A question about children and murder

[Kyriakos]

From time to time this tends to come up, in stories, in the news. Some child, either a pre-schooler or elementary schooler has drowned, choked, or killed in some other way a smaller child. The child who killed cannot be charged, since it is not old enough to be held responsible.

And although i agree that no such child should be punished, the question is what is to happen to him or her. Surely anyone can see that killing someone will not just go away, even if repressed it will present one with tons of psychological problems. So i would trust that such children should at least see a therapist, so as to understand what happened, and to a degree also why it happened.

Personally i think that killing someone in such a young age cannot be seen as the same as killing as an adult/adolescent. Children anyway appear to be always very selfish, and potentially not very much in touch with "reality", ie constructing worlds of their own, and projecting characteristics onto the "real" world which are not of his.

In conclusion of this OP i would like to note that there seem to be two victims here, at least in my view. Both the murdered child, a tragic victim, but also the murderous child, which can easily be destroyed internally for life if it does not resolve, as much as possible, the issues resulting from his or her action.

I would be interested in reading your own views on this subject :)

[cl154576]

Personally i think that killing someone in such a young age cannot be seen as the same as killing as an adult/adolescent. Children anyway appear to be always very selfish, and potentially not very much in touch with "reality", ie constructing worlds of their own, and projecting characteristics onto the "real" world which are not of his.

Not necessarily. Young children can be very selfless.


... but also the murderous child, which can easily be destroyed internally for life if it does not resolve, as much as possible, the issues resulting from his or her action.

Then adult murderers cannot be "destroyed internally for life"? Why children specifically?
(And why do you refer to the child as "it"?)

[Kyriakos]

Sorry, in Greek the noun "child" is of neutral gender, which is why i wrote "it" ;)

I agree that the adult murderer can be destroyed as well, but in a sense he/she probably is destroyed already, whereas a child can potentially, maybe, be salvaged still.

Also law seems to be providing for the exception of pre-adolescents from legal punishment, i was just wondering if it covered the therapeutic part too.

[Lokasenna]

It's very difficult to call the line.

Here in Britain, one of the most memorable cases of murder ever is the Jamie Bulger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Bulger_murder_case) case. Even nearly 10 years on, it is still contraversial and talked about.

If I'm honest, I think the law has been too lenient. What those two ten year olds did was so grotesque that a child half their age would know that it was completely evil. These two monsters should never have been released.

Murder is a line that, once crossed, you can nver go back from, no matter how young you are when you do it. It has a profound psychological effect on everyone it touches.

[cl154576]

Sorry, in Greek the noun "child" is of neutral gender, which is why i wrote "it" ;)

I never knew that, thanks for telling me.


If I'm honest, I think the law has been too lenient. What those two ten year olds did was so grotesque that a child half their age would know that it was completely evil. These two monsters should never have been released.

Definitely. People use age as an excuse. I would excuse a two-year-old from murder, because it was probably unintentional, but at that age, definitely not ... I knew what murder was when I was ten.

[Vonny]

Personally i think that killing someone in such a young age cannot be seen as the same as killing as an adult/adolescent. Children anyway appear to be always very selfish, and potentially not very much in touch with "reality", ie constructing worlds of their own, and projecting characteristics onto the "real" world which are not of his.

Children create their own worlds, but in their world whether real or of their own creation, their sensibilities function the same.

At the earliest age, the propensity to hurt/not to hurt another is clearly evident. It can be observed in a child's treatment of animals.

[NikolaiI]

Children create their own worlds, but in their world whether real or of their own creation, their sensibilities function the same.

At the earliest age, the propensity to hurt/not to hurt another is clearly evident. It can be observed in a child's treatment of animals.

Yes, but there's an age before which children, even if they show that propensity, they don't always fully understand. By the age of 3, most normal children have a fairly firm grasp of it, but even 3 year olds still have not formed the understanding as solidly as older children. And below 3 - you really have to watch children. NEVER leave a 2 year old alone with a younger child. Completely normal 2 year olds have been known to jab out the eyes of younger children, because they don't understand how wrong it is; those connections haven't been completely solidified yet.

And as I understand it, that's normal development. Just wanted to mention that. When they first get the propensity to not hurt first appears, it's not yet the deterrent it will be in later years. The kids are still in the process of making their first emotional connections, and though they really are 'persons', they cannot ever be viewed so emotionally mature.

