• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
C
HILDREN
 
WHO
K 
ILL
Legal experts, moralists, and society in general are always taxed by the awfulconsequences of children who kill. Once again we have been made aware of currentinstances and no doubt there are other, particular cases that are in the minds of everythinking adult at this time, and the details are so familiar and so gruesome that it isboth unnecessary and distasteful to repeat them here.A child or young person charged with murder must be tried in the Crown Court. If convicted, section 90 of the PCC(S)A requires that he or she be sentenced to bedetained ‘during Her Majesty’s pleasure’. This is an indeterminate order which, formost purposes, is functionally equivalent to a mandatory life sentence in the case of anadult. The relevant age is that at the time the offence was committed; so that wherethe offender was a child or young person at that date, the mandatory sentence will bean order under section 90 even if he or she has attained the age of 18 prior to trial orconviction.Administratively, a sentence of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure has two distinctparts:
•
 The child or young person first serves a minimum period of detention specifiedin the tariff – which is set at a level intended to reflect the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
•
Once the tariff has expired, the young person will remain in custody until theParole Board considers it safe to release him or her into the community underlicence. The licence remains in force for the remainder of his or her life.Until November 2000, the tariff was set by the Home Secretary on the basis of a writtenreport from the trial judge and the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice. Thispractice was, however, found by the European Court of Human Rights to be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) on thegrounds that the Home Secretary could not be considered an independent tribunal. Asa consequence, the court is now required to set the tariff at the point of sentence.Section 269 of the CJA, implemented on 4 January 2004, further requires the court tohave regard to a ‘starting point’ of 12 years in determining the minimum term to beserved in custody by a child or young person convicted of murder.
1
 Any departure from that starting point in either direction must be justified by the court.It seems apparent that the effect of section 269 is to increase, on average, the periodspent in detention by those subject to an order under section 90. For instance, thetariff set by the Lord Chief Justice for Venables and Thompson, the two boys convictedof the murder of James Bulger, in the wake of the European Court’s decision, wassubstantially lower at eight years.
(idem
) The two cases that caused me to research this subject were those of Mary Bell, JonVenables and Robert Thompson. What strikes me as surprising is that those childrenhave drawn all the flack, in person. They have been held to be completely andcategorically responsible for their acts. They and they alone were made to atone. Aprominent member of parliament at the time called them, “evil”. There is an instinctivereaction to such events and the natural tendency for those who are not versed in childpsychology is to condemn the culprit. That instinctive response needs to be educatedand there needs to be an understanding of why children kill other children (or adults).Cavadino cites many contributory factors that cause children to kill:
•
physical and sexual abuse;
•
exposure to repetitive or extreme violence, including the witnessing of it;
•
parental mental disturbance;
1
 
•
parental rejection;
•
neurological abnormalities;
•
drug or substance abuse;
•
mental illness.He takes the view that although instances of homicide by children are rare; theconditions listed above are not. He concludes thatmany more children are potentially capable of killing.
2
My belief is that children are born into this worldostensibly innocent. If they bring with them anypredisposition to kill, then that is something that allchildren bring. Most don’t of course; many don’teven feel it would be possible, but for those few whodo, and act upon it, then it can only be that theirupbringing has not established a proper conscience. This view seems to be supported by Marshall, whosuggests that psychopaths are made, not born, andwith the right parenting, “can become successfulstockbrokers instead of serial killers”.
3
 Her research, conducted amongst 50 psychopaths inScottish prisons, showed that inconsistency in thediscipline that they received as children from theirparents was a key factor in the development of theircriminal lifestyles. Such people, she suggests, need acareer with a high level of stimulation, and they areespecially suited to work in the high-risk, fast-movingworld of the financial markets. They have apropensity to be in situations where things arechanging all the time and they don’t have to makelong-term plans.A child who kills can have had no concept of what the world might think of such an act. The responsibility for forming that conscience lies with the parents or the alternativecarers. If our society produces children who kill, then we must take whatever steps arenecessary to ensure that:
•
the parents are aware of their omissions;
•
society, i.e., everyone else, is aware that we have turned a blind eye to the waysin which some parents have, and are, bring-up their children;
•
if society does nothing about this débâcle, then we all must accept theresponsibility.Children in their immaturity are very susceptible to unfairness and loss of hope andexpectation. This can bring about a failure of confidence not only in those around thembut in themselves. When that happens they may also lose their willpower to pursuewhat is right or good as well as their sense of responsibility. They begin to look up tothose who have achieved the power to control their own lives, and many of those do sothrough lives of crime. Others who stand out as potential paradigms to the young mindare in such fields as the entertainment industry and sporting activities. They take theirguidance from how they behave and unfortunately this is not always the best model.One of the greatest sources of learning after parents is that of the peer group. This hasbeen exceptionally successful in counteracting bullying.
 Young people learn from their friends and contemporaries. Peer-led education is thereforerecognised as a powerful way to assist young people in sorting out problems and makingresponsible choices. The evidence of educational psychologists shows that 15-17 year
2
From 1979-1994
210young people aged under 17 in England and Waleswere convicted of murder and 220 of manslaughter.Convictions for Murder 1989-2002
Year No.1989 151990 111991 131992 121993 241994 171995 101996 281997 271998 101999 242000 192001 282002 20
 
