The document discusses two theories about the link between violent films/media and violent behavior in children: 1) Theory 1 is that exposure to violent horror videos leads to violent behavior. However, there is conflicting evidence that while a violent movie was rented to the house, there is no evidence the boys watched it or mentioned it to police. 2) Theory 2 is that a violent social/family background leads to a preference for violent media and propensity for violent behavior. There is more evidence supporting this theory, as both boys came from violent backgrounds and the movie was never proven to be a factor. The conclusion is that the evidence supports that the boys' violent actions were due to their violent upbringings

1. Activity on
making a reasoned judgment
By Ma. Agustina Turano
Violent films and
behavior – is there a
link?

2. THE CASE
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.

3. CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
 Both kids have a violent background
(separated parents or abandoning father,
suicidal mothers, alcoholic adults around,
history of violence at school and inside the
family among their siblings).
 Theory #1 (Dr. Newson, psychologist):
exposure to violent horror videos leads to
violent behavior
 Theory #2 (Birmingham University): a
violent background leads to violent behavior,
which makes the subject prefer violent films.

4. CORROBORATING EVIDENCE
 There was access to violent material in
the house (Chucky, the movie, and the
Daily Mail campaign).
 During the interview made by the police,
none of the boys mentioned any violent
film.
 The police found no evidence on the boys
having watched the movie.

5. CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
 Newson’s theory
 Rented violent
movie in the house.
 Birminham
University’s theory
 No evidence on
watching.
 None of the boys
mentioned the
movie or any other
violent influence in
the interview made
by the police.

6. BALANCE OF EVIDENCE
FOR AGAINST
Newson’s theory: violent films
lead to violent behaviour
Birminham University’s theory:
A violent background leads the
subject to have a violent
behaviour, which then leads to
preference to violent films.
Violent movie (Chucky) in the
house
The boys didn’t mention any
violent video in their interview
with the police
There was no evidence the
boys had seen the movie
Violent social and familiar
background
Total: 2 Total: 4

7. QUALITY OF
EVIDENCE
We can dismiss the boy’s
testimony in their interview
with the police due to 2
possible facts:
•Fear: the might have been
afraid as they were only 10
years old.
•Familiar influence: if
considering their familiar
background, there is a
possibility that they could
have been told in their
homes that they should not
trust the police, or should
not talk about their life in
their houses with anyone.
FOR AGAINST
Newson’s
theory: violent
films lead to
violent
behaviour
Birminham
University’s theory:
A violent
background leads
the subject to have
a violent behaviour,
which then leads to
preference to
violent films.
Violent movie
(Chucky) in the
house
There was no
evidence the boys
had seen the
movie
Violent social and
familiar
background
Total: 2 Total: 3

8. CONCLUSION
After analyzing the evidence, I can say
that the theory that states that violent
films leads children to act more violently
is false. As we can see, there is more
evidence supporting the view that the
two boys were not influenced by any
violent movie, as their social/family
background is mainly considered.