Q5: To what degree do you genuinely feel as a middle aged man that you are responsible for the actions of a 14 year old boy in a fit of anger? I mean, sure, that collection of cells eventually became the collection of cells that now constitute "you", but aren't you essentially different organisms: your brains do/did different things, you believe different things, and the current you probably dislikes the person "you" were in that moment enormously. Given that, does the State reeeallly have the right to imprison you now on account of the immoral actions of a different you? (Andrew F)
A: Hmmm, I see what you are saying,..but! Even though there is not a single cell in my body that is the same as the one that committed murder, there is that indefinable essence of "I" that is a constant. And I'm as responsible for what I did today as at the time.
Showing posts with label child crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child crime. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
On Children Who Kill
Children who commit horrible crimes present as special a case as can be imagined for the criminal justice system. What do we do with such people? The seemingly polar opposites of choice, between rehabilitation and punishment invite the most extreme views.
Such children provoke a response in some sections of society that is truly bestial. The awfulness of the crime can be reflected in the mindless, bestial response it provokes. The same people who march for "saving the children" can just as easily call for the most horrible punishments to be inflicted upon other children. This was recently illustrated by the children’s charity Kidscape protesting at the 'short' sentence handed down to two children who brutalised other kids. We only want to protect 'nice' kids, apparently, and the bad ones can rot in hell.
I have my own extreme view. Along with most jurisdictions in the Western world, I don't believe that ten year old children can be held fully responsible for their actions. It follows that they cannot bear the same criminal responsibility as adults.
At such a young age, I believe that few children are irredeemable and that huge efforts should be expended in order to guide their psychological development so that a reasonable adult emerges.
I also believe that those amongst us who spout hatred at such children should examine their consciences. It is because of such people - responsible adults! - that some criminals require new identities. Having whipped-up a vigilante level of mindless vitriol, it ill befits us to then complain about the expense required to keep such child criminals safe.
The decent thing would be to drop the subtext of the public pronouncements and be brutally honest. Many people do hold ten year old murderers to be fully responsible and they hate them with an energy that they rarely direct at adult killers. Some people, media barons amongst them, would dearly love to hound these criminals every day of their lives, both provoking then recording their torments for our delight. Some would openly call for their own murder, preferably after prolonged torture.
All of these statements are, I honestly believe, true and only barely masked in media reporting. Whilst parading in the clothes of moral outrage, these commentators, editorials and victims representatives are indulging in a horrific pantomime whose end is hoped to be bloody. Their hate and vicarious pleasure in rehashing the awful crime blinds them to their own sense of shame.
Our treatment of children who kill is a lens through which we can examine society. And what it is revealing is repulsive.
Such children provoke a response in some sections of society that is truly bestial. The awfulness of the crime can be reflected in the mindless, bestial response it provokes. The same people who march for "saving the children" can just as easily call for the most horrible punishments to be inflicted upon other children. This was recently illustrated by the children’s charity Kidscape protesting at the 'short' sentence handed down to two children who brutalised other kids. We only want to protect 'nice' kids, apparently, and the bad ones can rot in hell.
I have my own extreme view. Along with most jurisdictions in the Western world, I don't believe that ten year old children can be held fully responsible for their actions. It follows that they cannot bear the same criminal responsibility as adults.
At such a young age, I believe that few children are irredeemable and that huge efforts should be expended in order to guide their psychological development so that a reasonable adult emerges.
I also believe that those amongst us who spout hatred at such children should examine their consciences. It is because of such people - responsible adults! - that some criminals require new identities. Having whipped-up a vigilante level of mindless vitriol, it ill befits us to then complain about the expense required to keep such child criminals safe.
The decent thing would be to drop the subtext of the public pronouncements and be brutally honest. Many people do hold ten year old murderers to be fully responsible and they hate them with an energy that they rarely direct at adult killers. Some people, media barons amongst them, would dearly love to hound these criminals every day of their lives, both provoking then recording their torments for our delight. Some would openly call for their own murder, preferably after prolonged torture.
All of these statements are, I honestly believe, true and only barely masked in media reporting. Whilst parading in the clothes of moral outrage, these commentators, editorials and victims representatives are indulging in a horrific pantomime whose end is hoped to be bloody. Their hate and vicarious pleasure in rehashing the awful crime blinds them to their own sense of shame.
Our treatment of children who kill is a lens through which we can examine society. And what it is revealing is repulsive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
