Category: Child

Homicide, Investigations & Forensic Science: Factors For Child Murder

Introduction

The death of a child under any circumstances is tragic and provokes strong emotions. Children are at the highest risk of homicide in their first year of life, four times higher than other age groups. The notion of child homicide will be explored covering the nature of violence committed and the prevalence of this phenomenon. Risk factors including age, gender and possible reasoning parents kill their own children will be scrutinised. Macro and micro level sociology contextual and situational factors will be describe outlining the risk factors which contribute to filicide.

Thesis Statement

Infanticide and neonaticides account for the highest infant homicide rates. Maternal filicide and paternal filicide account for the highest perpetrator percentages of filicide. Children are killed by single acts of violence, neglect and the culmination of abuse. Psychosocial factors such as family stress, social structure disadvantage, psychiatric stress and psychiatric syndromes explain the reasoning filicide occurs.

• Why do some parents, including stepparents, kill their children?
• Are all children at the same level of risk of being killed by a parent?
• Infanticide – killing of an infant less than a year old.
• Babies less than 12 months old are at the highest risk of any other year age group, child or adult.
• Neonaticides – killing of a baby less than a day old (highest rate).
• Nature and theoretical explanations of homicide

Are all children at the same level of risk of being killed by a parent?

Neonaticide and infanticide accounts for the highest risk of filicide. Australian Institute of Criminology (2019) publication into child homicide in Australia showed that on average 25 children are killed each year by a parent or stepparent. The highest risk of victimisation is children under the age of one year old (Mouzos, J & Rushforth, C 2003).

Approximately 95,000 children are murdered globally each year (Stockl, Dekel, Morris- Gehring, Watts and Abrahams 2017). The tragic act of child homicide is differentiated according to the age of the victim. Children and infant homicide victims are aged between 0-16 years old. Neonaticide refers to cases of filicide within 24 hours from birth. Murdering offspring is classified as prolicide which includes infants and fetuses in-utero (Brookman 2005). Infanticide refers to cases of filicide less than one year old. Infanticide and neonaticide are often referred to as infant homicide. Children are at the highest risk of homicide in their first year of life, four times higher than other age groups (Brookman 2000). Child homicide is the most extreme act of violence, often at the hands of the people that are tasked to look after them.

Child homicide victims are at the highest risk of being killed by a parent within their first year of life. Australian had 238 incidents of filicide out of 284 deaths of children between 2000–01 and 2011–12 (Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) 2019). Child parent statistic show that 84 percent of child homicides were committed by female offenders, Mothers or step Mothers and decreases to and the remaining 30 percent are killed by the Fathers or step Father. Boys have a higher child homicide victim rate approximately sixty percent than girls proportions at 40% (Brookman 2005). 8 percent of child homicide victims are killed by strangers (Brookman 2005). 6 percent of children killed in England and Wales between 1995-2001 were by other children. National homicide data collected by Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council (2018, p. 9) confirms that 60.2% of child homicide case most common offence location is the family home. Child homicides that were filicides in 2005-2017 in Queensland statistics showed the family home was the location the offence was committed 79.7% of the time. Child homicide is the highest female accountability for all homicide categories in comparison to male offenders. Concepts in relation to the characteristics of victims and offenders are imperative in the development of criminological understanding in relation to child homicide.

Criminologists, psychologists, sociologists, law enforcement and the general public try to understand infanticide. Mental illness and social economic deprivation are contributing factors to the reasons a parent or step parents could kill their own child. Causes of infanticide can be maternal mental illness such as postpartum depression. Male mental illness caused by depression or rage, due to desertion in their mind of female partner due to the baby taking up the mother’s attention and time and murder suicide account for a large percentage of paternal filicide. Social economic factors such as single parenting, social deprivation, unstable violent relationships. Other reasoning would be an unwanted child, a young mother who may experience the stigma and financial issues due to poverty, unemployment and rurally (Shelton, Corey, Donaldson, & Dennison, 2011).

Criminologists Emile Durkheim social disorganisation and anomie theory drawn on theoretical perspectives, mainly social, to better explore other macro-level indicators. Control theory’s explain that weak and broken social bonds with members of conventional society will increase the likelihood of risk factors which contributes to filicide (Hirschi 1969). The inclusion of such variables increase our understanding of how contextual factors translate into differences in individual-level risks for children.

