US boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

[Razgovory]

I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

I think it's the culture of fear.  The media is much more interested in reporting about the kidnapping of one child by a stranger than about millions of children that went home alone safe and a little bit more independent.

Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of the changes in attitude in the past 25-30 years have been driven by the media.

I think it is being driven by a bunch of factors. A major one I think is a lower birth rate. When you have 4 kids, you simply can't schedule them the same way as you can if you have 1. People are on average having children later in life, and so have more cash - again, leading to more scheduling. With more scheduling comes less free time and more supervision. Then, people are more concerned about safety *generally* - not just about kids. Helmets, seat-belts, cigarettes - attitudes towards all of these have changed.

I think a major one is far fewer people are homemakers then they were in 1970.  Kids are in other people's hands more and parents are naturally more concerned about safety of their children when they can't see them.  Scheduling is also a means to prevent the kids from staying around in an unsupervised home.

[Malthus]

Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Maybe because we are. 

But yeah, I think there is a lot of nostalgia about the "good old days". Yes, kids had less supervision and more responsibility - but the downside of that is that they also had a lot more real hazards. The "stranger danger" thing is bullshit, but there were a lot of non-bullshit dangers we tolerated as a matter of course - the more rational concern with very young children walking to school isn't being snatched by a predator (the odds against that are astronomically low), but of the kid getting hit by a car; riding bicycles without helmets was fun and cool - and of course we all survived it - but the odds of head injuries were reasonably high. No-one thought twice about 'secondhand smoke' in those days, kids rode in the back of the car without seatbelts, etc.

Also, standards of civility have changed drastically - homophobic and racial slurs were universal when I was growing up among schoolkids, now among young kids I see (my kids friends) they are not used; we were a lot more violent as kids than my kid's crowd (fighting was common and more or less tolerated, as long as it was 'fair').

[mongers]

Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Maybe because we are. 

But yeah, I think there is a lot of nostalgia about the "good old days". Yes, kids had less supervision and more responsibility - but the downside of that is that they also had a lot more real hazards. The "stranger danger" thing is bullshit, but there were a lot of non-bullshit dangers we tolerated as a matter of course - the more rational concern with very young children walking to school isn't being snatched by a predator (the odds against that are astronomically low), but of the kid getting hit by a car; riding bicycles without helmets was fun and cool - and of course we all survived it - but the odds of head injuries were reasonably high. No-one thought twice about 'secondhand smoke' in those days, kids rode in the back of the car without seatbelts, etc.

Also, standards of civility have changed drastically - homophobic and racial slurs were universal when I was growing up among schoolkids, now among young kids I see (my kids friends) they are not used; we were a lot more violent as kids than my kid's crowd (fighting was common and more or less tolerated, as long as it was 'fair').

Maybe it was all down to the lead in the petrol? 

[crazy canuck]

Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Maybe because we are. 

But yeah, I think there is a lot of nostalgia about the "good old days". Yes, kids had less supervision and more responsibility - but the downside of that is that they also had a lot more real hazards. The "stranger danger" thing is bullshit, but there were a lot of non-bullshit dangers we tolerated as a matter of course - the more rational concern with very young children walking to school isn't being snatched by a predator (the odds against that are astronomically low), but of the kid getting hit by a car; riding bicycles without helmets was fun and cool - and of course we all survived it - but the odds of head injuries were reasonably high. No-one thought twice about 'secondhand smoke' in those days, kids rode in the back of the car without seatbelts, etc.

Also, standards of civility have changed drastically - homophobic and racial slurs were universal when I was growing up among schoolkids, now among young kids I see (my kids friends) they are not used; we were a lot more violent as kids than my kid's crowd (fighting was common and more or less tolerated, as long as it was 'fair').

Certainly standards have greatly changed as there are far fewer homophobic slurs.  But I am not so sure about the racial slurs.  We are going through an election in which one of the main issues has quite surprisingly become an attack on a racial and religious minority.  So I am not so sure we have improved to the degree you suggest.  There is certainly a lot less violence amongst kids.  I think the main reason is their schedules are so full they don't have the free time to become so pissed off at another kid that they want to fight and even if they did they would never have the time alone to actually conduct the fight.

[Ideologue]

Fights take about thirty seconds.  You can fit them in.

The reason is we've become more violence-averse as a society, and kids who do engage in violence (and other kinds of bad behavior) are treated like legitimate criminals.

[merithyn]

Meri, I think you are significantly underestimating the ability of that age group.

My comments came straight from Psychology Today. The level of understanding is what is the common belief of psychologists who study this.

I get that personal experience may tell you one thing. My own experiences are similar to some of yours but not entirely, and I did work in a Middle School, raise four children, and now teach Sunday School to Middle Schoolers, so my experiences aren't limited.

What we perceive is not necessary what it 100% accurate. No offense, guys, but the studies that I was looking at - by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Granted, these were American-centric studies, but this is an American kid that we're talking about. And I understand the bemoaning of how we've created an environment where kids are babied practically through college. But that is the reality for this child that we're discussing.

My oldest two boys understood right from wrong, and danger, and what it meant to take a life, but that doesn't mean that all of that would have come together just perfectly during a fit of rage at 11 years old. They're amazing, empathetic, compassionate young men now, but they were, without a doubt, in that 50% of sociopaths at aged 11.

And I think there needs to be something said about how American society babies children today (much to my personal dismay, too, FWIW). Because society has essentially taken away all of the opportunities for kids to learn compassion, strength of character, and personal responsibility, many children are much later in developing the skills that we learned at a much younger age. That is a factor here. THIS child in the society that we, as adults, have created, very well may not have the emotional, logical, nor rational ability to understand what he was doing in the heat of the moment. He may get it NOW, but that doesn't bring that little girl back.

Do we not punish him? Of course we do. But we do so in a way that will help him learn from that mistake, not in a way that will turn him into a worse human being later. It was a mistake. A deadly, horrible, breath-takingly awful mistake, but it was a mistake. And to treat it as if he did it with malice or forethought is only going to create a monster out of him.

[Razgovory]

If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

[crazy canuck]

by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

[dps]

by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

Well, since it says that half of them are sociopaths, I guess it's not saying that they don't know that they can kill someone with a gun, but rather that they're evil enough to put that knowledge to use.

[Eddie Teach]

If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Has anyone suggested he should be punished like an adult?

[merithyn]

by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

I would guess that the bigger concern is understanding what killing means. Has this child ever had someone close to him die? Has he ever been in a situation to fully understand what death means? What we're talking about is the ability to grasp concepts beyond the concrete.

All of this, to me, is more a question not of what did he do, but rather, how did he react after it happened? Is he upset now? Does he understand what happened and what that means for those around him? Is he sorry?

If he doesn't care, if he's unsympathetic to what he did, then it's a very different story. He should be punished in such a way as to show him what he did was completely and utterly wrong. He needs to be taught compassion, empathy, and feelings of guilt. He, in affect, needs a conscious instilled him as his own is clearly lacking.

If, however, he gets it, if he's hurting because of the pain that he's caused and because he's the cause of that little girl's death, then it should be approached differently. He'll need therapy, compassion, and a great deal of support from his family. Yes, and punishment, but not as harshly as if he couldn't care less what he did.

In the end, a little girl is dead, a little boy's life is changed forever, and all of it could have been prevented if the boy's parents had been responsible gun owners. In my mind, the blame lies there.

[dps]

If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Has anyone suggested he should be punished like an adult?

Not that I've seen on this forum, at least. 

I think the impression that he is being tried as an adult comes from the way the article in the OP is worded: 

The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

People see the "has been charged with first-degree murder" part and think it means he's being tried as an adult, missing the "as a juvenile" part.  I know that I did at first, and my initial reaction was like, "Whoa, I didn't think someone that young could be tried as an adult in any US jurisdiction" which lead to me re-reading that section more carefully.

[merithyn]

I will say this, however. Some reports have come out that this little boy had been bullying the girl for months, and no one had done anything about it. The school was aware, and so were the boy's parents. It's absolutely conceivable that this kid knew what he was doing, and made a decision to end this girl's life. I'm willing to accept that this may be the case, and you all are right. He knew what he was doing and he did it with clear intent.

It's just incredibly hard to get there with the information we have, and knowing the boy's age.

[merithyn]

by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

Well, since it says that half of them are sociopaths, I guess it's not saying that they don't know that they can kill someone with a gun, but rather that they're evil enough to put that knowledge to use.

Yeah, that's kind of my take on it. It's not that they don't know it can happen. It's that they don't care.

[merithyn]

Not that I've seen on this forum, at least. 

I think the impression that he is being tried as an adult comes from the way the article in the OP is worded: 

The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

People see the "has been charged with first-degree murder" part and think it means he's being tried as an adult, missing the "as a juvenile" part.  I know that I did at first, and my initial reaction was like, "Whoa, I didn't think someone that young could be tried as an adult in any US jurisdiction" which lead to me re-reading that section more carefully.

And what does it mean for a kid this age? Charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile at 15 should be different than at 11. Do they do that in juvenile court? Is that a mitigating factor? I don't know enough about the juvenile legal system to have any idea how it will play out in court.