On the twelfth of February 1993 a young boy named James Bulger, was abducted from a mall in Liverpool by a pair of two 10 year old children and was brutally murdered by them. This murder sent a shockwave throughout Britain and the whole world. (Fergus) People questioned, how can such a crime be done by such young Children? Many people blamed these children's upbringing but the finger always rests with the criminal even though their upbringing might have contributed. These juveniles went through a series of trials which ended with the decision of Lord Woolf (Britain's most important judge) on the twenty sixth of October 2000 (7 ½ years later). He ruled that they should be considered for immediate parole (Fergus). This decision sent another shockwave in the UK as many believed that these killers should be locked up for life. .
Fergus, James's mother set up a website on the World Wide Web to discuss the injustice of the decision. The release of these two boys is complete injustice from her point of view; she urges the public to speak out against such unreasonable decisions and try to reverse the ruling. Many opposing articles were published, one of which was titled "Free Bulger's killers - for James's Sake- by Angela Neustatter. This article discusses the disadvantages of keeping the two boys in prison. Releasing them, in her opinion, wouldn't necessarily give them freedom as the definition states. Both texts agree that the murder of James Bulger "in cold blood- was very brutal and horrific, but they disagree about the retribution. Neustatter seems to want to protect murderers, which isn't ethically or morally correct. She argues that these killers should be re-released back into the community. As a result they could find more potential victims to kill this is because the boys might not be fully or even slightly rehabilitated. On the other hand Fergus implies that we should lock up such killers and make our world a safer and better place to live in.