Poll: 10 year old murders baby brother

Recommended Videos

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
AndyFromMonday said:
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.
this my friends is coddling, when you think everything should be let off with a warning of don't do it again. wrong. first off, at ten i could figure out right from wrong, not because i was told by my parents, but because i knew that pain=bad, cause i didn't like it, and knew that others must also not like it, so i shouldn't give them any of it. it's not some hard problem, even if the girl wasn't intent on murder, she still wanted to harm said child. if she's wasn't, then she must be mentally enfeeble, and needs to go somewhere where she won't harm anyone by accident. if you don't punish someone, they won't realize they made a mistake, and they'll do it again. and since she's ten, by your standards, she has ten more years where she doesn't understand that she did something bad, so she'll do it again most likely.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Involuntary manslaughter is when you do nothing to stop it and just sorta watch. If hte babysitter didnt know, then she cant be charged with it, cause she didnt know.

Until her story comes out, I cant say anything on the babysitter, but that sister, she should know you never shake a baby. I'm sure her parents or the baby sitter has something before to her that you dont, or that you have to be gentle, and just the throwing the baby back int he crib alone goes against it. SO the girl should face something. Maybe not juvenile correctional time, but she needs to be looked into mentally at least.

I dont know, I remember when I was ten, I was looking out for myself alot. And then when I was done doing that, i was looking out for my baby sis. I knew you had to handle her like you handle fine china. I saw the kids at school who were dropped when they were young, and knew what that meant. Maybe not fully, but I knew dropping/being rough with baby = bad stuff happening to baby.
 

ChaoticLegion

New member
Mar 19, 2009
427
0
0
Everyone here is missing the key thing about this story... There is not enough factual evidence or information to come to a conclusion as to what went on and who should be held responsible for what aportionment of blame.

Also, just because the babysitter may have acted negligently (which we do not know and cannot yet tell from the story shown above), that does not mean that she should be convicted of murder. There are certain criteria that muct be met before charging someone with certain crimes, if you do not know what the criteria are, then do not start brandishing an ill-informed opinion on the law or how people should be charged. As for the American criteria for murder, I cannot state with 100% certainty as I only study English law, however I can guarantee you that there is no possible way in which (from the story outlined above) the baby-sitter can be in any way charged with murder.
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
Arontala said:
Secondly, no one has said that they hold the girl accountable. Chill out.
I hold the 10-year old accountable.
By around 7-8, a child definitely knows right from wrong and can understand that actions have consequences. She should be held responsible.
 

Craorach

New member
Jan 17, 2011
749
0
0
The whole "shaken baby" thing is a travesty to begin with.

It is the ultimate extension of an ideal, formed largely by permissive parenting and people who do not have children at all, that nobody should ever get frustrated, angry or upset with a child. I know for a fact I was "shaken" on at least one occasion by my parents, but I'm not dead.. most children who get tossed up in the air, or turned upside down, by their parents only respond with laughter or not.. certainly not death.

This however is the worst example of it, because another child and a third party is involved.

For the babysitter, first and foremost, what.. she can't go to the bathroom? Just like a parent, you cannot constantly monitor children every second that you are with them. Sooner or later a carer has to turn their back, use the bathroom, sweep up a broken glass or answer the door. Trying to constantly monitor everything a child does is not only exhausting for the carer, but completely prevents a child from learning any description of self control and self reliance.

For the ten year old.. I'm pretty sure they didn't intend to kill their sibling. This could be as simple as a children's game gone horribly wrong, or like many "shaking" incidents a burst of anger with terrible, horrifying consequences that will haunt this child for the rest of their life.
 

lord canti

New member
May 30, 2009
619
0
0
Yeah 10 year olds are not as incompetent as people think they are. They do know what death is and they have a slight grasp of right and wrong. To say that the child deserves no blame is wrong. Also there is no such thing as being to young to be mentally disturbed as someone who see's a lot of young victims of abuse persoanlly I can safely say that kids definetly can be messed up at any age.
 

blankedboy

New member
Feb 7, 2009
5,234
0
0
badgersprite said:
Blaming the babysitter for this is absolutely fucking stupid and it's bullshit. You don't expect 10 year old children to murder their siblings. When I was a kid and left to play with my little cousin, who is four years younger than me, and 8 years younger than her brother, we sure as hell weren't trying to kill her or engaging in any kind of dangerous or violent activity. In fact, anyone who has a younger sibling must surely know that there are times where you're left alone to play together, or left alone with your baby sibling for a few minutes. That's not your parents being negligent or failing to provide supervision, that's FUCKING NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

That ten year old is seriously fucked up in the head to do something like that. Ten year olds definitely know better at that stage in life. I wouldn't charge her as an adult or anything, but she must have some kind of serious emotional issues. She should probably be being treated for mental illness.

Arontala said:
By the time I was 10, I could tell right from wrong, and life from death, so I don't know what the fuck y'all are talking about.

