Lately, in Thinking Skills, we have been working with cases and we have tried to solve them logically. This week, we were assigned to make a reasoned argument about the Murder of James Bulger. In order to make one, we should analyse the evidence by separating it in: Corroborative and Conflictive Evidence, Balance, weight and quality of evidence- all in all they lead to the final judgement or conclusion.
The case
The murder On February 12, 1993, two ten-year-old boys from Merseyside murdered a two-year-old named James Bulger. They took him to a stretch of railway line, kicked him, and hit him with bricks and an iron bar. They then laid the dying boy across the tracks in the hope that a passing train would run over him and his death would appear an accident.
The social and family background
The two boys had troubled backgrounds. One was abandoned by his father five years previously. His mother was a heavy drinker and had problems controlling her seven children. The children were constantly fighting. Notes from an NSPCC conference stated that they “bit, hammered, battered and tortured each other”. The mother and one of the children had both attempted suicide.
The second boy’s parents were also separated. He lived with his father two days a week and the rest of the time,with his mother. He was hyperactive and had attempted to strangle another boy in a fight at school. His mother was severely depressed and had suicidal tendencies.
Both families lived in poverty. Both boys were neglected by their parents and resented their brothers and sisters.Both had been put back a year at school and frequently truanted (guardian.co.uk; wikipedia.org).
The press campaign
At the time of the murder, the Daily Mail had been conducting a campaign against “video nasties”-violent horror films which they claimed had a harmful effect on children. During the boys’ trial, the judge mentioned that the stepfather of one of the boys had a collection of violent videos. The judge stated, “I suspect that exposure to violent films may in part be an explanation”.
This remark started a campaign of moral outrage against video nasties in the tabloid press. Let by the Sun and the Daily Mail, they claimed that the boys had been watching violent horror videos when they were bunking off school. They reported that the stepfather of one of the boys had rented a copy of Child’s Play 3 a week before the murder. The film featured Chucky, the child-killing doll. The Sun explicitly stated that the boys had watched Child’s Play 3 before the murder. And the Sun and other tabloids claimed that there were significant similarities between scenes in the film and the killing of James Bulger. From this, they concluded that Child’s Play 3 played a major part in the murder.
Child’s Play 3 was denounced as “sick”, “evil”, “disgusting” and “immoral”. Headlines in the tabloids included: BANCHUCKY NOW; DOES CHUCKY LEAD TO MURDER?; FOR THE SAKE OF ALL OUR KIDS BURN YOUR VIDEO NASTY.Copies of Child’s Play 3 were withdrawn from many video shops. Azad Video, Scotland’s largest video renting chain, burned 300 copies of Child’s Play 3. Xtra-Vision, the Irish Republic’s biggest video chain, withdrew Child’s Play 3 from its shelves (the Sun, 26.11.1993).
Reaction in Parliament
A number of MPs echoed the tabloids’ concerns. The Conservative MP Sir Ivan Lawrence called for action to stop “the constant diet of violence and depravity” fed to youngsters through television, videos and computer pornography. Sir Ivan, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said it was becoming “daily more obvious” that this was a major reason for the rise in juvenile crime (quoted in the Independent, 26.11.1993).The Liberal Democrat MP David Alton, who represented the area where the boys lived, demanded a ban on home videos classified as “15” and “18” saying they were “not suitable for viewing in the home”.
The police view
Merseyside police detectives, who had interviewed the boys for several weeks before the trial,rejected any suggestions that “horror” videos had influenced the boys’ behaviour. One detective said, “I don’t know where the judge got that idea from. I couldn't believe it when I heard him. We went through something like 200 titles rented by the family. There were some you or I wouldn't want to see, but nothing-no scene, or plot, or dialogue-where you could put your finger on the freeze button and say that influenced a boy to go out and commit murder” (quoted in the Independent, 26.11.1993).
The police found no evidence to indicate that the boys had watched Child’s Play 3. According to a police inspector,“We looked at all the videos in their houses and checked a list of their rentals from the shop. We did not find Child’s Play 3, nor did we find anything in the list that could have encouraged them to do what they did. If you are going to link this murder to a film, you might as well link it to The Railway Children” (a charming family film).
Experts disagree
In early 1994, the MP David Alton asked Elizabeth Newson, a professor of child psychology, to investigate the possible effects of violent films on children. Her report, “Video Violence and the Protection of Children” (1994), looked at a range of newspaper reports and academic studies. It concluded that there is a strong link between violent films and real-life violence and that violent films can lead to violent behavior.
This conclusion has been strongly criticized. Research funded by the Home Office and conducted by a team of psychologists at Birmingham University concluded that, “The research points to a pathway from having a violent home background, to being an offender, to being more likely to prefer violent films” (Browne & Pennell, 1998).This report argues that Newson got it the wrong way round. She argued that violent films can lead to violent behaviour. The authors of this report argue that a violent home background can lead to violent behaviour which, in turn, is likely to lead to a preference for violent films.
Question
Come to a reasoned judgement as to how likely it is that violent films lead to violent behaviour.
Corroborative evidence:
-The two boys had troubled backgrounds.
-The judge mentioned the father of one of the boys had a collection of violent videos
-The Liberal Democrat MP David Alton, who represented the area where the boys lived, demanded a ban on home videos classified as “15” and “18” saying they were “not suitable for viewing in the home”
-The media claimed the boys had been watching violent horror videos when they were bunking off school
-The police rejected the media and judge's view, as they couldn't find any proof that the boys had been watching violent horror videos
-Professor Newson's report: there is a strong link between violent films and real-life violence and that violent films can lead to violent behaviour
-Birminham University's report: a violent home background can lead to violent behavior which, in turn, is likely to lead to a preference for violent films.
Conflicting evidence:
Balance of evidence
Wight of evidence
More likely:
-The police had no evidence that the kids had watched any violent horror videos/ movies
-The kids had troubled backgrounds
-Professor Newson's report
-Birmingham University report
Less likely:
-The Media's statements that one of the boy's father had violent horror videos in his house
-The judge claim that the father had the movies.
Quality of evidence
From most to least:
-The Police
-Professor of child psychology, Elizabeth Newson
-Team of psychologists from Birmingham University-The Judge
-The Liberal Democrat MP David Alton
-The Media
Conclusion
All things considered, the violent horror films and videos mentioned before did not influenced those kids at all. According to the police, no evidence was found regarding the videos in their home or near those kids. Therefore, following the psychologists' reports, clearly the kids were influenced by their troubled backgrounds, not those violent movies.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario