1
   

When a child commits a murder, whos fault is it really???

 
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 09:22 am
sorry bout the quote, it got messed up, i was quoting doglover
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 09:40 am
First of all, referring to someone's response as stupid is just plain rude and you need to check yourself.

Second, I'll repeat what I said earlier. As a parent, you have a basic responsibility to teach your child right from wrong. Babies aren't born knowing these things, they have to be taught. You keep jumping from children to adults here and of course, it's a different ballgame when you're talking about adults but what was the title of this thread? "When a Child Commits Murder..."
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 09:49 am
Correct me if I'm wrong but you said something like:

eoe wrote:
If a parent sees their child being brutal or killing early and does nothing about it, then it would be their fault, IMO, if that little kid gets older and actually murders someone.


So it appears to me that you brought the adult aspect into it, not me.

I am not disagreeing with you that children need to be taught right from wrong but at some point in their life they will learn whether a parent does the teaching or not. They may learn right from wrong in an infinite number of ways, it will happen eventually, no matter what.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 09:59 am
Nope. I wasn't talking about adults at all. I was talking children. I specifically said 3 or 4 as little kids killing birds and butterflies resulting in 12 and 13 year old murderers. I kept to that age because i agree that when a kid is 16 or 17, something else should have kicked in by then, thoughts and ideas outside of their parent,s and that kind of puts the bulk of the responsibility on the child at that point.

If we're talking about young kids, let's stick with kids. if we're talking about adults, then let's do that.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:02 am
Let's talk about kids.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:05 am
Okay. I edited the above response. Check it out.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:10 am
I think the legal issue here is cloudy at best, but philosophically, I believe it lies in the attempt to distinguish at what age does a human being become responsible for their actions. The sad truth of the world today is that criminals are getting younger, and feel invincible due to the laws protecting underage defendents. Don't ask me to cite a source, because it was a while ago, but does anyone remember the trial of the two kids in Britain who deliberately, with pre-meditation, beat a younger kid to death with a baseball bat? Sure they were very young, but they came from stable homes. Why should they not be held responsible for their actions? I do indeed believe in "bad apples", and the current law does not allow for this distinction, i.e., the child with a born killer instinct, and the child who lashes out due to abuse. Basically, the law is too broad, and needs to be reformed, IMO. Charging parents for a child's crime is also a legal technique to get around the child protection laws, in hopes that the child will confess. I'm not saying that this is always the case, but it has happened.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:11 am
I agree, when a child is so young that they haven't been in the world long enough to know these things, then it may be partially the parents fault. But let's not forget about the kids who don't have parents who tell them right from wrong and yet, they never kill anyone. So that brings up another question, are some people born killers? (should i post a new topic for this alltogether?)
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:20 am
It's such a morbid topic, Carbon, I don't know if you should or not. It is an interesting one tho'...
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:25 am
The 'born-killer' theory is unprovable at the moment, and fuelled by a lot of apocryphal stories, and shady medical evidence. My guess is that all you would get for that topic would be a flood of opinion, with little value. I think this topic is more relevant, in terms of how we might want to rethink the current legal system regarding child killers. Feel free though, to start a debate about the possibility of born evil. I'm sure it will get a lot of response, from both the religious lot and the secularists.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:33 am
What's your age-limit, cav? When does a child become responsible for his/her own actions?

There was a case here last year about a 11 year old foster child who beat and drowned his 3 year old foster sister for wetting herself and it was determined that he had seen and learned this horrifying behavior from the foster parents. Child services had been contacted by the neighbors several times because the parents were beating the children and everyone knew it. Sadly, the boy took it to the extreme.

The foster parents were charged with, I think, second-degree murder. Can't speak for anyone else but personally, I was satisfied with that.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:42 am
eoe, putting an age limit on the children would be one step further into hell, for the law, despite my feelings about when a child becomes self-aware. I am talking about taking a deeper look into the psyche of a child killer, to determine whether or not it was the child's fault, or the influence of the parents/guardians. If it is decided that there was no external influence on the child's decision to kill, I believe they should be tried as adults. In the case you described, I concur with the sentence.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 10:59 am
The agents handling the case at Child Services were fired as well. Justice served all around. I don't remember what happened to the 11 year old, tho.

If being tried as a child or as an adult is determined strictly by the influence in the home, that opens the floodgates on parents who spank their children. To many, there's no difference between a child being smacked on the behind for running out into the street for the tenth time and a baby being thrown against a wall because it won't stop crying.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 11:23 am
Thier problem is that they want to find a new person to blame, the problem is the first person blamed might just be the right one.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 11:31 am
So Carbon, what should have happened to the 11 year old I described above?
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 11:38 am
In my opinion, the correct things were administered, but the child needs to undergo some kind of course or classes.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 11:52 am
Absolutely. I'm sure the child wasn't just handed over to another foster family. Extensive counseling is necessary. Sad story, huh? The foster mother was in court bawling her eyes out. She needed to be smacked, like she probably smacked those babies, and told to dry it up right now!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 12:14 pm
It's societies fault.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 12:27 pm
Ahhhh, fresh meat, eh Carbon?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2004 12:31 pm
Spanking IS an issue now, legally. Personally, a smack on the bum is quite different than a whip with a belt, or a brutal beating with fists...maybe it's just me though.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/15/2020 at 12:40:29