Anyways, my feelings on this are, well, exactly what Onyx and Zantos said.
Precisely. Does no one remember being a kid themselves? Everyone always acts like children are born mentally retarded and are completely incapable of any kind of thought and reasoning. The answer to that is no. Children aren't like that. For fuck's sake, she's ten, not two.
^What he said. That kid should be in juvi prison right now >.>
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
Craorach said:
The whole "shaken baby" thing is a travesty to begin with.

It is the ultimate extension of an ideal, formed largely by permissive parenting and people who do not have children at all, that nobody should ever get frustrated, angry or upset with a child. I know for a fact I was "shaken" on at least one occasion by my parents, but I'm not dead.. most children who get tossed up in the air, or turned upside down, by their parents only respond with laughter or not.. certainly not death.

This however is the worst example of it, because another child and a third party is involved.

For the babysitter, first and foremost, what.. she can't go to the bathroom? Just like a parent, you cannot constantly monitor children every second that you are with them. Sooner or later a carer has to turn their back, use the bathroom, sweep up a broken glass or answer the door. Trying to constantly monitor everything a child does is not only exhausting for the carer, but completely prevents a child from learning any description of self control and self reliance.

For the ten year old.. I'm pretty sure they didn't intend to kill their sibling. This could be as simple as a children's game gone horribly wrong, or like many "shaking" incidents a burst of anger with terrible, horrifying consequences that will haunt this child for the rest of their life.
well, there's a difference between playing around with your baby, and violently shaking a baby, then tossing the baby hard into their crib. now, i guess the shaking can slide, maybe, depending on how it actually happened, but throwing the baby, there was clear intent of harm. i think the girl is to blame for this one. not to get a criminal record or anything, but she needs to be looked at by a psychiatrist or someone to see if she's mentally stable(which i highly doubt) or not. you can't be all there if you would throw a baby into something. maybe throwing a baby up and catching it on the way down, my dad did that to me and my brother, but throwing a baby into something is clearly not alright.
 

yndsu

New member
Apr 1, 2011
141
0
0
AndyFromMonday said:
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.
I remember getting spanked by my parents when i was 5 or 6. And why was i spanked ?
Because i took the food that was supposed to be for the whole family and ate it on my own.
And when my parents found out they sat me down, talked to me about what i had done and then
spanked my arse so that it hurt for a long time.
And because of that i learned NOT to do that again.

Also, not every bad thing a person does is because of negative influences in their youth. There are a lot of bad people who were not abused mentally/physically when young and still ended up doing a lot of bad things. A lot of crime done by people is because they were never reprimanded for the bad things they did when young and then because they didnt not learn about consecuences to their actions they in their older years think that they can do what ever they want.
 

ReaperzXIII

New member
Jan 3, 2010
569
0
0
People seem to think that 10 year olds are complete retards

10 year old: HERPA DERP, Babies = Maracas! MUST SHAKE VIOLENTLY! HERPA DERP DERP

At 10 years old, heck at 7 or 8 I knew that babies were delicate as did most of my friends coz a lot of them had siblings and surprisingly none of them murdered their siblings?! Gasp...if the majority of children don't do this...then could it be that children understand not to shake the baby?!

Blaming the babysitter unless she was standing there and letting it happen, is really fucking retarded, for all you know she could've been making them food, getting something, going toilet or just generally turning around for a few minutes and hoping that the child won't MURDER HER BABY BROTHER.

In fact I was 10 when my little sister was born and guess what? I didn't shake her to death, in fact I was quite overprotective of her getting hurt so I guess children aren't painstakingly retarded

Captcha: StonThe Sheep

...I think my captcha is channelling GLaDOS
 

Nikola Brankovic

New member
Feb 4, 2011
17
0
0
@AndyFromMonday

Overkill. Is she supposed to take them with her to the bathroom too? She's a babysitter, paid to stick around and keep kids out of trouble, but not chained to their leg, babysitter can't be blamed for this.

Also, I'm pretty sure I understood the concept of death by the time I was 10. I got a younger sister when I was 7, I was left alone with her plenty of times and knew enough not to do stupid things such as poke her/shake her etc.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
badgersprite said:
A ten year old's first response is to violently shake a baby to the point where it died? Yes, that sounds like unsound behaviour to me. Saying she probably has some kind of emotional problems and could use some counselling sounds entirely reasonable and rational to me. If she were two, that kind of behaviour might be expected, but a ten year old does know better. If you need any proof, just hang out with some ten year olds for a while.

You're basically arguing that ten year olds should never be left alone even for a second because they're obviously all so stupid that they'll kill themselves or do something disastrously wrong like set the house on fire if no one is watching them. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. That isn't true at all. Ten year olds are not two year olds. Seriously, five year olds take the bus and the train to school by themselves every single day. Ten year olds are not mentally incapacitated vegetables with no ability to think coherently or reason.

Seriously, how old are you? Were you ever ten? Because I seriously doubt that at nine or ten you or your classmates would have engaged in this behaviour, or done things like set fires or cut yourself because no one told you it was wrong to do certain things. Saying that children are creatures of instinct doesn't work either. Instincts exist to STOP kids from doing stuff like that. Instincts aren't just hunting. Humans are social animals, which is why we have social instincts that tell us it's wrong to walk up and bash someone's head against a wall, or violently shake a baby.