olds learn best from their peers about aspects of social education. [
Crime and SocialPolicy Report, 1995
.]
Some look towards schools as a place where all the potential failings of parenthood canbe corrected. This is of course not only impracticable but in many respectspsychologically irrational. Whatever good intentions there are in this respect withinschools it should be recognised that children spend a maximum of about 13% of theirtime there. Consequently the remaining time can very easily cancel out any good thatmight have accrued from the earnest and sincere efforts of their teachers. There are schools that have a good record with problem children as Graham haspointed out.
 Through their capacity to motivate, to integrate and to offer each pupil a sense of achievement irrespective of ability, schools would seem to possess the capacity toprevent some pupils from being drawn into the juvenile justice system. The converse isalso true. There are processes in school which, albeit inadvertently, categorise certainpupils as deviants, inadequates and failures, and this in turn increases the risk of suchpupils drifting into delinquent activities and ultimately delinquent careers.
4
 
Once children get to secondary school level, the relationship between staff and pupilscan become more distant. Classes are taught by several teachers each day and thisreduces the likelihood of them getting to know each child as a person. The subjectstaught at this level may also be outside of the capabilities of the child’s parents tograsp, and this reduces the link between parent and school. Arising from both thesesignificant events there may well be a low teacher-community involvement. This will bemore so if teachers live outside the locality of the school and its catchment area. Thisis a great pity for as Utting
et al
., have stated:
One of the most important ways in which schools can have a delinquency reducing effectis through building a strong and trusting relationship with parents.
5
It is unfortunate that the children who need most help in these areas may have parentswho are least likely to have contact with the school. The current government plans toinstitute contracts between school and parent may help. However one is remindedabout taking a horse to water! A DoE circular is available (8/94) which states,
inter alia
:
Some parents may be unwilling to engage constructively with the school. But schools canuse prospectuses and other communications to convey and reinforce the nature of parental responsibility and the notion of home-school partnership. Head teachers shouldin turn ensure that their schools provide a welcoming environment for parents. Contactwith parents should not be confined to parents’ evenings; it should be an integral part of school life. It may be possible to bring together groups of parents to discuss problems inan atmosphere of mutual support.
Some good may come from the Lower Attaining Pupils Programme set up in 1983. Itsaim has been to:
assist schools in planning and executing an effective curriculum for pupils whosemotivation and self-esteem are low and career prospects poor. Teachers are encouragedto identify characteristics of pupils who are low attainers and to discuss with them thereasons for this. The Department for Education evaluation of the programme suggests anumber of benefits arising from it, including, in particular, an awareness by schools thatthe school experience is relevant to pupils’ tendencies to become involved in vandalism,to underachieve, and to be absent from school. [
Crime and Social Policy Report, 1995
.]
 There are links between children’s school careers and their involvement in crime. TheNational Prison Survey showed that prisoners aged 16-39 are much more likely to haveno qualifications than the equivalent age group in the general population (Walmsley
et al
., 1992). For prisoners aged 21-24 this is particularly marked, with 46% having noqualification, compared to 16% in the general population. In general, young peoplewho are unhappy with their school and are disruptive or truant or who have beenexcluded are more likely to become involved with the police or the courts. There seems to be a strong link between truancy and crime. The National PrisonSurvey showed that 30% of prisoners had mostly played truant rather than attendinglessons after the age of 11 compared to 3% in the general population (Walmsley,
Idem
).Children who truant have more of an opportunity to commit offences but equally theyhave an incentive to avoid attracting attention. Truancy is, nevertheless, a matter to betaken seriously. If there is an established link, for example, between low educational
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...