Mary Flora Bell Delinquency

This assignment will illustrate that by understanding the fundamentals of the case study and applying the theories to command practice will enhance the overall knowledge of the material. This document will summarize some key aspects of the juvenile case study involving Mary Flora Bell. In addition, it will highlight at least three major factors that I believe are important for one to understand the origins of Mary Flora Bell’s delinquent behavior. Next, this paper will attempt to apply the concepts from the Behavioral theory that was chosen from the text that would better explain the reasons why Mary Flora Bell acted in this manner. Finally, this paper will identify an appropriate strategy geared toward preventing delinquency that in consistent

with the Behavioral theory.
The Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the term delinquency as simply conduct that is out of accord with accepted behavior or the law (Merriam-Webster, 2017). When it comes to juvenile delinquency it becomes a whole different realm of uncertainty. It is usually considered conduct by a juvenile characterized by antisocial behavior that is beyond parental control and therefore subject to legal action. The country, state and/or law usually describes the status of a juvenile as any person under the age of 18. Any violation of the law committed by a juvenile is not punishable by death or life imprisonment; unless the juvenile is tried as an adult.
Social scientists have proposed several theories to explain juvenile delinquency, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

The disciplines of the fields of criminal justice have always been about the real and imagined differences between criminals and non-criminals. Theoretical explanations of crime and crime control, regardless of the perspective, have sought to make sense out of different social factors such as gender, racial and ethnic background, and social class. In the process of sorting out these differences, virtually every theoretical framework has addressed them, and many are debating whether or not these variables matter. It is clear, that after the criminal acts, a clear pattern can be identified to show the how the juvenile ended up on this path (Deling,

2014).
In England, in spring and summer of 1968 two young boys were strangled to death. A medical examiner suggested that the killer might have been a child, since relatively little force was used. Detectives started circulating questionnaires among the local children, asking for suspects leads. Among the children who stood out as suspicious to the investigators were eleven-year-old Mary Bell and thirteen-year-old Norma Bell (no relation) (Scott, 1985).
Mary Flora Bell is a British female juvenile delinquent who was convicted in December 1968 of the manslaughter of two boys, Martin Brown (aged four) and Brian Howe (aged three). Bell was 10 years old when she killed Brown and 11 when she killed Howe, making her one of Britain's most notorious child killers.
Mary Flora Bell was born in England, on May of 1957, when her unwed, mentally unstable mother was, herself, a juvenile delinquent of seventeen, which is the first major factor that I believe to understand the origins of Mary. In the late sixties, mental stability was not at the forefront of any of the parenting program of the poorer class of citizen in the United Kingdom. Mary's father would subsequently wed Betty Bell but did not provide a stable home. Her father was frequently out of work, occasionally in trouble with the law. Mary’s mother was a prostitute who was often absent from the family home, travelling to Glasgow to work. Betty, for her part, frequently left her daughter with relatives or other acquaintances, and once she gave the child to a woman she met on the street, outside an abortion clinic. Independent accounts from family members suggest strongly that Betty had attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental more than once during the first few years of her life.
Mary herself says she was subject to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her to engage in sex acts with men from the age of five (Scott, 1985). The Bell home, in Newcastle, England, was filthy and sparsely furnished. These factors are important for one to understand Mary Flora Bell’s delinquent behavior (Sereny, 2000).
The first Behavioral theory that was chosen to explain the reason why Mary Flora Bell acted in this manner is the Conduct Disorder theory, which is a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age appropriate societal norms are violated. This pattern can be identified through out Mary’s childhood. Aggression and cruelty toward people and animals. She often bullies people, threatens, or intimidates others. Several times in her childhood she was slapped by adults for choking their child. She was sent home from school for fighting. She was caught at a vandalized nursery school loitering beside the building. Mary and her friend denied involvement in the previous break-in and the vandalism, and they were released to the custody of their parents. Mary at age eleven, even had confronted a victim or the parent of one. She appeared at the Brown residence, asking to see Martin. Reminded of the tragedy, she told his grieving mother, "Oh, I know he's dead. I wanted to see him in his coffin.'' (Sereny, 2000)
Another Behavioral theory which is key to understanding Mary is the Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD).

She displayed an elevated level of disobedience behavior at a very young age. As a child she acted out above the level of a normal child, both in intensity and duration. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the clinician’s bible for diagnosing mental problems), a child must display a continuing pattern of extreme disobedience and defiant behavior should continue for a period six month or more (APA, 2017). Mary Bell displayed most of the classic signs of ODD, she often had temper tantrums and frequently failed to observe the rules. She enjoyed provoking others and rarely took responsibility for her own actions. At school, Mary became known as a chronic liar and disruptive pupil. She often argues with adults and actively defies or refuses to comply with adults’ requests or rules. She Mary had a high degree of irritability and general meanness, on occasion, she voiced her desire to hurt people (Sereny,

2000).
To differentiate oppositional defiant disorder from other childhood misbehavior, these criteria must occur more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level. The behaviors associated with oppositional defiant disorder cause clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning. Children with this disorder are not psychotic and do not suffer from mood disorders, however. Between 2 and 15% of all children meet the diagnostic criteria for this disorder (Deling, 2014).
Ms. Bell was described by court psychiatrists as "intelligent, manipulative, and dangerous," Mary proved herself a problem inmate. In 1970, she fabricated charges of indecent assault against one of her warders, but the man was acquitted in court. In September 1977, she escaped from Moor Court open prison with another inmate, but the runaways were captured three days later. In 1980, Mary Bell, aged 23, was released from Askham Grange Open Prison, having served 12 years. She was granted anonymity, including a new name, to start a new life with her daughter, who was born on 25 May 1984 (Scott, 1985).
In the late sixties there were not many appropriate strategies geared toward preventing delinquency.it was a time that people had trouble grasping how children commit horrific acts such as this. In the modern era, there are many programs design to help, but no one wants to quickly label a juvenile as a delinquent. The Better Futures Program, sponsored by the National institute of justice, This program is designed to help young people in foster care with serious mental health challenges prepare for postsecondary education. The program is rated Effective. Youths who received the intervention had significant improvements on self-determination, mental health empowerment, transition planning, career self-efficacy, hope, barriers to education, postsecondary preparation, and transition planning, but not on quality of life or mental health recovery (NIJ, 2017).