10 year old kills 90 yr old

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Mid, Oct 14, 2014.

?

Test poll

  1. yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. no

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Story linked below

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/14/justice/pennsylvania-juvehtml-homicide/index.html

    Now, this really has to make you wonder...do children at this age understand right and wrong? Is it possible that the law isn't updated to what really is today?

    Some of my favorite shows to watch is Snapped and Deadly women. Especially when they go back to the old days with belief that women and young girls were incapable of murder and female serial killers were an ad normality (we now know this isn't the case, even tho women arent going out In hordes, they are still quite capable of murder and extreme violence).

    So...are children capable of such monstrous acts? Consider how DIFFERENT our generation is compared to today's. How "grown" up and "modernized" these kids are when it comes to the way they dress, talk, education and even the technology advancements they have.

    Thoughts? Opinions?
     
  2. Reminds me of that story of the two british boys who lured a toddler away from his shopping mother. Beat him up for a while and tried to get him to jump into a cold river then eventually hit him over the head with a rock and put him over some train tracks.

    Fuck kids. Sadistic little shits.

    Some women too. Mostly because it's natural to see a woman as a caregiver. Though the amount of crazy in this world is astounding.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. This really has nothing to do with modern society and technology. As reasonable as it may seem to pull out the old "back in my day" and lambast modern youth for being amoral hoodlums, in reality most of the time you're just putting on a pair of rose-tinted glasses and pretending that your own shit (or the collective shit of your generation) doesn't stink.

    The hard facts of the matter are that, in the US, violent crime rates hit their peak in the 1990's. Violent crime rates have been mostly decreasing since then. Homicides committed by 14-17 year old people was highest in 1993 with 12 homicides per 100,000 people in that age group, for instance. Homicides by people younger than 14 have always been a tiny number, only 0.1-0.2 homicides committed per 100,000 children under 14, so that age group is kind of worthless for tracking trends in violence.

    Anyway, mid-90's was really the big time for murder (and all other violent crime, but let's focus on the murder). Murder rates now are about half what they were at their worst in the 90's. Seems to me that this shatters the whole "kids today are worse than they were back in my generation" idea you're proposing, assuming you're old enough to have been a teen in the 90's and actually look at teens today as a wholly separate generation (which, for those who might not be aware, is a period anywhere from 20-30 years, depending on various factors that people in social science circles can never seem to agree on). If you're younger than that and taking a looser view of generation in a social context, say calling it a 10 year gap, then you could look at the homicide rates from about 10 years ago and find that they're just about the same as modern homicide rates; they're actually a bit lower for the younger demographics, as it so happens.

    The whole "ugh, kids today" angle just doesn't hold up in the face of the facts unless you were a teen in the 60's or prior and thus around to experience a time when youth homicide rates were unequivocally lower than they are today. They're definitely different, what with modern technology and changing social trends, but they're not becoming more violent. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

    Anyway, the other questions you asked.

    Psychology says yes, children do understand right and wrong at this age. There have actually been recent studies done that show even babies as young as 6 months can have a general sense of right and wrong. Here's an article about some of them. A ten year old kid would absolutely know that physically assaulting someone is wrong, unless he has some kind of mental illness that inhibits empathy or reasoned decision making.

    Are children capable of such things? Well, yeah, obviously. It happens, thus they're capable of doing some atrocious shit.

    The real question is whether or not they're capable of planning out murder and doing so with malicious intent, and that's part of what makes the law kind of iffy about youths committing violence. The laws for adults say (in much fancier legal terminology) that if you're mentally unstable to the point that you can't control or don't understand your own actions or their consequences, then you can't be held accountable in the same way as sane and rational people, thus they get carted off to psychiatric facilities instead of prisons. The problem with kids committing violent crimes is that psychology is anything but united on when various things happen in mental development, and there are all sorts of societal and biological things that tell us that kids can't really do such bad things and if they do then it's really not their fault and blah blah blah. So is the law not actually in line with the reality of the matter? Probably not, but there currently is no definitive solution to the problem, so there's not a ton to be done about it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. It's a scary world, that's all I can say. Nothing compares to the comment above, very thorough.

    But in the UK, there has been a number of rape cases. Mostly teen boys or adult men getting raped by men. 0.0
     
  5. James Bulger. A copy of Child's Play was found at the killers' home, so there was a huge scandal about art inspiring life. I think last year the killer was denied early release, for fear of vigilantes. It was a big part of UK culture for a while.

    Be gone with your subversive revelations! Women are gentle, Christian people who just want to have babies. Their brains aren't big enough to contemplate morality, and they lack the strength and motor coordination to wield dangerous weapons. So say we all.



    *notices the thread topic*


    Anyway, no. We shouldn't alter the law because of one incident that gets showcased by the media. Sure, kids are changing, but in every generation there is a chosen one who goes a bit batshit. Same with women. As a gender they are used to the sight of blood, and most are faced with the choice to spare or take a life at some point in their fertile years. Killing is not beyond the means of any demographic.

    The mind begins social development at an early age - it starts to take a different shape and growth pattern. This is the point at which parents, not lawmakers, need to step in.

    The rest are blips. Blips for the worst (horrific crimes) and blips for the best (cultural breakthroughs). A necessary separation of state and individual allows these blips. And it must be preserved.
     
  6. Lets get a little perspective here.

    74.3 Million children.

    74.3 Million.

    Just to reach a 1 percent crime rate, that would mean that at least 743,000 children would have to commit violent crimes per year. According to the FBI, there were approximately 1,203,564 violent crimes in 2011.

    Even if every single violent crime in the United States was committed by a child in 2011, that's still less than a 3% total crime rate in comparison to the approximate number of children currently living in the United States.

    As it stands, there's no reason to change the law when incidents of violent crime are decreasing over time, not increasing, and when the total number of incidents are less than five percent of the total measurable population per year.

    Since this isn't the norm, I'd examine the child's psychological state of mind. Because those claiming that ye olde times were better obviously aren't considering that children back then were exposed to just as much violence as children today. In fact, I'm just going to be blunt and say that people who think that violent crimes like this are a byproduct of modern times have not been listening to the clarion calls of history. We've just been getting better at recording them. (That, and more people in the world overall that can snap.)

    Anyway, yeah. That's that. I guess I'm largely in agreement with Jorick, save that I'd like to note that children are essentially underdeveloped people and like any person will snap given the right circumstances, which varies from child to child.
     
    • Like Like x 1