This is why I suspect this child might have some kind of untreated condition. Maybe her parents were violent towards her and caused this behaviour in her. Maybe she has an untreated personality disorder (and yes, children can have serious mental and emotional disorders at early ages). She probably HAS shown behaviour like this before. I don't believe this is an isolated incident, because ten year olds do not go around shaking babies to death.

I don't know what world you live in, to be honest, if this is your view of ten year olds. What were you like in fourth and fifth grade?



1. It was never mentioned that the shake was violent. Also, you never said why you believe she has emotional problems. Do you even know what emotional problems are? And I have hanged out with ten year olds. In fact, my cousin is soon to be a 10 year old and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt they the exact same as an 8 year old. Not much development occurs until teenagehood mentally wise. You're still doing what you're told without knowing WHY you're supposed to do so. She's still dependent on her parents to tell her what she should and what she should not do. I already offered an example.

2. Yes I do believe that. I do believe any child who has not yet undergone puberty should not be left unsupervised. They're curious by nature, imprevisible and act by instinct. How can you ever let such a being alone in a house? You don't know what might happen. If they were predictable, like everyone who has undergone puberty then yes, leave them in the house. As is stands, however, an instinct based action is never a safe or sound one. If you're a parent and you leave your 10 year old unsupervised then you truly are a bad parent. Mentally wise, children are badly trained animals.

3. Well no, I've never cut myself as a child. In fact no one has. You know why? Pain. There's a mechanism in place that deters you from doing so. There's no mechanism in place to deter you from doing stupid shit. No, me and my classmates did not engage in such behavior. We did on the other hand had loads of fights using milk and bread by throwing them around class. There was also the occassional broken chair for jumping on it. Then there was the spitting out the window since we were at the 2nd floor. Let's not forget lighting matches in the classroom just because. I also remember the time a kid bought a knife to school to show off and ended up cutting someone by mistake. You wanna know what grade this was in? 7th. And this was at a different school. During 1st to 6th grades I was in another school. You know what kids did there? Unsupervised, they basically did the exact same things except added "running around and breaking bones".
I'm going to ask you a question and please, answer sincerely. Do you even fucking know what an instinct is? WE DO NOT posses such "instincts". Right and wrong are merely social constructs that are being taught to us. There is no universal moral code all babies are born with. Hell, instincts themselves are socially defined as acting without thinking. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE. Children do not posses reason. All they have to define what's "right" and what's "wrong" is their parents. Let me give you an example. What is your first thought when you see a hot woman/man? It's sexual, obviously. If you acted on instinct, you'd go up to that person and try and have sex with them, with or without their consent. The reason children don't bash other people's head into walls is because they were told violent behavior is considered socially unacceptable.

4. Oh, you mean like spanking? The physical effects of spanking tend to appear during teenagehood, not childhood. Abusive parents? No amount of abuse would make a child do that. The effects of physical abuse tend to be social isolation and depression which usually appear during teenagehood. Do you know what a personality disorder is? Did you know that personality disorders appear during teenagehood, not childhood? That's due to the fact that you can only have a personality once you're capable of logic and reason which is the age of 13 and up or rather during puberty. Everything a child does is based on what they've been told to do. This is why unless you tell a child, they'll go into a van with the stranger without thinking whilst teenagers stop and think about their well being.
Also, if she has shown erratic behavior in the pastthen she should have been taken to a doctor immediately. If she has shown erratic behavior in the past, the death of the baby is the fault of the parents. They didn't warn the babysitter and they sure as hell never attempted to help the child. They ignored the problem and now the child has to live with their mistake. In this case, the parents need to be punished, not the child. Still, parents usually are worriers. They would have taken their daughter to a doctor the moment erratic behavior started appearing.
 

SGrahambo

New member
Aug 4, 2010
38
0
0
There really isn't enough information given in the very short report to pin any blame on the babysitter. From my experience, nine year olds are not much more incompetent with the handling of babies than adults (and before you start shouting "But she shook the baby!" please note that hundreds more adults shake babies to death than children do).
Heck, I trust my own nine year old sister enough to babysit a baby all by herself if she had to (not that it would ever come to that); But then she is very smart and well behaved, I can't even say half as much for many of her classmates that she plays with... in which case the child should be held AS liable.
I suspect that the parents have never instructed their daughter on how to properly handle a baby, so if anyone should be blamed, it should be the parents for not teaching their kids.

tldr: Not enough information given for us to blame anyone.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
The lawyers have to have somebody to sue. If not, they aren't happy. And we just can't have that.
 

Kadoodle

New member
Nov 2, 2010
867
0
0
We do not know if the girl did it on purpose, but i'd guess it was an accident. A stupid accident (At age nine or ten I wouldn't shake and throw a baby), but an accident nonetheless. Poor girl, she'll probably be scarred for life, knowing that she killed her brother. I wouldn't be able to handle that, I'd quickly be hanging from the ceiling or in an institution.



Also, kinda related:

My dad smothered a kitten when he was 3. He literally hugged it to death.