How young is too young to charge a child with murder

[Ferrret]

Quote:
If the child was hardly cared for to begin with, where would she have learned the concept of death? If you never learn what death is, why would you be concerned by it?

The volumes of child development studies have been steadily disproven in roughly the past 50 or so years. Children are capable of learning a great deal of things that once were thought to be beyond their mental abilities. No one thought to challenge the minds of children until recently, so no one could really be sure of their ability to comprehend concepts. It has been found that many 'adult' concepts are grasped well by children and that many concepts that adults struggle with very young children have no issue at all dealing with.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. A new study just out shows that even at the age of 21 the brain is still learning to process concepts and govern impulse control.

Still learning does not mean one is incapable of comprehending all concepts. Poor impulse control doesn't mean you don't understand the concept presented, it just means you don't think about the consequences before you act. Children can understand they shouldn't punch someone but react impulsively and do it anyhow. That doesn't mean they don't understand they shouldn't punch people, that just means they can't control their actions fully.

Children as young as 3 can understand that a ball of clay can change it's shape but still be the same mass or that pouring water from a wide container to a tall one doesn't change the volume of water there is. They can figure out patterns and puzzles faster and with less effort than adults can. They can be taught simple concepts and comprehend them fully or at the very least partially if the concept is more complex.

If you teach a 5 year old what death is, in simple terms, they will likely understand what it is. They can understand that you don't hold kittens by the neck because that will kill them. They can understand that Grandpa isn't coming over on Sunday because he has passed away. Give children a little more credit to their intelligence and maybe they won't appear to be so incapable.

But hey, what do I know, I only pursued a minor in psychology out of interest as to how the mind works. It's not like I actually paid attention to anything being taught, what with being under 21 at the time and not being able to grasp concepts and control my impulses.

 

[Carols Clucks]

This whole story seems fishy to me.

First we have an adult going to the bus to pick up the toddlers relative who was going to take him home. Why not take the toddler to meet them at the bus stop?

Then we have the 5 and 18 month old left in the custody of a 16 year old with a mental problem who is not alert enough to watch the youngsters.

And why is the bath tub still full of water?


I think there is more to this story and the real facts are likely different. Either way, the 5 year old needs mental help, the 16 year old needs help and the adult that took off is responsible (even if they did not drown the child in the first place and have to make up this story to cover the death)

 

[farmerlor]

Congrats on the minor in psychology but I've been down in the trenches parenting over 60 children in the last 15 years, reading every child development and parenting book I could get my hands on and a child's grasp on almost anything when they are under the age of 12 is very fluid. You can explain something to them and they can repeat it back to you and even demonstrate the appropriate behavior and then turn around and do the exact opposite because they've extrapolated a new outcome based upon their imagination, their impulse, their history or some other external factor. I've seen people slap a three year old because he KNEW something was wrong.....yeah, well he didn't. The ego told him that satisfying his impulse was more important than the parents' "blah, blah, blah" and he acted accordingly.

 

[lockedhearts]

First, when I was 5, I did understand death. Had a large family and attended funerals, my parents made sure I understood why Granny/Grandaddy was not around any longer.

Also, I am sure there is more to the story than on the surface.....

 

[schellie69]

Here in Kansas we have something called the age of innocence no child under 10 can be charged with a crime. I do not think a child of 5 can really grasp the concept that the toddler would die from drowning. I am sorry I don't think kids of this age have the impulse control or the thought process to think this kind of things out. I think there is more to this story then has been posted. I have not read or seen the news story. I can not believe that someone is thinking of charging a 5 year old with murder. They will have a hard time with a jury proving that this 5 year old had the intent to kill. Also premeditation is a big part of murder and I do not think that a 5 year old can think that far and plan to Kill someone. I knew that my uncle died when I was 5 I understood he was never coming back but I did not fully grasp how someone died. I don't think just because this child drowned the toddler that she is a social path or a serial killer in the making. I do blame the adults that allowed this to happen by their bad choices. I think that if they left these 2 young children in the care of someone who could not take care of them they are then responsible for the death of the toddler. If these are the normal choices the parents make then we can assume that these children are not being taken care of very well. The 5 year old might have seen one of the adults do this to someone else. I think there are more questions then answers at this point.

 

[teach1rusl]

Unless the child is mentally handicapped, I definitely feel that a five year old knows basic right from wrong. However, impulse control is far from stable at that age. Most kindergarten teachers (5 yr. olds) spend a LOT of time trying to teach children to be considerate of others, hitting is wrong (most know this already, but it still happens due to low impulse control in some), and basic self control skills (when you need a crayon, what do you need to do rather than grabbing it from Suzy? how do you think Suzy feels when you grab her crayon?).
All that being said, a psychological assessment and therapy would better serve a child that young (IMO) than a charge of murder.

