The two young killers of James Bulger

Explain how scientific, social constructionist and applied approaches to the study of childhood can each help understand the reactions to the two young killers of James Bulger In the UK, criminal responsibility is held at ten years old; children of this age are therefore regarded responsible for their actions. Some dispute this which leads to reforms in policy and laws. Some argue for a decrease in this age as they believe younger children can fundamentally understand right from wrong; however criminal responsibility is higher in other countries such as Norway therefore children under that age are held unaccountable for their unlawfulness.

Others contend that the child is simply a construct of their society which dominates their behaviour rather than their age (W. S. Rogers,2003,pg. 20). This illustrates how public disquiet can occur during extreme cases involving child criminals, much of which is influenced through media coverage. One extreme case was the murder of two year old James Bulger. His abductors were two ten year old children Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.
James was led through a devastating journey of beatings and humiliation which resulted in his tragic death. The toddler's body was placed on a local railway track and concealed by branches which is where he was found. During my study, I shall concentrate on the relationship between age and moral reasoning with a focus on the case involving Thompson and Venables - did they know right from wrong? The 20th Century theorist, Jean Piaget (1896-1980) devised scientific experiments to determine universal laws of child development.
One major concept he devised was that of 'cognitive development' (Book 1,Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1,pg13) which identified intellectual stages that children chronologically progress through. Development psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg formulated a theory on moral development from which cognitive development was the foundations. Kohlberg believed that children progress through stages in a consistent sequence, albeit not necessarily at the same ages.
In order to recognise whether children understand right from wrong, the theory required children to be posed with a set of moralistic questions for them to answer. Thompson and Venables were tested by this method as they fell within the concept of 'doli incapax' (J. Kehily and H. Montgomery, 2003,pg251). Kohlberg had concluded that an average ten year old would fall within stage 3 of the theory which depicts the notion that the individual shows loyalty to people they know and show love to them (Book 1,Understanding Childhood,Chapter 1,pg17).
The experimentation documented that the two boys fell within stage 3 as they indicated no loyalty towards James who had never shown affection to them. The boys also have shown progression through stage 2 which depicts the need to do things on a selfish level as they did not show any compassion for James' family during the event; they were only concerned with their own wants and desires. They also showed fundamental progression through stage 1 which indicates that wrongdoings result in punishment; the boys covered the body with branches as they were aware of their impending punishment.
Unfortunately, Kohlberg has been criticised as his works were based on boys within western countries. This provided an imbalance as it is inconsistent for children outside these criteria. By his use of, and preference to use, boys from wealthier countries, he has shown to cross boundaries with social constructionist beliefs. This behaviour is an example of ethnocentric behaviour which depicts that the philosopher has chosen specific social situations on which to base his work.
Consequently, the results from Kohlberg's testing methods showed that the boys were competent of knowing that their actions were wrong at the time of the offence which ultimately led to their trial. The majority of public disquiet occurred during the period of the trial due to the biased view projected by the mass media coverage. Many headlines during this time projected headlines such as 'Bulger Killers Must Stay Caged, Reformed or Not' (The Sun,2001,pg28) which demonstrates how they communicated a view that the boys are inherently evil.
This view is an example of the Puritan discourse. A discourse is a set of ideas which are agreed with by a large number of people which leads it to become a standardised theory in itself. The Puritan discourse was originated by philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who believed that children were born with evil intent and required guidance by parents and society to curtail these intentions to generate virtuous individuals (Book1, chapter2, pg63).
Jon and Robert were cast in a very Puritan light through the newspaper headlines, they were also often referred to as 'the killers' or by their surnames. They were also treated in a very Puritan manner throughout their trial as it was undertaken within an adult court. Proceeding the trial, the British Judicial system was accused of, trialled and found guilty of mistreatment of Thompson and Venables which resulted in a monetary settlement for the two boys (The Guardian,1999).
Social constructionists would argue much of a child's behaviour is a direct result of their social background; the boys were brought up within less fortunate residential areas. Contrary to the scientific belief of universal laws of behaviour, social constructionists would argue that in order to understand people's actions, a social account must be devised (Book 1,Chapter1,pg26). By understanding a person's background including where they live and personal experiences, it is thought that these influence future behaviour.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hyundai advert