Moral Panic: James Bulger and Mary Bell Cases

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Mary Flora Bell case
Physiological roots of Deviant acts
The Media, children and the society
Moral Responsibility Towards Protection of Children
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Sympathy and the influence of example are more important than formal precepts and didactic instruction in the development of moral sentiments which, on the other hand, lead to the development of character. For instance, if a father shows kindness to a dog by offering a bone, there arises within the child a feeling of kindness towards the dog which is produced by some kind of sympathetic action. On the other hand, if the father instead picks a stone and mercilessly hits the dog, the child will sympathize in the desire to hit the dog. Growing up within such influence, the child will develop a disposition to kill and destroy every helpless creature that comes within his or her power.

In these cases, there is no need for formal instruction. Of the many children who are brought up under the former influence of cruelty, nearly all of them will exhibit this cruelty towards dogs. On the other hand, children brought up under the latter influence will definitely show kindness towards dogs. In this paper, my argument is that growing up within the right atmosphere and environment rather than receiving the right instructions is the most important condition in the formation of character among children.

To support this argument, two cases will be considered for analysis: the Mary Flora Bell Case and Jamie Burger case. This paper also points at the failure of society to curb child delinquency and the role of both the media and the education system in nurturing accountability and social responsibility.

In contemporary discourses, there comes a time when change and social transformation occurs on an unprecedented scale through an act that is considered deviant and aberrational with regards to the accepted rules of human behaviour. Such changes stimulate the need for personal reflection, the need for flexibility in the way we relate and judge others as well as notions of uncertainty, risk or even instability. Personal reflections and intellectual discourse sets the stage for a review of child-rearing and the adult concepts of childhood as well as giving birth to new regimes of rationality in our actions and practices as concerns childhood in the context of societal interrelationships, their education and development.

With greater knowledge in the public domain, greater uncertainties are brewed and the need for expedite and expert knowledgeable individuals in the society to offer analytical or even a theoretical understanding of the evil unaccepted events, these processes constitute the moral panic. (Heinrick, 1997:57)The backlash of the whole process is always a new moral reflection and new policies and constitutional amendments that are driven by invaluable theoretical frameworks.

Children who commit crimes are regarded as abhorrent freaks and evil entities in society. Their acts are always met with unmatched public outrage, opinion and debates that are mainly driven by preconceived notions about childhood. Justification of evil takes centre stage and very few people are willing to take a backward journey to eliminate such inherent prejudice or even confront the fears of a failed society.

Historically, before the advent of child-centred education, the place of children in the family and society had continued on a progressive evolution. Initially, children served to boost the family income, this progressed to a situation where children became inactive in the adult workplace and had to be protected from the intricacies of the adult world. Intricacies could affect the normal development of the child according to the existing societal demands at that time.

This development gave birth to the development and acquisition of school education. School education took the responsibility of nurturing children in line with societal demands of reformed characters. Apart from the provision of knowledge and learning, the school system has taken the role of social modelling of the children in relation to their understanding of the relationship amongst themselves, this is inclusive of accepted codes of behaviour and their relationship with the outside world. The inculcation of moral education into the schooling system ensured that the system was well ordered and that children acquired appropriate conduct and proficiency in sound moral valves.

Adults have been at the forefront in constructing compelling concepts regarding how children are to be considered and treated. The concept of a child being innocent and naturally good is in direct opposition to the evangelical view of childhood. The evangelical view portrays the child to be willful and potentially evil. (Gabriel, 2004:20) However, the innocence associated with children is based on their flexibility in attaining moral extremes.

For instance, a child will learn to be extremely good, treating other children and adults with respect while another may be extremely bad, viewing society as a threat to his or her existence. The consideration that schools were established so that children could be taught good manners and morals drove the adult conception that discipline and order within the school promote the same within the societal setting.

Children are not only taught about their subservient role as children in society but also about their appropriate development as future adults. In this regard, children are viewed as investments within the environment and their education and training is to serve as a reformation pedestal for responsible and industrious adulthood. In order to ensure that children are inclined towards the good and not the bad, society institutes punishment and an authoritarian mode of teaching.