And then you have things like 3-year-old Mozart playing the violin and writing music. So, go figure.

[Paulclem]

It's very difficult to call the line.

Here in Britain, one of the most memorable cases of murder ever is the Jamie Bulger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Bulger_murder_case) case. Even nearly 10 years on, it is still contraversial and talked about.

If I'm honest, I think the law has been too lenient. What those two ten year olds did was so grotesque that a child half their age would know that it was completely evil. These two monsters should never have been released.

Murder is a line that, once crossed, you can nver go back from, no matter how young you are when you do it. It has a profound psychological effect on everyone it touches.

It is very controvercial, but I disagree about how we should regard these children. As soon as they were labelled monsters, they became, in the public mind, something other than the children they were when they killed the poor lad.

I think the tendency to label them as evil is far too swift. It assumes that they planned and executed a course of action, whereas they were children who went from one situation of abuse to the deadly one of murder. Children are chaotic in their thinking - they don't plan. They just reacted.

That they needed therapy, incarceration etc etc is without question. Whether what they did as children should mean that they can never escape that sentence is harsh in the extreme. A child can't be labelled as a murderer in the same way as you would an adult killer, and the law recognises this rightly. That they will never psychologically escape from it is without doubt.

My son was about the same age as James Bulger when he died, and it was horrible to reflect on. I also think of the many people who saw those two lads and James as they walked through the city. They too will probably be haunted by the fact that they didn't or couldn't do anything.

One of the disturbing things - other than the murder itself - is the way it was used to launch into critiques of society by people who had an agenda. That's typical though.

At the end of the day a child died and two children will have been scarred by their actions. A tragedy all round.

[Vonny]

Yes, but there's an age before which children, even if they show that propensity, they don't always fully understand. By the age of 3, most normal children have a fairly firm grasp of it, but even 3 year olds still have not formed the understanding as solidly as older children. And below 3 - you really have to watch children. NEVER leave a 2 year old alone with a younger child. Completely normal 2 year olds have been known to jab out the eyes of younger children, because they don't understand how wrong it is; those connections haven't been completely solidified yet.

And as I understand it, that's normal development. Just wanted to mention that. When they first get the propensity to not hurt first appears, it's not yet the deterrent it will be in later years. The kids are still in the process of making their first emotional connections, and though they really are 'persons', they cannot ever be viewed so emotionally mature.

And then you have things like 3-year-old Mozart playing the violin and writing music. So, go figure.


Oh, you're the person whose blog I read last night - interesting.

I'm sure you're correct. I've not had a lot of experience with children under the age of about 4. I'm sure there's an early developmental period before empathy is established, when children can't distinguish that there are other beings apart from themselves.

[Buh4Bee]

Children are egocentric until they are about 8. This means that they are not able to see the world from another person's perspective. They tend to think about the world as if they are the center of it. One cannot assume that the child is selfish, because they have not yet developed a concept of such socially appropriate behavior such as kindness. They are not able to choose to be a certain way when given a chance to act toward another either in a positive or negative way. This is a general statement about children's development as it may not apply to all children given the spectrum range.

People have suggested certain ages, such as ten, as to when a child should be held accountable for such acts as murdering another. I believe that there is a great deal of research that the social workers, psychiatrists, and legal team use as a basis to help determine what is the appropriate legal proceedings and outcomes for the prosecuted. I do believe ten is a very young age to put a child in jail or the juvenile system and it is sickening to think about such a circumstance. Furthermore, is common knowledge that it is inappropriate or unfair to compare a child to an adult.

An older child (upper elementary school) that does commit such an act may be living in an extremely difficult environmental situation such as poverty, drugs, or prostitution. On the other extreme, the child could be provided for materially, but experience harsh levels of neglect. These environmental factors may contribute to the child's inability to act in a rational or controlled way. But most likely, the child has some sort of emotional disturbance. In either case, the child will be offered or forced to go to therapy, as a minimal part of the treatment or rehabilitation.

In my opinion, my first instinct to want to place blame on someone for the child's predicament. The first person who comes to mind is the parent. I try to exercise self restraint in these sorts of circumstances, because of the level of complexity. Often if you are dealing with a child living in poverty it becomes a social problems. I am less knowledgable about the child of neglect (upper class background). In both suggested cases, these children are victims of their environment.