The law states that children under the age of seven should not be held responsible for any crimes they commit. The subject as to what age children should be held responsible for their actions has been hotly debated. Some feel that the legal system is too lenient while others feel we are too harsh (Henberg, 1990). By taking a look at psychological developmental factors, we may be able to better understand a child’s cognitive ability in relation to criminal responsibility.
Psychological Factors
Juvenile crimes, like that in this case study, remains a very serious epidemic (Henberg, 1990). For this reason, a juvenile delinquency system has been put in place, one it was realized that children cannot be held to the same standards of adult committed criminal charges (Morse, 1994).
Socially a 7 year old will begin to maintain deep friendships with peers and also develop animosity towards those who are not friends, as is the case between this young boy and the other child he shot. They also begin to understand the males and females are to take on different roles in social settings . 7 year olds are usually very family focused. Since this boy had a less than optimal family situation, this lack of guidance likely contributed to his crime.
Cognitive Understanding
A seven year old child often has a deep sense of curiosity. This may have led this child to develop a curiosity towards the guns in his home. Children this age are developing their sense of self making them more susceptible to any school yard teasing or disagreements. They often imitate others.
Factors in Relationship to Juvenile Crime
Research shows that child development has a big impact on delinquent behavior. It also shows that individual, social, and community conditions are also factors (Morse, 1994). Psychologically understanding child development is the only way to determine guidelines for what ages children should be responsible for their crimes. Even this is not a steadfast process, as all children reach these milestones at different ages (Kekes, 2005). However, even though each case is different, the guidelines help protect children from receiving punishment for crimes that are beyond their cognitive understanding. I feel that this system does have its advantages, but more study of development and individualized psychological exams based on individual children should be implemented.
The Ethical Issue of Free Will
“To be virtuous is to be a good human being; it is enough to know what human virtue is.”(Stevenson & Haberman, 2009, 95) This becomes a problem when children do not receive this understanding of what it means to be virtous. To understand free will one must first determine what motivates a person to do the right thing. Obviously rewards or punishments can be factors that influence behavior. Reason should appeal only to the uncompelled assent of anyone capable of rational judgment, children may not yet have the capacity to reason in the manner that adults do. Hence why rehabilitation is a better answer, it teaches children what they did wrong and how to fix their behavior so it won’t occur again in the future.
Imprisonment may not be the answer for juveniles., “Once you’re labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination – employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, denial of educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusion from jury service – are suddenly legal. This may be especially true for African American offenders. We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” (Alexander, 2010).The shame that juveniles endure is extensive, rehabilitation seems to be a much better opeion.Even when released from incarceration, they are faced with a “tainted” reputation and treated as second class citizens, that have no idea how to readjust to society, education and rehabilitation helps with this process. The increased violence associated with juvenile crimes should be addressed, education, through schools and community programs, in high risk areas may be helpful for ending violence before the act is committed.
Works Cited:
Henberg, M. (1990). Retribution: Evil for Evil in Ethics Law and Literature. Temple University Oress, -(-), 158-178.
Kekes, J. (2005). The roots of evil. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Morse, S. (1994). Craziness and Criminal Responsibility. Behavioral Science and Law, 17, 147-164.
Stevenson, L., & Haberman, (2009). Ten theories of human nature. (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tarwacki, R. (2006). Free Will and Determinism. -, -, 1-8.