The fact that the learning system is stringent and consistent in the application of rules and punishment ensures that both children and adults are safe and effective. Obedience and respect are not only expected outcomes of the system but they were seriously endorsed through corporal punishment. (Buckingham, 2004:76) The adult conception of children with this respect is that children are a societal threat and without discipline, they would become delinquents, a reflection of the puritan view.

In Puritanism, the child is innately sinful from birth and such sinfulness can only be eliminated from moral and religious training. With this regard, play is a dangerous pastime activity for children and morality and good behaviour takes centre stage. With all these societal measures in place, more and more children have become delinquent. The most notable case is that of Mary Flora Bell.

Mary Flora Bell case

The atmosphere at the courthouse in Newcastle was subdued in December 1968 when eleven-year-old Mary Bell and her thirteen-year-old friend, Norma Bell were tried for strangling two little boys. Their crime would have been more sensational or horrific by the standards of any era since it involved the murder of children by children.

Mary Flora Bell has always wanted to hurt someone. She was often described as an angry child. She came from an unsettled home in which chronic abuse was the norm. Mary Bell often exhibited unsocial and weird behaviour towards other children. At eleven years old, Mary and her friend Norma lured a boy to the top of an air raid shelter and pushed him. It was thought that it was an accident when the boy fell down and got injured.

A fortnight later, the body of a four-year-old boy called Martin Brown was found and it was assumed that it was an accident too. However, the police discovered some writings which suggested that someone was claiming responsibility for the death of the boy. Mary, showed up at Martin’s home so she could see him in his coffin and wondered what it felt like to be dead.

Two months later, a three-year-old toddler turned up missing. Mary suggested the toddler could have been playing on a certain pile of concrete. When the place was searched, the body was found in exactly the same spot that Mary had indicated. The toddler had been strangled and his stomach cut. His legs were also cut with a razor and scissors. The medical examiner concluded that the handiwork was most probably that of a child. Mary and her friend were brought in. In this case, several factors may have motivated Mary Flora Bell to take away the lives of these innocent children. These could be physiological, psychological or sociological.

Physiological roots of Deviant acts

Some researchers believe that violence is physiologically oriented. In other words, they hold the view that violence is a product of physiological imbalance. On the other hand, others believe that it is exclusively a matter of chemical interactions in the brain. Still, some view the interconnectedness between physiology and the environment. Could it be the case that violence is coded within the genes of children like Mary Bell or is it a product of the environment? According to Debra Niehof, violence could be attributed to genes even though she recognizes the role of the environment.

She holds that each factor modifies the other. Processing a situation that may lead to violence is however unique to every individual. (Niehoff, 2003:121) For instance, a given stimulation or overload in the brain does not always cause violence in every instance.

She says that the biggest lesson they have learned from brain research is that violence is a product of the developmental process. One’s experiences are tracked by the brain through chemical codes. When one interacts with a new person, he or she approaches it with a neurochemical profile which is influenced by attitudes developed over time concerning the safety of the world. How one feels about these things sparks off certain emotional reactions which are translated into responses. The chemistry of attitude is associated with the chemistry of aggression. One may turn a normally appropriate response into an inappropriate one through overreaction or redirecting it to the wrong person.

If one develops a feeling that the world is against them hence overreact to every little provocation, these reactions get beyond their capacity to control since they are in survival mode. There are some patterns of violent behaviour and physiological differences associated with each pattern according to Niehoff. For instance, over-reactive patterns are hyperactive with a short attention span. The under-reactive pattern has trouble building empathy. As such, they fail to attach emotions to their behaviour since they have lower metabolic rates and galvanic skin responses.

Applying this to Mary Bell’s case, it may be said that she spent much of her time in a violent environment and had genes associated with violence. Her mother has largely been referred to as responsible to some extent for her actions. Betty Bell, Mary Bell’s mother, was often described as deeply religious as a child.

