"...England's children's commissioner Maggie Atkinson had told the Times (Newspaper) that most criminals under 12 did not fully understand their actions..."
(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8565619.stm)
This statement and lots of other comment has been prevalent in the media in recent weeks following the arrest of John Venables for a new crime.
John Venables served eight years in custody from the age of ten for murder of James Bulger. A crime so horrific and disturbing that it will forever be burned onto the psyche of the UK population. The argument that, at ten years old, they did not know what they were doing I find frankly disturbing.
I have a 10 year old son that asked recently what the news story regarding Venables and Bulger was about - we explained it to him and he got very upset and was moved to tears. He is ten years old and very much knows right and wrong.
Do the parents need to take more responsibility for how they bring children up? I know nothing of Venables home life, or indeed of Thompson his partner in the Bulger killing but at that age don't the parents need to take some responsibility? Whilst there will always be some people that are fundamentally bad a lot of it has to be about environment. A child from a violent (this could be being allowed to watch adult tv, films and games and not necessarily actual physical abuse) or disrespectful home life has to be affected by that? Don't children basically copy their parents?
I do think that at 10years old a child having comitted a crime should be punished, reeducated and rehabilitated but that the whole picture should be considered and by that i mean the parents have to take some of the responsibility. Children of ten years old do know right from wrong where there is a potential disparity is in their definition of it that will be handed to them from their parents.
