How young is too young to charge a child with murder

[redhen]

mom'sfolly :

I think, developmentally, most five-year-olds do not understand death. They don't understand that it is permanent and that the people are gone forever. So, no you don't charge a five-year-old with murder.

This.. x2.

But..if the anti-social behaviors CONTINUE.. then ya, you have a problem on your hands.
This child needs therapy and to be monitered very closely..​

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I guess I'm assuming that if murder is being the charge considered here, then it is likely the child is showing no remorse. That limits the options of what you are dealing with in kids. A typical child who accidentally killed someone is usually more than upset. Those are usually covered as "tragic accidents" in the newspapers, not as "murders". For murder to be considered in a child, I'd have to at least consider that it is likely that normal behaviors are not being displayed here. I do not think children who kill are generally labeled as sociopaths though. As can be seen in this thread, most do not accept the fact that some children can kill with intent, or the possibility of that.

Were it an autistic child, you usually don't see them lashing out to the point to kill someone until adolescence, and violence among people with autism is more tantrum and beating related, not something that requires premeditation such as filling up a tub and drowning or even dragging someone to a tub they knew was filled. The same is usually true of people displaying violence because of something like epilepsy (complex partial seizures...non convulsive and usually do not cause violence but can occasionally). Any killing showing planning of any kind starts to limit your options in children (and adults). Like Welsummer said, different circumstances alter how individual cases are handled.

CoyoteMagic, that is tragic. I've seen the shuffling through group homes too. Need better systems and research in place in my opinion.
Leafzoo, that is really interesting. I've got to try to find that. I know that violent criminals tend to have differences in the brain that show up in imaging, but that the same differences don't always translate over to sociopaths. I really support people who are trying to help understand the brain and make effective changes.

 

[cassie]

I remember being five very well. And I can tell you that even at that young age I knew that death was permanent, and that if I held a living creature under water it would die. Kids know more than people give them credit for. Personally, I would have that kid evaluated to see if she is a sociopath.

 

[ChickyLove]

My five year old daughter has Asperger's (essentially high functioning autism spectrum disorder). She definitely grasps the concept of right versus wrong, truth versus lie, alive versus dead. I don't think that anyone will truly know for sure what was really going on in that little girl's head when she did what she did. Heartbreaking.

 

[Mattemma]

Kids get away with killing so easily. Even if the child was charged with murder they will be out and about in society in a few years. I don't care if a kid was 5 or 15-if they killed MY child I would not be very accepting of the child simply getting some counseling to *understand* why killing my kid was a bad thing,and how they shouldn't do that again.

 

[welsummerchicks]

I guess I'm assuming that if murder is being the charge considered here, then it is likely the child is showing no remorse

That is not correct. A charge of murder requires intent. CLEAR intent.

Read the law. Murder involves going out with the intent of killing someone.

Otherwise, everyone would say 'I'm sorry' after and avoid charges of murder and longer prison sentences.

Even if someone is angry at someone or dislikes the other person, that is not INTENT. It MAY be part of intent, possibly, but generally, no.

INTENT means you wake up in the morning, buy a gun, tell your friend, 'I'm gonna kill that SOB today', and you go out and shoot that person in the head or heart and he dies.

Two guys are drunk, and they start playing around, smacking each other. It escalates into an argument. Things get out of hand. One person winds up dead. There may be many charges and a long, long jail sentence, but murder may not wind up being one of the charges.

In the public mind, 'murder' equals 'killing someone'. In the legal system, the word 'murder' is a very specific charge for very specific conditions.

Charging someone with murder or not, generally has very little to do with whether they act sorry afterwards or not. It's all about intent.

Additionally, there are different degrees of the murder charge, as well as modifying circumstances that can lead to an EVEN LONGER sentence. Such as murdern in the process of committing another felony.

People CAN get charged with a good many OTHER charges and the sentencing guidelines for THOSE charges can add up to an awful lot of years in jail. It isn't like someone 'gets away with it' if they are not charged with murder. There are many, many other possibilities of what they can be charged with. The legal system is logical and flexible enough to allow for different situations.

Our laws recognize that people very often kill someone without actually having clear intent to do so.

A man I know got seven years for killing someone. I am not sure what the charges were. He did get seven years. He was robbed. he left the scene, went to his house, got a gun, and walked back, and shot the guy that robbed him.