Everyone at some point thought she was going to be a nun. As a child, she liked religious things. According to her mother, Mary liked to draw altars, nuns, graves and cemeteries which she translated to mean that he daughter was deeply religious. There were no abuses in the family or excessive abuse but for some reasons which the family cannot explain, Betty began to drift away. With the death of her father, Betty became demented and involved herself in all sorts of evil finally giving birth to Mary. The father of Mary was not known.

Mary’s childhood was marked by drug overdoses and abandonment. Betty was anxious to get rid of her, often living her with relatives and coming back for her later. Mary was brought to an adoption agency that gave her to a distraught woman who was not allowed to adopt.

By the time she was two years, Mary refused to bond with other people, always behaving in a cold and detached way. Even when hurt, it was said that Mary never cried and in one particular instance smashed a toy on her uncle’s nose. At one point in her childhood, Mary witnessed a friend of hers getting hit by a car. This might have interfered with her social and cognitive abilities. According to her teacher, Mary was a naughty child. She at one point caught Mary with her hands on the neck of another child. When asked to stop, she innocently asked if that could kill him.

When it was established that Mary Bell was responsible for the death of Brian Howe and Martin Brown, society was in a state of moral panic. Moral panic is a sociological phenomenon that is constitutive of processes whereby a society or culture become socially sensitized and express an intensified reaction to a person or a group of people that threaten the morally accepted ways of life in the society. This threat to societal values is caused by marked deviance of a person’s behaviour to accepted codes of conduct. The occurrence and signification of such an event are awarded worthy dramatic media coverage.

This process is followed by the wider social implications that extend the event in correlation to the malaise of the wider society through expert opinions that not only analyze the event with a professional touch but also drum the effects of such an event in the societal fabric hence constituting a major societal menace. The third development is often the seeking of resolutions like law changes to further penalize these deviants and serve as a deterrent to any potential deviation to accepted societal values. This serves to satisfy the public who draw their empowerment politically from the media.

At the age of eleven years, Mary Flora Bell was convicted of the manslaughter of Martin Brown then aged four years and Brian Howe then aged three years. On 25^th May 1968 just a day before her eleventh birthday, Mary Bell strangled Martin Brown with an accomplice, Norma Bell. Barely a month later on the 31^st July 1968 three-year-old Brian Howe was strangled and an incision letter ‘N’ curved in his stomach by use of a razor which was later converted to an ‘M’. The boy’s sexual organs were also severely mutilated by scissors. Later on, the two girls were accused of manslaughter and Mary Bell was subjected to psychoanalysis due to prevalent symptoms of psychopathology. She was infinitely detained at her majesty’s pleasure. This case caused much public unrest.

Such was also the Jamie Bulger case: the media reconstruction of evil, the trial coverage and the ensuing debates that followed thereafter. To fully analyze the concept of moral panic it is necessary to recollect and reconstruct the original case as presented to the public domain. In 1993, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables who were both ten years old kidnapped James Bulger, then two years old. He was kidnapped while shopping accompanied by his mother. The two boys led him on a lonely stretch and violently murdered him. The horrific footage of the grisly murder was captured on tape on a surveillance camera showing the toddler being lured and being dragged to his death.

This shocking case went on trial at an open court usually used for adults because they were legally deemed to be above the age of criminal responsibility. These two boys were charged with murder. The sentencing judge accused them of a barbaric act of unparalleled evil. He could not comprehend how two normal boys of average intelligence could engage in such an atrocious criminal offence. They were jailed for 8 years despite public and media outcry over the leniency of the sentence.

Using the powers bestowed upon the Home secretary, the sentence was increased to 15 years due to the torrent of public petitions as well as the need to preserve and inspire confidence in the criminal justice system. This intervention led to an acrimonious court battle that ended in the European Court of Human rights. Representing lawyers for Thomson and Venables claimed that the intervention was interference with laws of natural justice and that the rights of the two boys had been infringed upon as the British Home Secretary was not a judge and therefore could not decide the duration of custody. In addition to this, the lawyers claimed that the boys received an unfair trial as they had been tried under adults yet there were laws that governed juvenile cases.

The verdict was ruled in favour of the two boys stating that the Home Secretary had in the process overstepped his constitutional jurisdiction and that the juvenile’s right to trial in a juvenile court had been infringed on. The European Court of human rights additionally directed that Jack Straw, who was then the home secretary, should set a new minimum tariff for Thompson and Venables.

