The Bulger family was from my home town of Kirkby, and I was at school with James' fathers cousin. The main issue for the family and those with an intimate vicarious involvement is not whether the death penalty should be employed, but why when being held 'at Her Majesty's pleasure', the Thompson and Venables creatures were released as soon as they reached adulthood. The term 'at Her Majesty's pleasure' is employed where the Home Secretary has been personally involved in the sentencing of an individual. Is is wrong therefore for the length of sentence to reflect public opinion? While the Home Secretary is a member of an elected body, shouldn't his decisions reflect the feelings of the electorate? The 'bleeding heart liberals' would have us believe that the safe return to society of these criminals holds more ethical importance than the loss of one innocent life. To return freedom to these murderers devalues not only life itself, but each and every one of those people who consent to it. A4Ever said: Children are not trialed as adults, cause they are not capable of taking full responsibility for their actions. But went on to say that lawyers can only act within the law. The Law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland specifies that the age for criminal responsibility may be as young as ten years old, but not more than fourteen years. If they were judged to be responsible immediatly after the fact, then how can that judgement not still stand? If the were guilty and committed the acts (including inserting batteries into James) at the lowest end of the range of criminal responsibility, what will they be capable of in adulthood?