# What is Happening to Our Children?



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2008)

> *LAUDERHILL, Florida (AP) * -- A 12-year-old boy beat a toddler to death with a baseball bat because she was crying while he was trying to watch TV, authorities said.



Article

Are children just becoming so desensitized to violence that they don't understand the reality of it? As noted in the other case mentioned in the article, I think this kid should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I typically don't think children this age should be charged as adults. But this is a case where it was no accident, he knew full well what he was doing. I'm reminded of the case in England, I believe it was, with the young boys who abducted and murdered the 2-year-old Jamie Bulger. A search online turns up numerous violent crimes committed by children. It sickens and boggles me how kids can do these things. What is going these days?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 7, 2008)

It's a sad symptom of the changes we've talked about before whereby children are being brought up in a society where they are not allowed to be effectively disciplined and are shielded from the possibility of negative consequences of their actions.

Add to that the truism that they are consistently shown examples via the 'entertainment' media wherein violence is the only method for problem management/conflict resolution and it is hardly a surprise when you get things like this horror story happening.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 7, 2008)

Quite probably, these types of events have been taking place for millenia ... I seem to remember a story of Cain and Able from somewhere. Of course, before the age of The Google, stories such as this had a much smaller circle of availability. 

As to the 12 year old knowing full well what he was doing, there is quite probably some scientific evidence that would show the consequence of this actions were beyond his ability to grasp. Brain development in the species homo sapien does not complete, as I understand it, until early in the second decade of life.

Another question worth asking, I think ... is where was the family of the children ... one in front of a television, the other crying.


----------



## morph4me (Jan 7, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It's a sad symptom of the changes we've talked about before whereby children are being brought up in a society where they are not allowed to be effectively disciplined and are shielded from the possibility of negative consequences of their actions.
> 
> Add to that the truism that they are consistently shown examples via the 'entertainment' media wherein violence is the only method for problem management/conflict resolution and it is hardly a surprise when you get things like this horror story happening.


 
You beat me to it, there is a difference between child abuse and discipline, and society needs to get a grip on reality.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2008)

michaeledward said:


> Quite probably, these types of events have been taking place for millenia ... I seem to remember a story of Cain and Able from somewhere. Of course, before the age of The Google, stories such as this had a much smaller circle of availability.



Cain and Able were adults when that story happened. But I still think it's become worse over the years. I know when I was 12, I knew that hitting someone with a baseball bat would hurt them badly, if not kill them. And I knew that was a wrong thing to do. 



michaeledward said:


> As to the 12 year old knowing full well what he was doing, there is quite probably some scientific evidence that would show the consequence of this actions were beyond his ability to grasp. Brain development in the species homo sapien does not complete, as I understand it, until early in the second decade of life.



I agree with you here. I have always felt that children's cognitive development must be taken into account. But there also has to be a line. Even children know killing is wrong. Accidents can happen, and that's where the cognizance can come in. But incidents such as these fall into a whole different category in my opinion. 

My son, who is now 14, has always had a tender heart. He is learning delayed due to sensory integration disorder, and is more like a 10 year cognitively, he still knows what hurts other people. That doesn't mean he couldn't do something stupid, like trying a bicycle stunt that could injure him or someone else, that's where the cognizance comes in. But for him to pick up a baseball and hit another child over the head with it, he understands the ramifications of that action. Besides, he adores little children.



michaeledward said:


> Another question worth asking, I think ... is where was the family of the children ... one in front of a television, the other crying.



The kid who did this was baby-sitting. I remember 12 being the typical age kids start baby-sitting. I baby-sat at that age, quite responsibly. 

True, due to things like the internet, we hear more now, but I truly don't think incidents like this have been common and we just hear about it more now. I think times are a changin.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 7, 2008)

It isn't about what he has been taught, but rather what he has not been taught.  All people, children included, have the capacity for brutality.  They have to be made to understand that they can't act on every impulse.  

It's been said that every generation our civilization is invaded by a horde of barbarians known as 'children'.  Our job is to civilize them.  This incident constitutes an epic FAIL on the part of the boy's parents.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 7, 2008)

While the event is horrendous and the child apparently has some issues, I'm not going to condemn this current generation based on a single event. Are there hordes of bat wielding children out there, anxious to bash anything that interrupts them?

In the same spirit, my generation, or the generation of my parents are not characterized by the lunatics of the age. Was everyone a Hitler? Was everyone a Dahmer? Was everyone a McVeigh? (sp).