The Media, children and the society

The societal understanding of a case in this global communication industry is dependent on the media portrayal of such a case in the interest of public understanding. The two cases whose facts have been presented generated unparalleled media outbursts and coverage in most instances, the political class in cohort with the public domain have been forced to view the case as presented by the media while the criminal justice system was being forced to participate and practice in line with public demand. This has provoked a key debate in the independence of the criminal system and in ensuring that individuals receive fair trials that are in accordance with the constitution and that respect their fundamental human rights.

To meet this objective the criminal justice system must ensure that the accused especially children who kill are given legal protection through lifetime anonymity and the media together with all individuals and institutions under the English law Jurisdiction are prohibited from the discussion or publication of information that might make public knowledge the identities of these individuals. To the media, these individuals then become sinister faceless killers that are vilified in the public domain.

These dramatic departures from normal societal practices create an element of new punitiveness where the prominence of notoriety is being developed to be an integral component of prominence under criminal law. Notoriety is propagated by the extent and content of publication or representation of an unfavourable criminal act. This global flow of images, opinions and ideas, create a need for the reconstruction of social life, the political system and individual subjectivities in very complex ways. Images in criminal events and the imagination of it mobilize this punitive shift.

The case of Venables and Thompson contained vilification images usually of evil freaks and these were demands not only to know these killers but also to put a harsh deterrent to their actions. Representations of vilification messages to the consumerist culture create a salable commodity hence the creation of a powerful media industry. Debates and decisions on tariff-setting to criminal acts are tested to a point that distinctions between revenge and retributions become blurred.

The proportionality of the notoriety of crime creates a situation where people feel that shorter sentences are lenient that retribution is inefficient and the public only demands revenge with little regard to the constitutional provisions. It is at this point where the process of the presentation of murder to the public becomes a serious lucrative entertainment commodity with little reward to the little figure(s) standing on the dock.

It is these notorious images that preceded Venables and Thompson to the dock, the CCTV footage taken as the way led the little boy to his death generated an unmatched sensation. The emotive images created an imaginary picture that was both threatening and harrowing. The requisite response to it seemed to be only revenge. These representations directly balance the freedom of expression and the individual rights of the accused hence the use of the law of confidence to ensure a fair trial of the accused who are already judged guilty in the public domain. (Sullivan, 2003)

It is only in such cases that the public declaration of evil is passed even onto children who are themselves supposed to be innocent beings that should be guided. During the James Burger case, a juror at the trial remarked that instead of the children being tried for a murder they should be given psychiatric and social help. A chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham asserted that the children should be released before their eighteenth birthday. However, he was chastised and ended up putting an unreserved apology to the home secretary.

In this context of events, therefore, adults promoted the traditional concept of childhood where children were viewed as deceptive and delinquent and therefore should be put under corporal punishment to break their will. The concept of dualism where children are viewed as innocent and vulnerable poses them as victims and is in contrast to the images of lack of control and reason which poses them as a threat. It is this duality that pitches the liberal criminal justice system to the public opinion; that is sometimes largely traditional in essence, refusing to view children as children but viewing them as ‘would be’ adults.

In Gitta Sereny’s book, she asserts that the judicial system should be changed as concerns children accused of murder. Children aged ten years old are judged in an adult court, they are neither given the chance to consult before the sentence except for a psychiatrist who verifies their ability and capacity to be able to distinguish either right or wrong. (Sereny, 1972) It is important to appreciate that criminal intent or act can be promoted in cases of extreme childhood abuse or in dysfunctional families.

It is an established fact that almost every single child who is involved in a murder case or serious crimes or has serious antisocial behaviour had in their childhood been through the torments of a dysfunctional family. The Bulger case and the Mary Bell case swept an unmatched media frenzy and hysteria with little regard to trying to unveil the real motive of these acts. Mary Bell and Norma Bell were friends Norma a little older than Mary but with a ten-year-old or a nine-year-old mental capacity. These children were almost the same age as Jonathan Venables and Robert Thompson who was aged ten years.