As to the original question though... I taught a 9 year old who I considered an evil genuis and who I fully expected to hear about in the future being arrested for some horrible crime. The year before he'd put staples in a classmate's peanut butter (sandwich) because he didn't like the kid and started a small fire in the classroom. The year I had him things got worse. By middle school he'd been kicked out of one school, and arrested for giving away "aspirin" to kids at his new school. The "aspirin" were prescription drugs he'd stolen from his parents. Very smart, very sneaky from at least the age of 8. Don't know his history prior to that.

 

[Laurajean]

Quote:
I agree that the child probably knew what she was doing was "bad", but I'm not sure she knew exactly what she was in fact doing. If someone asked her if she knew that losing her temper and putting the baby in the bathtub was bad, I'm sure she'd say yes. But if she were then asked if she fully comprehended the ramifications of this and the meaning of death, even if worded simply, she probably wouldn't have a clue. I really doubt she thought this out, decided, "I'm going to kill Timmy, I'm going to drown him and he'll be gone forever". I'm thinking it was more like "This will shut Timmy up". I don't think her little mind went much beyond the simple goal of quieting the fussy baby.

 

[farmerlor]

In one study a group of preschool and kindergarten students had a lesson on death. Death was explained to them and even personalized with the recent death of an animal in the classroom. It was reiterated several times that death was forever and final. The class took a break and when they returned they were asked if they would be surprised to see a dead loved one or the recently deceased class pet come through the door right now. Not one expressed a single doubt that indeed a dead person could return to them.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Ferret, yup, gotta agree with you and know of similar case studies...as well as have seen them in action. I understand that culturally, it is very hard to accept that these things are possibilities in children (and I don't think anyone is saying that this is an official diagnosis....nor can it be official at that age...but rather that it would be nice if people would consider all the possible options, and that is one of them), but I hope that people start to be more aware of these issues in all ages. While child development studies are useful, they are geared towards norms. Again, things like children committing crimes and murders and being aware about those actions, or children "committing" (always found that to be a bit of an interesting term) suicide in a way that is most decidedly different then normally functioning kids accidentally or unwittingly doing so, do not involve normal or typical circumstances or development. People also seem largely unaware of how even things that happen incredibly early in life, do have the ability to significantly effect development. A few people mentioned that they didn't remember things at early ages, but that doesn't change the fact that infants who are sexually abused, even if they are removed from the situation while still infants, can go on to display extremely abnormal behavior such as manipulating others to have sexual encounters or many other issues that you would not see in a typical child. Have witnessed that one sadly a few too many times. I did not understand myself before then that even things that happen to infants can cause lasting psychological damage and can alter development as much as being dropped on your head can. I also understand that it is extremely hard for many to understand how something like sociopaths (again, actual 'sociopaths', not people displaying sociopathic behavior...huge difference) can develop completely independently from any abuse, especially when one is looking at a child when culture tells us children are innocent beings and a blank slates. I find that as a culture, we still struggle to grasp things of a physiological nature, such as how some forms of epilepsy can completely alter a person's behavior in a way that can not be affected by normal techniques for altering behavior. I still hope that these issues begin to be explored more, and understood more. I will be very glad the day that I no longer have to hear an adoptive parent desperate for help because their six year-old keeps threatening siblings and killing pets in a malicious manner to, in their words, "get back" at the parent being met with a wave of sentiments such as "all they need is love", or "you obviously abused them". I really, really do.

Oh, and also wanted to put in that any disorder has a spectrum to it. Not all sociopaths murder by any means. That is another common misconception.

 

[welsummerchicks]

Generally, the law in the US has said that a child under the age of 5 cannot understand hurting or killing someone.

People very often seem to assume that if a child kills he must have been born a consciousless sociopath. I don't think that's generally what happens, though.

Children who hurt or kill others are really handled on a case-by-case basis by the law. One might require long-term residential treatment if mentally ill. One might go to a juvenile detention center. If the home was thought to contribute to the event that would be very important in deciding what was in the child's best welfare.

The younger the child is, the more responsibility for the crime the parents would have. It isn't unusual for the parent to be charged with various crimes if a child harms someone. The law considers parents to have some level of responsibility for what their children do.

So it depends.

Unless impaired, most likely a 5 year old or up, can understand that they can hurt someone, and their crime would be handled differently.

The other thing is, to be convicted of MURDER - rather than other lesser crimes like manslaughter, a person has to have formed intent, and be CAPABLE of forming intent. The person has to intend to murder. That's necessary for a person to be charged with murder - they had intent.

If a small child drowned someone, it's likely that since they can't form intent, they could not be charged with murder- they'd be charged with something else.

Five and above, it's likely the court would be seriously looking at how a parent allowed that to happen.

A child has increasingly more sole responsibility for his actions as he gets older.

But it would depend on the circumstances. For example, my autistic friend's mother told he if he killed one of his care givers, he would most likely not be charged with murder, but something that reflected his impairment and inability to form intent, and his sentence would be geared toward his impairment.

Ability to form intent depends on circumstances and who it is. An impaired person is less likely to be able (LEGALLY) form intent. But the impaired person may serve a far longer term in a locked residential facility, than an unimpaired person might serve in a regular prison.