Another point. Are we as a society becoming more violent, or are we just more sensitive to it these days? Two generations ago an event like this would not have been heard in a different state. Is it becoming "de-sensitized to violence" or simply some other psychological issue? 

Still, the parents of this child should have had some clue before this happened. I don't think kids go from perfectly normal to this overnight. Just my opinion though...


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 7, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> To a certain extent I think these things have likely always happened, but as news coverage gets more national and even international, population growsm and the media has figured out shock and outrage are great selling tools, we just see them more.
> 
> I really don't think its a desensitization, at least not in terms of things they see on tv or do in video games, if there is a desensitization I'd guess it has more to do with what kids are not doing anymore, rather then what they are doing that they didn't do in the past.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aaron Fields (Jan 7, 2008)

If parents unplug their kids and spend time talking and interacting with them it corrects the issues.  Without going on and on, the trouble is many of these "parents," a term used I use with reservation, are themselves the product of the same thing they are doing.  Which means, they don't know how to parent, as they had no rolemodels or parenting done for them.


Aaron Fields


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 7, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It's a sad symptom of the changes we've talked about before whereby children are being brought up in a society where they are not allowed to be effectively disciplined and are shielded from the possibility of negative consequences of their actions.
> 
> Add to that the truism that they are consistently shown examples via the 'entertainment' media wherein violence is the only method for problem management/conflict resolution and it is hardly a surprise when you get things like this horror story happening.


 
There is no doubt that there is a fear in parents concerning the potential consequences of disciplining a child but I think there are some other factors involved in these sorts of cases.

Certainly there appears to be a tacit approval of violence as a means for solving problems, hey we're all involved in a pasttime/profession that seeks to improve our ability to incapacitate another person, but there is something else as well.  Its greed.  Look at our society today.  It is all about getting what you want and damn anyone who gets in the way.

This current generation of children, about the third of the "TV generations" (I consider my own from the late '60s to really be the first), are constantly bombarded by messages about personal satifaction.  I am bnot saying a person should not seek contentment or happiness, but this is different.

Look at the case of this 12 year old.  It is a very good illustration of the combination of greed and the implication that violent action will achieve goals.  Rather than quiet the child, he went for the quickest path to get what he wanted.  This was not a reasoned decision, it was simply the application force for a result, just as the boy had been led to believe was a plausible option.

Has this sort of thing being going on for decades, or even centuries, without comment?  Probably.  But now we are creating an environment in which it is firstly given tacit approval, and then it is justified through things like the culture of victimization.  It shouldn't be too long before excuses are being made for this boys behaviour, hell, I've made some myself.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 7, 2008)

While rather horrifying, this event may have nothing to do with parental discipline, social mores, videogame violence or anything else.  The kid could be a sociopath or have any number of mental diseases which could explain his actions without impugning the parenting skills of his Mom and Dad.

In general, it's a pretty bad idea to take a specific event and try to extrapolate that to make conclusions about an entire society.  I would need to see some pretty convincing evidence before I would believe that things are worse now than they used to be, and that is leading more children to violence.

After all, widespread war, violence, abuse and mayhem were all pretty common before the invention of video games and attachment parenting.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> Another point. Are we as a society becoming more violent, or are we just more sensitive to it these days? Two generations ago an event like this would not have been heard in a different state. Is it becoming "de-sensitized to violence" or simply some other psychological issue?



That's what I'm wondering. While there have ALWAYS been violent crimes, I do believe it's escalating. It's just more shocking to when committed by a child. 




> To a certain extent I think these things have likely always happened, but as news coverage gets more national and even international, population growsm and the media has figured out shock and outrage are great selling tools, we just see them more.
> 
> I really don't think its a desensitization, at least not in terms of things they see on tv or do in video games, if there is a desensitization I'd guess it has more to do with what kids are not doing anymore, rather then what they are doing that they didn't do in the past.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. It seems like kids these days are either over-parented, or under-parented, both have dire consequences. Kids aren't allowed to "work out their differences" anymore. Someone intervenes for them, and we have stupid zero-tolerance rules where there should be room for judgment calls. I have zero-tolerance for bonified bullying, but kids need to be allowed to argue, try to reason, and if need be, defend themselves. For the record, my tender-hearted son plays violent video games. He loves them, but he knows the line between a video game and reality. He also knows if he ever "copies" anything from a game in real life, he'll have the game taken away, not to mention whatever consequence he'll endure from his action. He has never broke that rule. He loves his games too much. 

