This is also what I am thinking.
And I think for the rest of their lives they should be on probation and the police should keep track of them. That way say if in 20 years from now someone they know dies of mysterious circumstance, they knew who possibly to check out.
Mind your blasphemy. The Slender Man is real . . .
All babies are psychopaths. Socialisation unmakes them. Psychopathy is widely seen as caused by poor socialisation. some may be harder to socialise than others.
Yes.
People are arguing for treating children as children, sure. But not that they shouldn’t be punished in any way. The post that you quoted is a very good example, it referred to the James Bulger case in the UK (and as a Brit I am very well acquainted with this case as it was huge at the time and on slow news days certain news sources would bring it up again over the years). In that case the children that killed James were tried as children and still punished as children. No one said “they were just being kids”, but what they did say is that “we have to treat them differently as kids”. They still went away for several years.
I’m a guy, and I never tried to conceive the perfect crime as a child. :dubious:
But they did not go to prison. They went to residential schools set up for children who had problems with their life whether criminal or otherwise and probably had a better environment and education than they would have received if they had stayed in Liverpool!
Neither has killed anyone since! They have had a few scrapes- drugs, pregnancies, downloading child porn but probably no worse than your average kid. Of course the press like to demonise them but that is how they sell newspapers!
Well,the “just being kids” part is a bit of exaggeration, but everything else in that post is on target. I’m not buying that 12 year olds don’t know that death is permanent.
I’m all for treating juveniles differently than adults for burglary, vandalism, what have you. When you get into violent crimes like murder and attempted murder that’s a whole different breed of cat. For these crimes, the primary concern is protecting the public. The default position should be life in prison. Psychological treatment and rehabilitation can be tried, but the bar should be high for releasing them.
I’m not buying the “they didn’t know death was permanent” bullshit. I was 7 when JFK was killed and I knew damn well at 7 that he wasn’t coming back and that killing him was a terrible crime. I find it hard to believe that these 12 year olds didn’t understand what they were doing.
The research shows that kids do not map the world as adults do, that they suffer from concrete thinking and magical thinking at the same time and can hold massively contradictory views. Psychologists believe that this period of confusion is necessary for the formation of an adult persona. I have produced a paper up page which supports this as do most child development texts.
Anecdotes are not data.
At 10 years old, most children begin to understand that death is a universal, irreversible, and nonfunctional state (meaning that dead beings cannot do the things that the living do). Interestingly, even after children reach this level of understanding they might continue to struggle with the idea that death is final, possibly because of certain religious beliefs. However, this may suggest a more mature understanding of death rather than a less mature one. Children with immature, binary concepts of death see people as either alive or dead, and do not consider the idea that there may be any other options based on religious values and ideas about afterlife.
The third stage of cognitive development is concrete operational stage. This stage starts when we are about seven years old. It is when we begin to reason logically. During this stage the magical thinking still exists and the death is viewed as some scary skeleton that is going to kidnap and kill them. Between ages six and ten children think that they can cheat death which shows that they do not understand the universality of death yet. The mature understanding of death starts when children are about ten years old. The fact that the suicide among children of ages from 5 to 14 is present highlights that children do not fully understand the concept of death. Children simply do not see the number of possibilities in the future that is also the reason why the suicide among children happens.
The next and the final stage of Piaget’s cognitive development is formal operational stage. At this stage children obtain a possibility of logical and abstract thinking. By the age of ten we start to understand that death will take part sometime in our bodies, and by understanding this we agree that we will also die some day. The main idea of Piaget’s theory and all his studies is that adults are able to understand death whereas children can not.
Worth reading the whole article.
Not seeing anything in those articles that says 12-year-olds don’t know that death is final. But, if you think about it, they are even MORE dangerous to society if they don’t know that. You start acting a lot more independently at that age, and if you don’t know that death is final, and you have violent propensities, then you need to be removed from society lest you kill someone thinking it’s no big deal.
I think you have a rather different view of those institutions than those who have actually seen them:
They were locked up. They had their freedom taken away from them. In time they were allowed out to do things much like “real” prisoners are, but that was always a privilege, not a right. It could be revoked at any time.
My pendulum might be swinging toward trial & sentencing in accordance with juvenile court (with special consideration for the severity of this crime), but " minimum element of negative punishment"? That’s going to be a real tough sell. Part of the “re-education” needs to be that in the real world your actions have consequences. Very severe actions, have very severe consequences, which includes negative punishment. If you want to argue that negative punishment has no real social benefit, thats a great philosophical discussion but really only applicable to utopia. In my mind its an extreme, with the extreme at the opposite end of the spectrum being “eye for an eye”.
Also, my birthday is in October so some quick math tells me that when i was 12 i had started the 7th grade. If you tell me that someone in the 7th grade doesn’t understand that death is permanent, i’m going to tell you that person is an outlier, not the norm.
Are you suggesting removing them because they might act out, or only after they have offended. The Scandinavian model is, like the UK one a system of secure but not locked down residential schools. The aim is solely rehab and safety, but not punishment. Once such child offenders have been through several years of that there is no indication that they are more likely to commit serious crimes than non offenders.
Your opinion is noted. Empirical research disagrees.
I actually know the home in which Venable’s was detained. It is better than many residential public schools.
And I went to a school that was 20% boarders. I stayed on occasion in the boarding areas. For a start it was noticeable that no one was locked in anywhere.
The article is excellent. I must have missed it when published.
I would make two points. One is that single event serious offenders of all ages, especially killers, are less likely to become recidivist than career repeat minor offenders and hence are more open to successful rehab and education. And two, that such places are several more orders of magnitude rehabilitative than prisons. Such homes have skilled professional staff rather than trained non professional warders.
What do you mean by “negative punishment”?
Are you suggesting that imprisonment is “negative punishment” because it removes freedom? I don’t think inmates experience it that way. I think they experience the imposition of the prison environment (or whatever you want to call it) as a “positive punishment,” in the BF Skinner sense.
A minimum element of negative punishment would be something like telling kids they can’t eat ice cream, or play their favorite sport, for a certain period of time, at least to my mind.
What does it mean to you?
Punishment may be more or less punitive. Secure children’s homes seek to minimise harm and distress.