X-Entertainment. This site never fails to amuse me and it’s updated on a daily basis.
Just for the record, this case is highly controversial and stuff you read about Mary Bell on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt.
This was a tragic case. The child Mary Bell was horrifically abused herself - bashed, whipped, poisoned and sold (aged 5-8) to her mother’s prostitution clients. Personally I don’t think you can judge children who kill as you would judge an adult. Children may understand that they are doing something wrong, but they don’t have a full understanding of what death really means.
To describe an abused 10-year-old who is driven to violence as a “ruthless, cold-blooded sociopath” is pretty medieval and does not help us understand why some children become violent.
If you are interested in the case, try reading this book: ‘Cries Unheard’, by Gitta Sereny, Macmillan, 1998.
Another vote here for www.televisionwithoutpity.com.
Very snarky, hilarious, with fun stuff to vote on and ads that are actually worth looking at.
I understand that, but this isn’t some random conspiracy site. It’s run by CourtTV. All of the articles I’ve read on the site are very even-handed and well-referenced. The bibliography for the Bell story includes both ‘Cries Unheard’ and ‘The Case of Mary Bell,’ from 1972, also by Sereny.
Maybe, maybe not. I mean she certainly didn’t have a storybook childhood, but, as the story points out:
"Throughout Cried Unheard, Mary has demonstrated herself to be very unreliable. There is certainly reason to lie and exaggerate her mother’s abuses, which many sociopaths do to gain sympathy and justification for their behavior. Betty is dead now, and no one else has collaborated the worst of the allegations. "
I didn’t say they should have given her the death penalty or anything. However, the fact that she wrote threatening notes, inserted herself into the investigation, and concocted a story to implicate Norma does suggest that her mental faculties were above those of your average child.
Medieval? I didn’t say the devil possessed her. And her actions pretty much fit the textbook definition of a sociopath like a glove, don’t they?
A psychiatrist at her trial said “I think that this girl must be regarded as suffering from psychopathic personality,” demonstrated by “a lack of feeling quality to other humans,” and “a liability to act on impulse and without forethought.”
I like Irony Central, and in particular, this series of articles where a guy talks about raising his baby and the things that baby books didn’t prepare him for. Sounds boring, but it’s absolutely hilarious. 
I’m afraid I can’t contribute anything but thanks! I was looking at a rather depressing Saturday spent making an emergency visit to the optometrist rather than visiting an old friend, and Naked Quidditch alone has cheered me up. I’m going to have to e-mail her that site.
Thanks again!
CJ
Neutron Star - I take your point that the site you mention is not a “conspiracy site”, and I was not trying to suggest that you, personally, were putting forward the arguments in question. But the quotes from “Cries Unheard” on the site are very selective, and the article on the site emphasises the sensational aspects at the expense of more thoughtful considerations of the case.
As I said, If you are really interested, I would urge you to read the book.
Your second point, that she exaggerated her abuses - yes, this is possible, but much of the abuse was (a) a matter of public record (eg hospital admissions for repeated overdoses in infancy, and (b) relatives’ confirmation that incidents actually happened.
You also said - quote:
“I didn’t say they should have given her the death penalty or anything. However, the fact that she wrote threatening notes, inserted herself into the investigation, and concocted a story to implicate Norma does suggest that her mental faculties were above those of your average child.”
Actually both the children in the case wrote threatening notes. Also, both children concocted stories to get themselves out of trouble, each blaming the other - as children do. I don’t think the ability to lie shows some precocious or unnatural ability. Also this doesn’t destroy my point - emotional and moral understanding can lag way behind intellectual understanding in children.
The other child in the case (Norma) was acquitted, even though she was 3 years older, because she was thought to be of limited intelligence. But the fact that she was present must have made it easier for the killings to happen - remember when you were a child, how much easier it was to do bad stuff when you had a friend with you - particularly if that friend was older.
You also said - quote:
“Medieval? I didn’t say the devil possessed her. And her actions pretty much fit the textbook definition of a sociopath like a glove, don’t they? A psychiatrist at her trial said ‘I think that this girl must be regarded as suffering from psychopathic personality,’ demonstrated by ‘a lack of feeling quality to other humans,’ and 'a liability to act on impulse and without forethought.”