But he has also had his share of bumps and bruises. We have never over-reacted to injuries. If you wipe out on your bike, or take a spill running, we clean it up if needed,and they're on their way. If they over-reacted to their own (minor) injury, they have been told, you're fine, yeah, it's gonna hurt for a while, be more careful next time. 

He's been slugged by his sister and she by him. We don't condone it, they are disciplined for it, and they learn from it. But when they have come "tattling" on each other, they have been told to work it out between them.  We no longer deal with issues like that anymore. They are now 14 and 17 and while they still have their brother/sister moments, they love each other dearly and have learned to compromise. They also don't want to see each hurt because they know what it feels like.

So, maybe the problem is not desensitation, maybe it all boils down to how we are raising our children. 

And then, as Empty Hands mentioned, maybe it's not that at all...there truly are sociopaths in the world. I wonder, are sociopaths born, or made? Certainly there are predispositions...what's being nurtured?



			
				Steel Tiger said:
			
		

> Look at the case of this 12 year old. It is a very good illustration of the combination of greed and the implication that violent action will achieve goals. Rather than quiet the child, he went for the quickest path to get what he wanted. This was not a reasoned decision, it was simply the application force for a result, just as the boy had been led to believe was a plausible option.
> 
> Has this sort of thing being going on for decades, or even centuries, without comment? Probably. But now we are creating an environment in which it is firstly given tacit approval, and then it is justified through things like the culture of victimization. It shouldn't be too long before excuses are being made for this boys behaviour, hell, I've made some myself.



Exactly, and even though I do believe it's escalating due to reasons others have mentioned, I don't believe it's never happened through out history.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 7, 2008)

Jade Tigress said:


> Article
> 
> Are children just becoming so desensitized to violence that they don't understand the reality of it? As noted in the other case mentioned in the article, I think this kid should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I typically don't think children this age should be charged as adults. But this is a case where it was no accident, he knew full well what he was doing. I'm reminded of the case in England, I believe it was, with the young boys who abducted and murdered the 2-year-old Jamie Bulger. A search online turns up numerous violent crimes committed by children. It sickens and boggles me how kids can do these things. What is going these days?


And why was a twelve year old boy put in charge of toddlers?
Sean


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 7, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> And why was a twelve year old boy put in charge of toddlers?
> Sean



Well, it's odd, but not unheard of, for a boy to baby-sit, but 12 is a pretty average age to start baby-sitting. I would hope that the parents knew him well enough to let him baby-sit. However, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if that wasn't the case. They really don't give much in the way of details that way. 

I wonder how long he was left alone with the kids. At the age of the baby-sitter, and the ages of the children, it should have been a short time, no more than an hour. But again, wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't the case. And, a parent allowing a child of that age to baby-sit, should be available should a problem arise for THEIR child while baby-sitting, as well as availability of the parents of the children being baby-sat. Also, I don't think a 12-year-old who is just starting out baby-sitting, should be responsible for more than 1 child, and 17 months is awfully young for a sitter that age. I still don't excuse the boy for his actions though, no matter, he should have called his parents, or the child's parents. Not whacked the kid with a baseball bat. Then again, if he was so focused on watching TV instead of watching the kids, perhaps the job was put upon him, rather than his desire. That's a recipe for trouble. 

It would be interesting to have more details on it. Who is ultimately responsible? The boy, the parents of the boy, or the parents of the children? Without details, I say all of them.


----------



## morph4me (Jan 8, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> While rather horrifying, this event may have nothing to do with parental discipline, social mores, videogame violence or anything else. The kid could be a sociopath or have any number of mental diseases which could explain his actions without impugning the parenting skills of his Mom and Dad.
> 
> In general, it's a pretty bad idea to take a specific event and try to extrapolate that to make conclusions about an entire society. I would need to see some pretty convincing evidence before I would believe that things are worse now than they used to be, and that is leading more children to violence.
> 
> After all, widespread war, violence, abuse and mayhem were all pretty common before the invention of video games and attachment parenting.


 
If the kid is a sociopath, and he probably is, wouldn't the parents have a clue after 12 years that there was something not right with him? I know that most parents don't want to believe that there is anything wrong with their kids, but you have to be able to see when there's a problem. You have to provide limits, support and/or consequences and  get them appropriate help when it's required. That's what being a parent is all about.

I don't think anybody is taking a specific event to extrapolate conclusions about society, I think we're seeing a trend an that this specific event is just one example.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 8, 2008)

morph4me said:


> If the kid is a sociopath, and he probably is, wouldn't the parents have a clue after 12 years that there was something not right with him?