Mary Bell was an exceptionally intelligent, Beautiful girl in contrast to Norma who was not too intelligent. Norma came from a large, close, caring and loving family. Her parents were working class. At the trial, she received all the support from a large family who stroked her comforted her, talked to her and even-handed her a handkerchief when she cried. (Sereny, 1999) Mary Bells father was at the trial but showed marked emotional detachment. She was never touched except for an instance of restlessness when her mother pushed her. The Judges took a liking for Norma and she was acquitted, the isolated Mary Bell was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to life.

Taking an analytical approach of the two little girls, it is easy to analyze and predict the education and development of the children with respect to their environmental setting. While Mary was abused by her sadomasochistic mother, Norma got all the love in the world. Her parents held the opinion that she was a child, naturally innocent and naturally good and that she deserved to be guided to grow into responsible adulthood. On the other hand, Mary Bell’s parents held the evangelical view: that she was willful and potentially evil, hence the sado-masochism portrayed by her mother. In the dock when she lost her restlessness, she was pushed but not comforted. (Cavaldino, 1996:34)

To recent of the vilification images portrayed by the media in response to the James Bulger case, there is a need to analyze and try to dig out what was the little boy’s motivation to carry out such a horrific murder? The belief that children who come from disadvantaged classes with parents unable to take good care of the children are a folly. Deviant behaviours have been found both in the privileged and underprivileged social classes. However, it is prudent to note that the dreadful and severe torture and death willfully meted on the little James Bulger deserve a mirror back to society. Children normally do not inflict pain unless the same is done to them. While Mary Bell killed her victims without hurting them Robert Thompson and Jon Venables caused severe pain.

It is known that Mary Bell had seen a film that showed one how to kill swiftly and that is what she did. This further testifies to the positive and negative role of the media on childhood development. In her case the public was appalled at the freak sweet-faced monster, she was an iconic beauty of evil, but they reacted fairly restrained acknowledging the failure of social responsibility. After the trial, she attained a curious view of both a monster and a victim of her environmental circumstances.

At this point, it is necessary to analyze the effect of maintaining the Burger murderers in an adult prison despite the fact that both the public and the press knew the repercussions of such confinement. Does it surely serve to correct such behavioural instincts? Serving her prison sentence in Merseyside, Mary Bell was allegedly sexually abused by staff and fellow inmates.

Moral Responsibility Towards Protection of Children

While the media coverage drives the public opinion on the extent of the horror reminiscent of criminal acts, those who spent their entire lives in the rehabilitation of such aberrant children forcefully argue for a more compassionate approach in dealing with children who kill. They argue that by assigning moral authority to the children we tend to forget that by virtue of their stage and age of development they are still unable to make appropriate legally compliant decisions as adults. They further assert that rehabilitation of such children is possible in the event that all predisposing factors are eliminated. Instead of advocating for their imprisonment for life, other avenues should be considered.

The fact that mothers are given a symbolic role of rearing children in society puts the mother-child relationship too intense societal scrutiny. When acts of violence are performed the focus usually turns to the mother. In Mary Bell’s case, the description of her mother as neglectful and morally irresponsible rode the opinions on her upbringing. This was the replica of James Bulger’s mother. Bulger’s mother was portrayed as an archetypal maternal one. This led to the development of a fixated attitude pitting the mother as irrevocably alien. Robert Thompson’s mother is described as being always absent and neglectful. The fact that the father walked out of the marriage only served to further indict the mother following the devastating events.

The moral panic surrounding both cases is deeply rooted in the social and political discourses that constructed viewership of single motherhood as the catalyst for delinquency and juvenile crime.

