Tonight's Question Time

[larson]

I'm not one for a reactionary rant but tonight I'm making an exception. There was a question about raising the age of criminal responsibility (of course all in the context of the Jamie Bulger murder ) & the woman from the Green party (like Will Self a couple of weeks ago) questioned whether a child of 10 could differentiate between right & wrong & therefore should not be criminally culpable. FFS they bludgeoned that kid to death and left him on a railway line to get splattered by the next oncoming train. How could anyone, no matter how old they are, think that that is right? Makes me so effing angry. Sorry.

What a ridiculously simplistic view of abuse and damage.

As adults we have the self awareness and common sense and understanding which leads us to be deemed mentally stable to understand hte law. Hence why people are able to be excused or given leniency in the cases of them being mentally unstable at the time due to complex psychological issues.

Children brought up in bad homes have severely altered psychological states to that of a normal child or adult. Surprisingly, knowing someone who works directly with children deemed the most mentally unstable in the UK, most are actually from dysfunctional homes containing, for example, parents who are GPs. The stories really surprised me, challenging conventional thoughts.

In the case you mention, it is clear that we cannot suddenly force children to grow up quicker than they are mentally, and it is something that we have done in this country for decades, that has meant children are ending up with all sorts of psychological problems. Growing up at their own pace without having to deal with all the adult shíte that they should simply not be exposed to is the ideal.

In this situation the children involved were clearly disturbed, and should be treated as such, with many years of monitoring in the attempt to turn them around. If adults, rehabilitating is more controversial, since we expect - except in cases of mental illness - to be severely punished, but for children rehabilitation and examination of the causes and best way to provide a solution, the required action to see if integrating into society in 10 to 15 years, if at all possible.

Adults and children are not the same, and on a sliding scale, as people approach adulthood, they should be increasingly prepared for all the shíte they will encounter. But expecting a 10 year old to understand and deal with their own psychological mental problems due to their bad (or lack of!) parental upbringing is unfair.

 

[Moscow Mule]

Precisely. Even if they've been dragged up, as you put it, they are still going to be taught right from wrong at school at the very least.

My initial response to this was a bit rude. A more measured post is below:

It is not the schools responsibility to teach a child right from wrong.

It is the schools responsibility to teach the child to read and write, and to do sums (it does get harder than that).

Absolutely, the school should enforce its and societal rules but the teaching of right and wrong is not on the curriculum.

 

[larson]

Precisely. Even if they've been dragged up, as you put it, they are still going to be taught right from wrong at school at the very least.

The right and wrong in what context? Mathematics?

Always surprises me what people think goes on in schools. Their main concern is education, social teaching of matters you mention are no-go's in school. Murder and killing is of course not discussed as a matter of principal, those are parental matters related to living in society.

Bullying is about as far into the topic as you will get, and even then it's just reciting that everybody knows ''bullying is bad."

I went to school more recently than most here, and a mediocre middle of the road place. It's about education, and I remember wondering, even as a child, why the hell parents would express surprise when X Y or Z was not discussed in school. You're there to learn and be taught educational related items.

Still, even some seemingly highly paid intelligent parents are thick, and think school is responsible for their child's upbringing. Need somewhere to place the blame instead of at their own doorstep.

 

[wurzel]

The right and wrong in what context? Mathematics?

Well, certainly during my schooldays I remember several instances off the top of my head where we were taught the moral rights and wrongs of an issue. One example was when we studied WW2 & were discussing the Holocaust. This wasn't taught just as a historical fact but very much in the context of sticking millions of people in gass chambers being a very bad, evil thing to do.

 

[Moscow Mule]

Well, certainly during my schooldays I remember several instances off the top of my head where we were taught the moral rights and wrongs of an issue. One example was when we studied WW2 & were discussing the Holocaust. This wasn't taught just as a historical fact but very much in the context of sticking millions of people in gass chambers being a very bad, evil thing to do.

That is not subject matter for a 10 yo.

Edit: and, IMO, not a great way to teach the subject matter. Morality is a great topic for RE, but not History.

 

[wurzel]

That is not subject matter for a 10 yo.

I was 9 and at primary school. It sticks in my mind because we were shown pictures of the piles of dead bodies at Belsen. Was quite shocking but I've never looked back and thought whether or not it was suitable for my age group.

 

[Doggy Styles]

If kids are aware of right and wrong at ten, why are they banned from having sex, buying alcohol and tobacco, and driving motor vehicles on the road?

 

[Moscow Mule]

I was 9 and at primary school. It sticks in my mind because we were shown pictures of the piles of dead bodies at Belsen. Was quite shocking but I've never looked back and thought whether or not it was suitable for my age group.

Are you over 50 or privately educated?

It's quite rare to do WWII in History at that age, and I don't think you can understand the nuance of the whole subject at that age either.

 

[dx4100]

I think it should be noted that lowering the age of criminal responsibility would or almost certainly still seen the kids "dealt" with. It would of just changed the whole manner of how they where dealt with.

I am not having a adult court room and people banging on the sides of prison vans was the right way to handle it. Sticking them in a young offenders institute seems to have been unfruitful as well.

At 10 I knew right from wrong. I was lucky to have a good upbringing and role models around me. If you take them away though I am less certain my idea of right and wrong would of been so clear cut.

For me it is about who is to blame, how did this happen, how do we stop it happening again. These kids where not born evil (I don't believe in such a thing). They where made into what they became and some what failed by their family and the system.

 

[wurzel]

Are you over 50 or privately educated?

No and yes but the primary school wasn't private. We didn't study WW2 in any depth, just dipped our toes in like we did with a whole range of subjects. We did the Romans, prehistoric man, various kings of England, Nelson etc. I thought this was normal!