Maybe, maybe not.  Many sociopaths learn to hide their tendencies in order to get what they want.  Many sociopaths have learned to be master manipulators.

Plus, most little kids are just trainable sociopaths anyways.  Very self-centered little buggers until their parents can teach them better.  Maybe the parents here just thought their kid was a slow learner!



morph4me said:


> I don't think anybody is taking a specific event to extrapolate conclusions about society, I think we're seeing a trend an that this specific event is just one example.



That is exactly what I am questioning.  I have seen no evidence to suggest that this sort of thing is more common now than it ever was.  In fact, statistics show that crime in general and youth crime in the specific has been on a downward trend for many years now.  Things are getting better, not worse.

What contributes to the tendency to think otherwise is a combination of the common nostalgia/"Good Old Days" tendency combined with modern media reporting methods.  Remember the "Summer of the Shark" right before 9/11?  Everyone was convinced that everyone else was getting eaten by sharks simply due to media reporting, as shark attacks were statistically the same that summer and year as any other summer and year.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 8, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That is exactly what I am questioning. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this sort of thing is more common now than it ever was. In fact, statistics show that crime in general and youth crime in the specific has been on a downward trend for many years now. Things are getting better, not worse.


 
I agree that statistics are showing a downward trend in broad crime rates, but what I am thinking is that this incident is indictative of a change in the type of crime being committed.  There is not more crime, but there does seem to be more violent and very violent crime.  We don't just hear about break-ins anymore, but break-ins with associated violent beatings.  It is only in the last ten years that I have seen and heard of children brutally torturing small animals in public, or beating or killing other children for "the thrill".  I have to ask what is going on?

When I was a teenager a lot of the guys I went to school with stole stuff, even broke into stores and stole, but they never thought to choose some random guy in the street and beat him near to death.  But now this sort of thing does happen.  Why?  What has changed to induce this sort of behaviour in youth, in anybody for that matter?  When I hear other MT members talking about carrying firearms I often wonder, Why?  Then I see a report from Sydney about gangs running riot and attacking passersby and I just think, hmmm yes.


----------



## morph4me (Jan 8, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> I agree that statistics are showing a downward trend in broad crime rates, but what I am thinking is that this incident is indictative of a change in the type of crime being committed. There is not more crime, but there does seem to be more violent and very violent crime. We don't just hear about break-ins anymore, but break-ins with associated violent beatings. It is only in the last ten years that I have seen and heard of children brutally torturing small animals in public, or beating or killing other children for "the thrill". I have to ask what is going on?
> 
> When I was a teenager a lot of the guys I went to school with stole stuff, even broke into stores and stole, but they never thought to choose some random guy in the street and beat him near to death. But now this sort of thing does happen. Why? What has changed to induce this sort of behaviour in youth, in anybody for that matter? When I hear other MT members talking about carrying firearms I often wonder, Why? Then I see a report from Sydney about gangs running riot and attacking passersby and I just think, hmmm yes.


 
Exactly what I meant to say, only I wasn't as eloquent


----------



## grydth (Jan 8, 2008)

I was fortunate to acquire a very old book describing notable legal cases in the USA for its first 50 years or so..... late 1700's to early 1800's. Know what? The criminals were every bit as barbaric as they are now.

In any era, you always have had a small group of savage killers, many starting quite young. Do some influences - World War I trench warfare, MTV, internet porn, media sensationalism, whatever - bring out the worst in some or trigger the crimes of others? Almost certainly, but I do not think you can attribute the majority of the truly terrible crimes to any one thing.... except that some are horribly violent and evil from a very early age.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 8, 2008)

grydth said:


> I was fortunate to acquire a very old book describing notable legal cases in the USA for its first 50 years or so..... late 1700's to early 1800's. Know what? The criminals were every bit as barbaric as they are now.
> 
> In any era, you always have had a small group of savage killers, many starting quite young. Do some influences - World War I trench warfare, MTV, internet porn, media sensationalism, whatever - bring out the worst in some or trigger the crimes of others? Almost certainly, but I do not think you can attribute the majority of the truly terrible crimes to any one thing.... except that some are horribly violent and evil from a very early age.


 
I think you are right, there hasn't been any fundamental changes in human psychology.  We are the same humanity who counted the dead but collecting ears or heads in the ancient past.  But there clearly have been some stimuli that push aside human inhibitions, especially where violence is concerned, from time to time.  

The industrial revolution saw a dramatic increase in the number of obvious serial killers across Europe.  Why?  Social pressures caused by massive population shifts and new living and social conditions and people not being able to cope were probably at the root of it.  

