Poll: 10 year old murders baby brother

[ShakyFiend]

This is simply tragedy with no one really to blame...

But we gotta blame someone for everything, right?

Thankyou, this is why I like this site, only the third post and already someone's being sensible.

Morality dosent really come into it, are you evil if you leave the handbrake off your car? No ofcourse not it was forgetfulness every one does it, but if that car runs down the hill and crashes into a school then start running cos you just became the local satan. Negligence is human, and dont anyone here try to pretend your any better, who hell expects something like this to happen? Honestly could you all really swear that your mother would never of left you alone with your older siblings when you were babies?

As for the child herself, to her the baby is just a doll, again its not right and wrong, its just misunderstanding, and no ones to blame.

 

[Cyberjester]

I do think that the babysitter should be charged for leaving the kids alone, that's not what they're hired for.

I also think that it's entirely the girls fault. Kids know "right" from "wrong" at a very early age. And it's easy to tell. If they've done something nice they'll be happy and telling you all about it, if they've taken a bat to their siblings head they'll sneak around and not tell you a word.

They know if it's bad, they know if they shouldn't do it. If they ignore that and get away with it, it sets a very bad pattern for their life. So hit them as hard as possible, mayhaps they learn something and when they are older, they aren't complete nuts.

I wouldn't blame the parents either, I mean, they were out.. The babysitter was the one watching them. So babysitter partially, girl mostly. Or as the vote says, "Mostly the girl's fault".

 

[LiudvikasT]

This is simply tragedy with no one really to blame...

But we gotta blame someone for everything, right?

Best post of this thread.

1. 10 year old girl is simply too young to fully understand her actions. No one in their right mind could expect her to take responsibility.
2. Babysitter can't be expected to be a superman, it takes very little effort and very little time to kill a baby, who in their right mind can tell it's negligence just because she weren't watching the baby without a minutes rest.

The girl should probably get some counseling both for her own and for everyone else benefit, but apart from that, everyone should go free.

 

[GiantSpiderGoat]

As someone who has been around an 11 month year old baby in the last year. You do not leave it in a room without someone who is at least 15 years old. It's very much the baby sitters fault. Granted that the little 10 year old girl may have some mental issues. If her reaction is to shake and throw a baby. My 3 year old Nephew would know not too do that. But then if the girl did have mental issues its even more the baby sitters fault.

I may have misread but didn't it say something about the babysitter actually been in the room? Well what the hell then if the 10 year old was doing what she was doing. Then why the hell didn't she stop her strait away and sort the girl out. This has the babysitters fault written all over it. Heck the Baby sitter could of even killed the baby itself and is now blaming the little girl who does not know how to defend herself.

 

[standokan]

Well at least the baby was shaken, not stirred.

Bad jokes aside it was the girls "fault", though she probably didn't do it intentionally, the babysitter is also to blame because she should have never let the baby alone with the girl.

 

[Projo]

Baby sitter deserves to get pinned for neglect and manslaughter.


But yeah, that ten year old screwed up.

2. Babysitter can't be expected to be a superman, it takes very little effort and very little time to kill a baby, who in their right mind can tell it's negligence just because she weren't watching the baby without a minutes rest.

Baby sitters are hired to watch the children and make sure they're not, you know, dying. She had one job, and she completely failed at it.

 

[LiudvikasT]

Baby sitter deserves to get pinned for neglect and manslaughter.


But yeah, that ten year old screwed up.

2. Babysitter can't be expected to be a superman, it takes very little effort and very little time to kill a baby, who in their right mind can tell it's negligence just because she weren't watching the baby without a minutes rest.

Baby sitters are hired to watch the children and make sure they're not, you know, dying. She had one job, and she completely failed at it.

Then fire her, not ruin her life by putting her in prison.

 

[Projo]

Then fire her, not ruin her life by putting her in prison.

A manslaughter charge isn't going to ruin her life any more than the initial shock of being responsible for a baby's death would. Plus, she's still a minor and probably wouldn't be carted away anyway.

 

[jawakiller]

EDIT:

In fact, I believe anything a person does well up until his 20's is accidental. A child's mind is to feeble to discern when it has done something wrong. Their sense of morality comes from someone else, usually the parents but they are easily influenced. By the time a person reaches teenagehood and they can actually discern from what is acceptable and what is not and at the same time use logic when making decisions their mind is extremely subsceptible to social influences. A teen who has done something that is considered "wrong" should be helped, not punished.
In fact, every single violent human behavior is due to negative influences during their early years.

So every fight I got into during my teen-aged years was my parents fault? I'm sorry but I completely disagree with that prognosis. Children should be punished but it should be less severe. When a small child does something bad, well thats expected. If they steal something or hurt somebody, they should still be punished (just not in the form of jail time). A child needs to learn the consequences of their actions. By the time they reach 15 or so; they are responsible for their actions. Hell, a 16 year old girl can get an abortion (without parental consent) but you think a "child" of nineteen shouldn't be held responsible for murder?

20 is much too old to set the bar at.
If you only "help" a teenager, they won't learn how their actions affect them. They'll prolly just do it again. I now I would've. If I got off every time I ran in with the law, I would still be doing those things. No offense sir but I never want to meet your kids (if you have any). With that philosophy, they're sure to be demonic little things.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Clearly the Ten year old has some issues. As to whether she's blameless, I would say absolutely not. Ten isn't some magical age of innocence, she'd know the consequence of her actions, and unless she was under 4, I'd never believe a word to the contrary.

