To Think 10 Year Olds Are Children?

[SpookOnAStick]

I don't often post on Mumsnet and when I do it is when I'm pissed rubbish, but this is annoying me beyond all reason.

There has been much talk today of raising the age of criminality from 10 to 12, re - the killers of Jamie Bulger. This was a terrible thing, I know, and justice had to be served, but is it just me? Surely the parents of this pair should have been prosecuted? Shouldn't they?

If my children did anything remotely criminal at age 10, I would absolutely take responsibility for it. because it would be my fault.

Yes, 10 year olds are children. No matter how horrific their actions were, I think they were too young to be held criminally responsible. If you look at the ages of criminal responsibility throughout Europe, most of them are 14/16/18.

If I were in Denise Bulger's shoes I would want them hung but that is why we have a justice system.

Im sorry but I disagree. My DS knew right from wrong at 8, let alone at 10. The crime Venables and Thompson committed could not have been taken as right by any child of any age. It was vile, depraved and evil.

you want the parents of children held criminally responsible for things their children could not be held responsible for because they were too young?

that is idiotic.

I think 10 year olds are children that are capable of being criminally responsible. I think the Bulger case was handled well by the British courts.

of course a child of 10 knows right from wrong.Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded imo.

I think this thread is interesting when looked at with the "what would you let your child do these things" that is also running.

Many parents wouldn't let them walk to school on their own, stay at home alone, go to the shops with their friends until YR6+..........presumably as they're too young.

But then on this thread we are saying that they can be held criminally responsible for things at 10yrs old.

And of course the law says that they can't have sex, smoke, drink, drive a car or vote - until they're much older.

Even my autistic 5 year old would know it would be wrong to kidnap, torture a murder another, younger child. I agree that the court handled it well, if they were capable of such dispicable acts at that age, what more would they have been capable of?

oh dear another of these threads.............

Yes, I do want parents to be held responsible. It is a parents duty to teach a child. If a child has seen nothing but abuse for 10 years how would they know right from wrong?

So until you reach voting age you can torture and kill other children with impunity?

Yes I think at 10 they do know right from young and yes they have to accept responsibillity for what they have done. I think we have a court system that for children hands out appropriate sentences.

Do you really think that at 10 years old a child does not know it is wrong to kill or torture animals or human beings?????

Both, I think. The children were old enough to know, but children are not born evil. Whatever happened in their upbringing to make them that way is someone's fault, sadly. Their parent should definitely have had to answer to someone. Don't know who, though. Or how that would work.

My eldest is 10. She absolutely knows right from wrong.

She is utterly accountable for all she does, good or bad.

But yes, I would feel very responsible if she ever did anything as barbaric (actually there isn't even a word that comes close!) as what those two boys did to that poor defenceless little boy.

Both the children and their parents are accountable IMHO.

The parents taking some of the responsibility is a seperate but important issue, yes parents should be investigated for their role in how their children behave but abused children do not neccessarily become abusers do they.

What if a child from a loving home kills a child? Still prosecute the parents?

How will you prove causality? Or will you try the children and punish the parents?

Skidoodle, nobody is saying that.

However, all the stuff about 'a child of 10 knows right from wrong' - how do they know? and how do they know that you don't do something 'wrong' if their experience is that people do that, often?

I suspect the best thing for both kids in this case may have been what happened, given that their home backgrounds seem to have been pretty lacking and am not sure what other option there was, but yes, the parents have a lot of responsibility which doesn't seem to have been laid at their door.

So until you reach voting age you can torture and kill other children with impunity?

No, of course not. But as others have said, their children know right from wrong, and it shouldn't cross a 10 year old childs mind to do anything like this. It has to come from somewhere.

no that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm just pointing out a great disparity in what society, and the government considers a young person to be capable of doing at certain ages.

Would a child from a loving home kill, though, skidoodle? If my children became murderers, I'd feel responsible. Even if they were 45, I think, I'd wonder what I'd done wrong.

Can't answer your questions btw, I don't think there is a right answer. The whole situation makes me .

sorry, that was to your previous post, skidoodle.

Has a child of 10 from a loving home ever been known to kill a child, other than those ghastly gun accident cases in the US?

I'm sure it is possible, but am also sure that most of the violent kids in society, not all of whom reach the headlines, learn that behaviour like kids learn other behaviour; from watching what happens around them.

"how do they know? and how do they know that you don't do something 'wrong' if their experience is that people do that, often?"

this applies to many adult criminals too.

" it shouldn't cross a 10 year old childs mind to do anything like this. It has to come from somewhere."

so at what age would you say it should cross a person's mind to kidnap and murder a toddler?

Also some people are born without the ability to empathise - I think this is called sociopathic. However it is believed through studies that many people who are like this conform to social norms because they know right from wrong.

So say a 10 year old did something awful like in the B case and it was proven that they were without empathy because that is the way they are surely a guilty verdict is appropriate and what really matters is what happens after that - that they are rehabilitated.

The 7 year olds in dds class that have really nastily bullied others know without a shadow of a doubt that it is wrong but still do it, perhaps we should just punish the parents and the children never have any consequences to their actions?

What if a child from a loving home kills a child? Still prosecute the parents?

Please point me in the direction of the news article about the child from a loving home killing toddlers and torturing pets.

What about that teenage boy that murdered his parents in order to spend all their money impressing his girlfriend. It was a warm loving home etc he still planned and carried out their murder.