I honestly think we are in another period of human social transition that we are having difficulty dealing with as a whole.  We are bombarded with so many different messages nowadays we don't really know where to turn.  People who are set up as role-models, even though they don't want any such responsibility, are being shown to be normal people with problems just like the rest of us.  The rigidity of our social structures has been significantly eroded, so much so that one can no longer trust those formerly solid institutions for guidance, like religion for one example, and yet we still cling to older notions with regard to their validity.

I am not surprised that we see horrific things in the news, shocked, but not surprised.  Our society is in transition from the repressed, certain, cautious stability of the '50s to something new.  The genie got out of the bottle in the '60s and it ain't going back in until it wants to.  This period of transition is some 40 or 50 years old now and going by events in the past is likely to continue for another twenty years.  So I don't think it is going to get better for a while yet.

Everything seems so personal these days, and perhaps that is where the answer lies.  Personal codes of conduct and moral codes for ones self and family that we can use to foster an understanding or good social values and a respect for the law of the land.  

I don't know if it would work, but I can hope.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 8, 2008)

I used to argue exactly the same case as *EH* has been laying out above.  I was emphatic and vehement and had a lot of stats to back up my point of view (I did a degree in economics and had a strong thread of sociological research running through it to go with the maths and history).

I have had the same debate internally too i.e. are things really getting worse or is it just a symptom of the media-age and my middle-age?

My conclusion from experience?  Things *are* getting worse.  The stats are not a lie precisely but they are misleading and are manipulated to give the required view by the compiling body.  

One important thing to bear in mind is that many 'crimes' are just not reported anymore because, through no fault of their own, the police are incapable of solving or resolving them.  I've been attacked a couple of times and had an attempted an break-in to my home and not reported them because I've learned that nothing comes of it.

The media rumour-mill *is* powerful and can strongly influence peoples perceptions but what my conclusion is based on is personal observation and that of my friends and associates.

Part and parcel of the general nastiness is that the attacks that occur are just so cowardly.  When I grew up, even tho' violence was an integral part of the 'entertainment' machine, it was violence of a last resort carried out by people with a sense of honour.  

That carried through all over the place.  Bear in mind that, despite my education, I was a biker in my younger days and hung out in the most unsavoury places imaginable.  My view is not some rose-tinted, 'Ivory Tower', wistful false rememberance of past golden times - I've had a shotgun stuck up my nose 'with intent' because I walked through the wrong door at the wrong time .

A corrosive fluid is undermining our society and it's fed with the best of intentions.  I've argued before (as others have here) that one of it's it's sources is a lack of proper discipline in the new members of society we're bringing up.

Schools are the simplest example of the change.  When I was a youth, in the main, noone dared to challenge the authority of the teachers and those that did faced the humiliating consequences of public corporal punishment if they did not mend their ways.  Now teachers are hamstrung by the 'bleeding hearts' and schools are more or less run by the children - is it any wonder that all they learn is how to gratify themselves and harbour an inflated sense of self-worth?

Anyhow, I have to leave this topic now as it's too complicated to effectively discourse via quick-fire posting (as, sadly, are most things worth dicussing ).


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 8, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Exactly what I meant to say, only I wasn't as eloquent




Yeah, me too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 9, 2008)

grydth said:


> I was fortunate to acquire a very old book describing notable legal cases in the USA for its first 50 years or so..... late 1700's to early 1800's. Know what? The criminals were every bit as barbaric as they are now.
> 
> In any era, you always have had a small group of savage killers, many starting quite young. Do some influences - World War I trench warfare, MTV, internet porn, media sensationalism, whatever - bring out the worst in some or trigger the crimes of others? Almost certainly, but I do not think you can attribute the majority of the truly terrible crimes to any one thing.... except that some are horribly violent and evil from a very early age.


Exactly! For instance, there were terrorist bombs blowing up all over the place in support of this or that Union during the twentieth cuntury. The Term "Redneck" meant you were a simpathizer and has nothing to do with the sun beating down on the back of anyones neck as is so popularly believed... but I digress.
Sean


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 9, 2008)

I wonder if today's crimes have the appearance of being more violent because of the contrast between the brutality of the crime and the mundanity of our normal routine.  Human life has always been considered "nasty, brutish, and short", but with our society's unprecedented level of affluence and stability it comes as a shock when we are reminded of this grim fact.  

I think that it reflects well on our society.  Not that it happens, but that it generates so much shock and revulsion.


----------

