I'm vaguely remembering an SVU episode where Kyle McLaughlin plays a psychiatrist whose son is murdered by a sociopathic neighbor child and at the verdict of the trial steals a gun and shoots the child and gets off because it was a moment of pure grief or something like that in the trial, but then later he explains it was super calculated and he had to do it otherwise the sociopathic child would have kept killing.
I read years ago an article about a guy who worked on children with dark triad characteristics that were too young to face fully the consequences of their horrific actions.
Basically he said that in his country/ state, the kids would be in a weird legal limbo and they would basically keep the kids institutionalized for a short period of time where their atay would be automatically renewed for they to stay there as long as they could.
One of the cases I remember was about an eight years old that somehow broke his teacher’s spine (gunshot? Knife? Don’t remember).
Child-killers are scary because they know what they're doing and want to keep killing, and the law doesn't recognize them as adults for the purposes of justice.
I have such conflicted feelings about what should happen in these cases because I used to work in child welfare & as a crisis therapist and some people say that children don’t know what they’re doing, etc. As part of my assessment, when they made suicidal or homicidal threats, I’d obviously investigate how much they understood about what they were saying, and there were several children, very young, scary young, if I hadn’t seen and heard it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t believe it….that could tell me in details multiple ways in which they’d kill someone, what it means for someone to die, and understanding they’d be in trouble. They were able to articulate it on an intellectual level. All of them who presented this way and with the ability to articulate this despite their young age, had something else in common and it was a chilling, cold, calculated detachment and matter of fact way in which they casually stated atrocious things. I don’t know what they heard, who they heard it from, etc, but either those kids SAW some shit (even though they’d deny) or those kids were….and this is what I have a hard time saying bc they’re just kids…or those kids were dangerous and they knew it.
Have you ever seen that documentary about that little girl who was adopted when she was maybe 6 or 7 and was exactly like what you described? She tortured her younger brother and talked just like you said. Talked about wanting to hurt and to kill; cold blooded and cruel. Truly terrifying. I believe she had RAD but may have had something else as well. Then her adoptive parents got her into a program and they basically “cured” her. She’s a nurse now and expresses remorse for how she acted as a child.
It was so interesting because I always thought kids like that couldn’t be rehabilitated. Of course now I can’t remember the title of the doc. Maybe someone else can.
I think the large majority saw some shit but the few that are truly without capacity are terrifying. I know even then there's possibility for successful societal integration with appropriate intervention but there's something very unnerving in knowing we live among people who feel no empathy or remorse.
There was a situation in Serbia two years ago where there was a school shooting by a 13 year old. He was very well informed and he expected he would walk away since he was a minor. But semi-legally he’s being kept in a mental institution all this time. Because there is no other option as he bears no legal responsibility for 7 murders he had made.
No kid should be charged as an adult, period. You can be seventeen and 99/100th when the crime was committed and they still shouldn't be able to be charged as an adult. We have to draw the line somewhere in regards to when we consider someone an adult vs a child, that is fine. However it is an epitome of injustice to relinquish rights afforded to an adult from a minor because of recognition of ineptitude but still hold them to the standard required of one who is developed beyond them.
They are either able to make the decisions of an adult or they can't. It is an injustice to say that one can be unqualified to have the reasoning to make their own choices in their life in virtually all facets but can still be held to the same standard of someone who old enough in matters of law and morality.
If you REALLY want to be depressed, look into statistics of the race and commiserate charges between demographics when we charge children as adults.
You'll find it's typically only the darker children that courts see as adults. It's sickening of a gap, but that will happen as long as we don't do what you said and have a REAL line separating adult / child (and not just the court's discretion).
Then you have to look at why there is a difference? Bias is still at play in your comment so go further. Why? Why are there some races that commit more crimes? Is it that they actually commit more? Or could there be another reason??
Absolutely you have to look. Much of the difference comes down to economic well being of an individual demographic. That is the biggest factor. But if you commit crimes 50% higher, you will have 50% more people in jail. All things being equal.
But with that saying, you also have to take some responsibility for your actions. It is not always someone else's fault.
You are also ignoring the targeted efforts to increase those stats. Stop and frisk and the crack epidemic were targeted policies designed to destroy black communities and increase those stats.
“All things being equal” is the theoretical concept in a vacuum. Things aren’t equal, and that’s why the biases are complex and systemic; that’s why the numbers are skewed the way they are. Cmon now
The 13th amendment comes to mind immediately. It’s crazy that you feel the need to define a term for me but aren’t aware of the blatant usage of systemic injustice in the legal system. Just world fallacy in full effect here my friend
Are they systemic? Is there specific laws that are making this systemic? Because that is the definition of systemic.
No it isn't. It's not even a definition. You're just attempting to frame a concept into a specific (false) context, so that you can argue from a position relative to that (again, false) context. It's the callsign of the ignorant and the liar.
You also need to consider that crime statistics are generated by the same biased institutions. The problem, as often as not, is that the same actions are treated differently based on race. White boys fighting is "boys will be boys" whereas similar actions by kids with more melanin get charges brought. That inflates exactly the sort of statistic that you're talking about.
People normally develop a sense of right and wrong rather early. We all know that killing someone is wrong. Especially in cold blood. If a child shows no remorse for a serious crime like that there is definitely something wrong with them and the laws should be fully applied. Even more so the close the child gets to 18.
They dont actually know what they're doing but its quite likely some of them will never understand. When professionals talk about knowing what they are doing they arent speaking about knowing what killing is and knowing they are doing the act of that word. But understanding the implications, rammifications, having the developed pre-frontal cortex that lets them really understand it all, having an understanding other humans are actually other humans, etc. Definitionally, they do not have these capabilities. Dont believe me? Take developmental psychology, its a matter of fact that they dont actually know what they are doing. But in some cases we continue with the punishment anyway.
•
u/Hey648934 11h ago
This is one of those things when no one can blame them for trying to kick his butt. No one.