1. Making a reasoned judgement
Come to a reasoned judgement as to how likely it is that violent films lead to violent behavior.
2. corroborative evidence:
● the judge mentioned that the stepfather of one of the boys had a collection of violent videos so he said he
suspect that exposure to violent films may in part be an explanation for the murder.
● The Sun and the Daily Mail claimed that the boys had been watching violent horror videos when they were
bunking off school.
● the Sun argued that the stepfather of one of the boys had rented a copy of Child’s Play 3 a week before
the murder.
● The Sun explicitly stated that the boys had watched Child’s Play 3 before the murder and with other
tabloids claimed that there were significant similarities between scenes in the film and the killing of James
Bulger.
● 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.
● A professor of child psychology, Newson, argued that there is a strong link between violent films and real-
life violence and that violent films can lead to violent behavior.
3. Conflicting evidence:
● The police rejected any suggestions that horror videos had influenced the boys’ behavior.
● One detective said that he don’t know where the judge got that idea from and that he went through
something like 200 titles rented by the family and that he found 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.
● police found no evidence to indicate that the boys had watched Child’s Play 3.
● The police inspector argued that they looked at all the videos in their houses and checked a list of their
rentals from the shop but they did not find Child’s Play 3, nor did they find anything in the list that could
have encouraged them to do what they did.
● Home Office and conducted by a team of psychologists at Birmingham University concluded that, Newson
got it the wrong way round. so they argued that a violent home background can lead to violent behavior
which, in turn, is likely to lead to a preference for violent films.
4. Balance of evidence
Sources which support the conclusion that the boys murdered
because of the horror film:
● There were similarities between scenes of the film and the
way the boys killed the baby.
● At the time of the murder, the Daily Mail had been
conducting a campaign against video nasties-violent horror
films which claimed had a harmful effect on children.
5. Balance of evidence:
Sources which support the conclusion that the boys murdered
was not because of the horror film:
● police found no evidence to indicate that the boys had watched Child’s
Play 3.
● the detective argued that he found no evidence of the film on their
houses.
● The opinion of one psychology was rejected by the team of psychologists
at Birmingham University arguing that boys prefer to see that kind of
films because of their background, this doesn't mean that they do what
they do because of the movie.
6. Weight of evidence:
LESS LIKELY MORE LIKELY
What the Sun and Daily mail said. What the team of psychologist said
Sun arguement about the kids watching the film 2 people argued there is no evidence founded of the
k kids watching the film.
Judge Argument Similarities between the film and the crime.
The two boys had troubled backgrounds
3 5
7. Quality of evidence
(Are the sources believable?)
● No evidence
● psychologist opinion
● team psychologist argument
● similarities on the movie
● Judge Argument
8. Judgement
From my point of view the movie was not linked
with the murder and there was more likely
evidence from different people that match with
that theory. the stronger one was that there
was not evidence founded, rejecting all the
other statements.
