Moreover, Levine (1968) agreed with Durkheim’s (1858-1917) notion he suggested that violent crime was a sensitive issue, which can often indicate that social relations are strained within the individual’s community. This fact was obviously apparent in Mary’s case as she lived with her grandmother whom lived in a close nit community, where individuals had heard of Mary’s mother abandoning her (Sereny, 1995 p.186.) Although this analogy appears to be an adequate explanation to why certain children kill, other theorists would suggest otherwise.
If one were to follow a psychological perspective in order to understand why some children like Mary may kill. Then it is necessary to delve further into the child’s background, to understand whether they have ever formed an attachment with their caregiver. One can employ a psychological approach to try to understand why individual children like Mary Bell (1968), John Venables and Robert Thompson (1993) killed other children. Bowlby’s (1956) attachment theory verifies a plausible explanation to why Mary murdered. Bowlby (1956) noted that children suffering from severe anti-social behaviour often respond with little or no sign of affections (Butterworth and Harris, 1998 p.25.) This was evident in Mary’s case, as her natural mother suffered from postnatal depression, and displayed no significant interest in her baby, abandoning her at a very critical stage in her life (Sereny, 1995 p.186.)
Although the postnatal explanation and abandonment issues are plausible, the lack of attachment is not necessarily an adequate psychological explanation in understanding why Venables and Thompson (1993) killed. In speculation, and with little evidence the media (The Guardian) suggested that only one out of the two boys was thought to have come from a broken home.
Other possible explanations to understand why they have killed have come from theorists such as Bandura (1973) who noted that individuals could learn (aggressive acts) via observing visual images of television characters, identical to how individuals learn personal interactions. He concluded, “young people who watch television for any given amount of time will learn a number of tactics of violence and murder which they may try to imitate” (Jones, 2001 p.384.) Yet again, although Bandura’s (1973) study was credible Charlton and Gunter (1999) argued that they had found no evidence to support the idea of learned imitation of violence when they introduced television to a group of children on St Helena (1995.) Indeed they concluded that the amount of violence the children had observed was far higher than what is shown on television in the UK (Charlton and Gunter, 1999 p36-45.)
On a sociological note if one were to take into account the media coverage of why children kill. The Guardian proclaimed that the boys had been highly influenced via watching and observing an aggressive movie Child Play 3. Huesmann, Eron and Lefkowitz (1987) partially agreed with Bandura’s (1973) social learning analogy that aggression could be observed and re-enacted. Moreover, they concluded that children with low IQ, especially boys, are more likely to carry out aggressive acts after watching violent television (Huesmann et al, 1987 p.232-240.) Britton (1993) an eminent forensic psychologist whom had investigated the case suggested “the two boys would have been isolated from their parents and had a different set of values that were shared, similar to street culture where they would exhibit their fantasies” (Britton, 1997 p.313.)
In definition of what Britton (1993) noted when he mentioned street culture. Cohen’s (1955) article on ‘delinquent boys’ portrays that many children who display signs of delinquency have a tendency of structuring their own sub-values. These sub-values are often associated with criminal behaviour, which go beyond any law-abiding citizens. As for Venables and Thompson (1993) it was obvious that their sub-values reinforced both of the boys to play off from one another (follow the leader) in their act of crime (Muncie, McLaughlin and Langan, 2001 p.206.)
Moreover, if one were to compare the United Kingdom’s (UK) media portrayal of child killers compared to other countries, there are significant cultural differences. In Norway (1994) an identical case to that of Jamie Bulger occurred, where two six year olds killed a five-year-old girl. Rather than expressing media frenzy, the community of Trondheim expressed sympathy for the killers labeling them victims, rather than child murderers. There is also a stark difference in the criminal prosecution system for the legal treatment of child offenders, in the UK the legal age for prosecution is ten years compared to Norway where it starts at fifteen years of age. Although the boys in Norway were never charged with murder, there recommended treatment was psychological counseling, for approximately four years .
Whilst contemplating, on some of the previous psychological and sociological issues in order to understand why children kill. One can conclude that the sociological and psychological issues often intertwine. In the case of Venables and Thompson (1993) there was evidence to suggest that there was a lack of attachment with their parents. But contrary to this there were significant signs that they had formed an attachment bond with each other by re-enacting their fantasies. However when trying to understand Bells (1968) case one recognizes that the psychological issue such as the lack of attachment, and the sociological issue of her neighbourhood network shunning her may have attributed to why she killed. Surely this suggests that there is not one straightforward answer as an explanation. Moreover there are a multitude of criminological theories that can be applied to this issue, in order to understand why children kill.
Reference:
Bandura, A (1973) Social learning theory In: Jones, S (2001) Criminology 2nd edition: London: Butterworths.
Bartol, CR (1999) Criminal behaviour In: Brewer, K. (2000) Psychology and Crime: Great Britain: Heinemann.
Bowlby, J (1956) Attachment theory In: Butterworth, G and Harris, M (1998) Principles of Developmental Psychology: Hove: Taylor and Francis press.
Britton, P (1997) Description of James Bulgers killers. The Jigsaw Man: Great Britain: Corgi books.
Charlton, T and Gunter, B (1999) TV violence effects: Exceptionally vulnerable viewers. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol 4, 36-45.
Cohen, S (1955) Delinquent boys In: Muncie, J, Mclaughlin, E and Langan, M (2001) Criminlogical Perspectives: London: Sage.
Durkheim, E (1858-1917) Anomie and Division of Labour In: Jones, S (2001) Criminology 2nd edition: London: Butterworths.
Eysenck, H (1967) Personality trait theory In: Brewer, K. (2000) Psychology and Crime: Great Britain: Heinemann.
Huesmann, L, Eron, L and Lefkowitz, M (1987) Intelligence and IQ in delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 52, 232-240.
Gray, J (1981) Critique of personality trait theory In: Brewer, K. (2000) Psychology and Crime: Great Britain: Heinemann.
Percy-Smith, J (2000) Contours of Social Exclusion In: Maguire, M, Morgan, R et al (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd ed. Great Britain: Oxford university press.
Sereny, G (1995) The case of Mary Bell a portrait of a child who murdered. London: Pimlico.
“The Treatment in Norway of Child Murderers” 9th November 2000 [Internet] BBC-worldservice.com
“Bulger Killers Watched Child Play 3 and Were Influenced” 23rd June 2001 The Guardian.
“One of the Boys Came from a Broken Home” 23rd June 2001 The Guardian.
Young, J (2002) Crime and Dysfunctional Family In: Maguire, M, Morgan, R et al (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd ed. Great Britain: Oxford university press.