While it is necessary not to deny that family dysfunction is to blame for the future lives of the three children, why is it necessary that all behavioural analysis and criticism be directed at the mother? Is it true that mothers are to blame for family disintegration in all the cases? In concluding the moral responsibility of the protection of children it is prudent to summarize that the background of the child, the family environment, parent-child relationships are critical facets for the development of wholesome, responsible, obedient and respectful children. That responsibility is not only vested on both the maternal and paternal parents but also on society as a whole. The role of media in perpetuating child delinquency

The media attention and sensational coverage of high profile crime can sometimes offer a distorted image of the true picture. This tendency has been replicated through television, movies and the cinema. The fascination created through the glorification of criminal acts in the movies and cinema is at its worst excesses. During the ruling on the James Bulger case, the ruling judge concluded that there was a striking similarity between the exact execution of the crime caught on CCTV and a scene in one of the violent video films, specifically Child’s Play 3. this solicited a fresh wave of public outrage and intense scrutiny.

Even though security investigations found no evidence of the videos or that the boys were video nasties, there was a possibility of violent exposure to violent and horrific films. The case provoked moral panic over the role of violent media on the growth and development of children. A commissioned by the University of Birmingham to try and establish a correlation between violent crimes and viewing of violent films was never released as no correlation was evident. The only correlation established was that of poor social background and delinquency. It is probably these two factors that built a preference for violent films. However, Mary Bells case pinpointed a direct correlation with the effect of horrific film viewing.

Does violent video films and games lead to aggression or violence? A research study carried out by researchers from the Texas A&M International University and Wisconsin-Whitewater University to examine the relationship between the exposures to violent films or games and violence or aggression established that trait aggression, male gender and family violence were predictive of violent instincts and violent crime while exposure to violent video games or films was not. using a structural equation modelling, It was established that innate aggression and family violence were better predictors of violent crimes as opposed to video games. ( Ferguson, et al. 2008: 23)

Once there is controlled or elimination of family violence or dysfunction, direct exposure of children to violent games does not promote the development of criminal behaviours unless the child has a violent aggressive personality.

Conclusion

Sensationalizing dramatic criminal acts continues to fuel the flame of moral panic creating a link that can pose as a real or perceived threat to children’s development and subsequent threat to civil order and disharmony. Before the notoriety is built for the purpose of vilification and bending the justice system in favour of public opinion, there is a need not only to respect the individual rights of the accused children but also to promote a more improved moral reasoning that can be able to offer a non-discriminative notion of childhood growth and development.

This would entail the understanding of the age at which children are considered morally responsible. the growth of children should also be viewed with respect to the family and community, this is because the development of a child is dependent on these environmental factors with special reference to those who have undergone childhood difficulties.

These trains of thought drive and influence moral education with an emphasis on the teaching of democratic principles, procedures and social responsibility in schools. Such initiative would go a long way in improving the children’s moral understanding.

The existence of a relationship between conceptual thought and social action should be appreciated and used in changing the way we categorize and build perceptions of childhood. These perceptions should be analyzed within the context of social, economic, political and even religious challenges that are present in our times. In this line, children should be allowed just to be children before they develop into men and women.

References

Buckingham, D. ‘New media , new childhoods? Children’s changing cultural environment in the age of digital technology’ in Kehily, M.J. (Ed), (2004) An Introduction to Childhood Studies, Maidenhead: Open University Press/ McGraw Hill Educational (traces the moral panics which have accompanied the digital revolution).

Christopher J Ferguson, Stephanie M. Rueda, Amanda M Cruiz, Diana E. Ferguson, Stancy Fritz and Shawn M Smith (2008). Video Games and Aggression: Causal Relationship of Biproduct of Family Violence and Intrinsic Violence Motivation.

Debra Niehoff (2003) Biological Roots of Violence. Oxford University Press.

Gabriel, N (2004). Adult Concepts of Childhood, in J William, R. Parker- Rees and J Salvage(Eds)Early Childhood Studies. Exeter Learning Matters.

Heinrick, H(1997). Children, Childhood and English Society 1880-1890. Cambridge University Press.

Paul Cavaldino (1996).Children Who Kill, British Juvenile and Family Courts Society.

Robert R. Sullivan (2003) Liberalism and Crime. Lexington Books.

Sereny, Gitta. Cries Unheard — Why Children Kill: The Story of Mary Bell. New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999.

Sereny Gitta. The Case of Mary Bell. London: Arrow Books, 1972.

Click Here To Order Now!