Scripture and the morals and obedience that he promoted are responsible for the religious freedom, individual rights, and protection from central control that we enjoy today.