OK - “sociopath”, “psychopath”. Impressive, scary-sounding labels, but all they actually mean is someone with a damaged/sick relation to society in the first instance, and a sick mind in the second. I think these terms are vulnerable to subjective interpretation - I know there is some debate as to whether “psychopathy” is a legitimate clinical label. Even if it is, I think to apply it to a 10 year old without any investigation into the background is irresponsible. In 1968 there was no investigation or consideration of Mary Bell’s background. It was just assumed the killings were committed out of the blue, for fun, and she was labelled a psychopath. The truth was different.
Anyway, sorry to go on about this, and sorry to hijack your thread, but I just feel that you can’t talk about children who are violent, or even those who kill, in the same way as adults. They certainly know they have done something wrong, I’m not disputing that, but they don’t understand the implications or the consequences.
I don’t know. I mean, think back to when you were 10 years old. That’s a fifth grader (not sure what you Brits call it). My grandfather died when I was 7 and I understood damn well what had happened. I cried and cried and knew that he was never coming back. And I wasn’t exactly an exceptionally brilliant child or anything. I’m sure Mary was smarter at that age than I was.
Plus, even if she was abused, it certainly doesn’t excuse her actions. If a traumatic event from the past drives an adult to kill, we don’t excuse it. Now, I’m not saying that she’s completely on par with an adult killer, but I also don’t think that we should gloss over what she did as if she was incapable of knowing right from wrong. What she did was vile and she knew it.
True enough. Peer pressure isn’t reserved for kids, though. And, at least in the way the story described it, Mary seemed to be the instigator.
Well then, why did she kill?
Well, I don’t claim to have any knowledge of psychology that most laypeople don’t have, but you do have to bear in mind that the psychiatrist’s quotes were from the late '60s. Also, another psychiatrist quoted in the story from the trial actually did use the term “sociopath.”
Yes I know the psychiatrists in the case used the terms sociopath and psychopath - I’m just questioning how helpful these terms are.
Why did she kill? Well, this is exactly the question that wasn’t asked at the time. The answer then was “because she was a psychopath” which is a circular argument. I think most children are capable of violent behaviour, but with good parenting, become aware that adults do not approve, and, more importantly, come to develop a conscience of their own. But that’s with good parenting.
You sound very sure that you understood the meaning of death at 7. I’m questioning whether ALL children are that sure, particularly if they have had no experience of death (eg of a relative) and also if the child’s moral sense has been warped by horrific abuse.
Personally I don’t think I really understood death until my cat died when I was 11 (don’t laugh). I know I was capable of violent behaviour as a small child - now, let’s say that instead of my good childhood, I had experienced abuse - perhaps that violence would have grown and exploded instead of fading out.
If you have had a good or average childhood, it is difficult to imagine how you would have behaved at the age of 10 if you had been unwanted and routinely abused by your parents from the start. But I think we have to try.
You said, quote:
“Plus, even if she was abused, it certainly doesn’t excuse her actions. If a traumatic event from the past drives an adult to kill, we don’t excuse it. Now, I’m not saying that she’s completely on par with an adult killer, but I also don’t think that we should gloss over what she did as if she was incapable of knowing right from wrong. What she did was vile and she knew it.”
I’m not trying to underestimate the horror of what happened, or “gloss over” the deaths of the victims. What I am questioning is whether a 10 year old can be considered responsible. Nor am I saying that children do not know they are doing wrong - but they do not understand just how wrong it is. At the time of the trial, Mary Bell apparently turned to a prison officer and asked “Will my mother have to pay a fine?” I think this shows that she had no real understanding of the gravity of what she had done.
That’s true. I hadn’t thought of that. Just because she was quite intelligent in a conventional sense doesn’t mean her emotional intelligence was up to snuff. And, if all the allegations of unspeakable abuse are true, it probably wasn’t.
The “Will my mother have to pay a fine” quote does suggest that she didn’t understand the implications of what she did. That quote wasn’t in the story. Thanks for mentioning it.
Perhaps I could have phrased my OP better and not been so simplistic. Really, I wasn’t even thinking about it too much when I wrote it. I just wanted to point the story out to American readers who probably have never heard of the case, as it does make a very interesting read.
Yes, it is an interesting case because it raises difficult questions. I just think people would be better informed by reading the book (though the book isn’t beyond criticism obviously).
Anyway thanks for discussing it so reasonably - you can have your thread back now!
I got the book last chrismas. It is beautiful! Amazing shots! Really different…
Besides SDMB I often hang out in the arstechnica message board.