Do I think she should be held fully accountable? Well, no. She's probably just really disturbed, but more importantly, I don't think the Babysitter's at fault. Like at all.

In the slightest. No one could or would expect that to happen. I shared a room with my brother since he was old enough to not use a cot, and not once did I strangle him or slam him against a wall violently, because that's not what 10 year olds do.

 

[DanielDeFig]

I have to agree with that it's not the girl's fault, but I would like to add something so that the full guilt is not placed on the shoulders of the babysitter. Like the OP said, there should be no danger in leaving a 9-year old girl with her baby brother. The only reason I can think of as to why she would do what she did, is because lack of teaching from her parents.

Didn't they go over this as early as possible? "Babies are small and fragile" "Be careful when you pick him up" "he's a little baby, he can easily get hurt". This is the kind of stuff I Know my older sister was taught, and she's only 20 month older than me (I vaguely remember getting similar lessons about my 3-years younger brother when he was a baby.). If her parents taught her this, then she wouldn't have done anything that would result in hurting him. But if she was never taught that one should be extra careful when handling a baby, then how could she know any better? All her friends are her age, so she can't hurt them too bad, and she has never been able to hurt an adult seriously. What part of her experiences so far would let her know that babies are fragile?

I don't know the full story (I read the limited article), but that's the first reaction I got. The girl is old enough to understand death (somewhere around 7-8), but she can't have known how careful one needs to be with babies to prevent serious injury and death if no-one taught her. This causes the parents have be largely responsible for the child's death, while the babysitter still gets the largest responsibility because she was there at the time and must have had an opportunity to stop this (if she was doing her job).

 

[Nightfire3230]

I have the most reasonable explanation for this tragedy. The 10 year child is like the one child from "The Good Son' book/movie.In the book he attempted to murder his sister.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Without knowing the circumstances its hard to judge but the babysister could have been literally metres away watching the kids when the girl shook the baby and would not have been able to react in time to prevent it.

I mean seriously are you supposed to put the kids in striaght jackets, wrap them in bubble wrap and put them in seperate padded rooms so they can't kill each other? Seems to me its ridiculous to blame the babysiter. When I was 9 I knew to be damn fucking careful around babies, I knew you had to be gentle when holding them and be careful not to drop or shake them.

 

[BioHazardMan]

The babysitter should be charged with child endangerment, the child should be charged for the death of the baby.

Like it or not, I'm pretty sure 10 year olds grasp that you do not violently shake and throw a baby.

 

[LiudvikasT]

Then fire her, not ruin her life by putting her in prison.

A manslaughter charge isn't going to ruin her life any more than the initial shock of being responsible for a baby's death would. Plus, she's still a minor and probably wouldn't be carted away anyway.

Babysitter was not a minor. In any case, the whole idea of punishing her seems stupid. She had no obligation to protect anyones children, just as any one else. No one can be forced to do that.

 

[RA92]

In my opinion, it's the parents' fault for trusting a human babysitter with protecting their baby...

http://www.jeepbarnett.com/gallery2/d/11923-2/vgcats_portal03.jpg

This is so appropriate, it's cruel...

 

[Projo]

She had no obligation to protect anyones children

Then what the hell was she hired for? This is the exact sort of thing you hire someone to prevent from happening.

 

[manythings]

The babysitter should be charged for not taking care of the children. It was her job to take care of both children. She left an unsupervised baby with a 10 year old, an age at which legally you are not responsible for your actions. She's not a teenager, she's a child that pretty much does not discern from good, bad and everything in between unless told. She should not be charged with murder at an age where your mind is still growing.

Let me put it in another way. How many times as a teenager have you reflected back on your childhood and thought "man, I was stupid!". The same way this girl will look at her past self, except she won't think "man, I was stupid!", she'll probably consider suicide for taking another humans life unless she has some sort of mental illness. You're pretty much a different person every year until you become a teenager, an age where these "changes" tend to occur less frequently.

I feel sorry for the child. This stain will remain on her record for life, make it impossible to get a job or hell, live her life because of something she did at a point where the concept of counciousness was not present. She should be consulted by a psychiatrist and a physician to rule out any serious mental or physical illnesses that could have lead to this. A criminal record will do nothing to "rehabilitate" her. In fact, it WILL lead to suicide.

She needs counseling, not third degree murder charges. This was an accident.







EDIT:

In fact, I believe anything a person does well up until his 20's is accidental. A child's mind is to feeble to discern when it has done something wrong. Their sense of morality comes from someone else, usually the parents but they are easily influenced. By the time a person reaches teenagehood and they can actually discern from what is acceptable and what is not and at the same time use logic when making decisions their mind is extremely subsceptible to social influences. A teen who has done something that is considered "wrong" should be helped, not punished. In fact, this goes for every person who does not posses a mental illness. You can claim that once you legally become an adult you should discern from right and wrong but that's not true. Punishing a child for doing something they don't understand is wrong.

In fact, every single violent human behavior is due to negative influences during their early years.

Not even close to true. Children can do a whole lot of bad just because they want to, thinking it can be classified as "accidental" is nothing short of insane.

OT: I'd watch that kid very closely for the rest of her life and never turn my back to her. Violence is violence and sociopathy, or even psychopathy, fits well. Did she do it try and keep him quiet or was this her oppurtunity to dispose of him?

 

[LiudvikasT]

She had no obligation to protect anyones children

Then what the hell was she hired for? This is the exact sort of thing you hire someone to prevent from happening.

Nevertheless that does not guarantee a success. Everyone makes mistakes and I don't believe in prosecuting people for making them.