As much as a good many readers would go 'yay! That's justice', people don't actually have the legal right in this country to make themselves judge, jury and sentencer. That's vigilantism.

The judge was put in an extremely difficult position. What he did was give the guy the minimum he could under the circumstances. He wanted to be clear that the guy had no right to become a vigilante, yet still take into consideration the situation. The judge did the best he could. Judges can't just make up their own charging and sentencing guidelines, they have to follow the law.

 

[Crazy4mypeeps]

This whole country has "little adult syndrome". As a former foster parent that had to take tons of psyche classes for licensing, the biggest message that I got out of it all, is that even at 17 the brain is not geared to understand and comprehend consequences of actions, its not yet developed. 17, but yet we give them drivers licenses and let them drive. So at the age of 5, how developed is that part of the brain?

You cannot diagnose Bi-Polar until after the age of 23 in women. So to label a 5 year old, who just wanted the screaming to stop, a sociopath, geez. IDK what this world is coming to.

There's a reason that god made it so that it took 18 years to raise a child. Because they are CHILDREN, not adults, not capable of reasoning, and making the decisions necessary to survive in this world.

I truly feel for the parents of this child, because this will follow them, for a long time, and her. Very very sad.

 

[WalkingWolf]

From the news reports I read the 5 year old has not been charged with murder, the case is being reviewed and it may be 8 weeks for a decision. It seems that there were a lot of tragic circumstances to set this in motion. A tub left with bath water, a tired babysitter who happened to fall asleep. Had the 5 year old filled the tub with water I would say no doubt charge the child though it does not mean much. The child cannot go to prison it is against federal law even if convicted as an adult. The child would most likely end with the same fate as if handled by the family court. The only difference is when the child reaches adulthood, and the maximum sentence that can be imposed for murder in the state of Missouri. Death penalty would be out on this case, and most likely there would be a judge to commute the sentence when the child becomes an adult unless there is more anti social behavior. Trying as an adult gives the state the option to keep them away from society just in case the child turns into a monster. In family court the child would be released no matter what at the age of 21 with an expunged record.

 

[schellie69]

Doctor's have studied the brain and the part of the pain that controls impulse control does not fully developed until the person is 25 years old. So how could a 5 year old control the impulse to get the toddler to stop crying.

I know that with Murder there are different charges like
1st degree this is murder with premeditation
2nd degree
Manslaughter (I think they have different degrees for this also) with this you have to show malicious intent
involuntary manslaughter this is for accidents like 2 people involved in a fight.

I do not think that a 5 year old can fully grasp the consequences for putting the toddler in the tub. It could have been that she saw adults give the child a bath to sooth him and she was doing this and then when toddler did not become quiet she held the toddler under the water I do not think she had any malicious intent to harm the toddler just being a 5 year old. I know that even if my children at 5 knew that doing something was wrong they sometimes still broke the rule poor impulse control.

At this age instant gratification is what they think about. I wonder if the baby sitter told her to shut the toddler up she did this with out thinking about her actions or what could happen. Ask a 5 year old to tell you what would happen in a certain situations and they don't always really think it out.

Example one 5 year old says look I can fly and jumps off the jungle gym 5 year old can't fly and gets hurt. The child did not think about the fact that he could not fly and might break his arm or leg or need stitches. We as adults can see that if the 5 year old jumps he will get hurt we stop the 5 year old from jumping. In the OP there was no adult to stop the actions and thoughts of a 5 year old. There for the problem lies with the adults not the child. I do not believe that she is a social path or even has any mental problems just being a normal 5 year old.

CoyoteMagic could you tell me more about this illness. It sounds just like my DD's ex husband.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In spite of the sensationalitic headlines, from the articles I read it looks like they have referred this to family court to determine how to proceed. That is supposed to be an 8 week process.

It is a tragedy, and murder charges may possibly be an option, but just because somebody dreams up a senastionalistic headline to outrage people does not make it a fact. I don't know the details, and due to child privacy laws I think we should never really learn the details, but I think the odds of an actual murder charge against the child are pretty darn thin.

After reading those sensationalistic headlines, I do think that many people will walk away from this convinced that this child has been charged, tried and convicted of murder and unjustrly put away for life, maybe even executed. Just another example of how cruel and unfair our justice system is. How could we treat that poor child so?