Understanding risk factors preceding child homicide incidents and the developing of copying mechanisms through counselling and education can reduce filicides. Women at risk of committing neonaticide are very difficult to identify as only 3 out of 11 cases have a psychiatric abnormality (D’Orban 1979). Post pardon depression and post pardon psychosis are often followed by suicide following the homicide. Substance abuse and mental health illness are often associated with child homicide offenders although difficult to determine if these factors were contributors to the homicide event. Unwanted pregnancy, illegitimate child and young Mothers can make the decision to not want the baby without a mental illness being present. Statistics have shown that women the month following childbirth is 25 times more at risk of becoming psychotic (Oates 1982). One in three new Mums have an episode of major depression in the year after giving birth. Alcohol and drug abuse antenatally and postnatally have been suggested to act in two ways in the reasoning for the infant homicide. Substance misuse has been suggested to act in two ways: first, drug-exposed newborns and infants are often described as irritable, with poor feeding and irregular sleeping patterns making them difficult to care for; secondly, substance misuse can impede people’s ability to evaluate their own behaviour and is correlated with aggression. A rare psychiatric disorder that can lead to infant homicide is Munchausen syndrome by proxy (D’Orban 1979).

Australian maternal hospitals statistics found that abusive mothers had emotional disturbances recorded on their maternity notes. We’re often under 20 years old and had been referred to social worker at the hospital. Hospital staff had concerns of mothering capacity and health visitors identified risk factors to child abuse (Oates 1982). Education, home visits and counselling are imperative to reduce the risk factors which contribute to infanticides.

Nature of the violence, reasons, risk factors and prevalence of this phenomenon

Pathological child murder is when the offender has an altered state of mind, a homicide-suicide, or when a parent or caregiver was suffering from a mental illness, depression, or acute psychosis (Alt & Wells, 2010; Bourrget & Bradford, 1990, as cited in Putkonen et al., 2011; Resnick, 1969). Unwanted child murder is when the mother denies or conceals the pregnancy prior to the murder, or neonaticide (Alt & Wells, 2010). Accidental child murder includes various forms of abuse and neglect such as shaken baby syndrome or battered child syndrome (Alt & Wells, 2010). Revenge or retaliation child murder involves revenge or retaliation against the spouse or girl/boyfriend and usually involves the father as the offender (Alt & Wells, 2010). Altruistic child murder occurs when the child has a disability, or the offender feels nobody will be available to love and care for the child (Alt & Wells, 2010). Non- accidental child murder would include sudden infant death syndrome or Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (Alt & Wells, 2010). A final classification motive is religion (Alt & Wells, 2010), which would include denial of medical intervention.

Mayhew (2007) claims that most child homicides are a result of frustration and lack of appropriate expectations of children, but others are calculated acts of violence. child murder and fatal cases of child abuse are undercounted (Herman- Giddens, Brown, Verbiest, Carlson, Hooten, Howell, & Butts, 1999). This underreporting is accounted for by poor documentation, infanticides reported as SIDS deaths, lack of death certificates, unfound corpses, and undocumented births due to pregnancy denial

Mayhew (2007) asserts that beatings are the primary cause of child murder, but mentions that neonaticide generally occurs from suffocation (being wrapped in a towel or placed in a box), abandonment, or drowning, especially if born into a toilet.

typical families with child abuse fatalities are poor, rural, and white (Jason & Andereck, 1983). impact of community-level factors and social stressors has not often been addressed in previous literature, and the inclusion of these ecological variables in an appropriate analysis may increase our understanding of how contextual factors translate into differences in individual-level.

Both the percent divorced and separated, as well as racial/ethnic heterogeneity, significantly increased the rate of child homicide. From a social disorganization theory standpoint, it has been suggested that individuals who reside in areas that are characterized by impoverished conditions and low income and education levels, among other issues, are more likely to experience deviance 20 percent of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) could be the incorrect cause of infant death, subdural haemorrhage could be the cause from abuse or an accident. NSPCC recommends all child deaths to be investigated.

Homicide event characteristics

Children are vulnerable due to small physical structure and fragility. Hands and feet of the offender are often the cause of the fatality. Newborns to infants are likely to be suffocated, drowned or shaken to death. Older children are commonly beaten and weapons can be involved, such as a sharp instrument (Crimmins, S., Langley, S., Brownstein, H.H. and Spunt, B.J. (1997). In 58% of cases where a parent committed the homicide, crying was the reason stated (Brewster 1998). Other reasons-used for child homicide were the euthanasia of a disabled child or terminally ill, physical abuse being an accident, neglect due to substance abuse and mental illness which murder suicide is the outcome.

Links to mental illness

Child homicide association to mental disorders psychiatric disorders environment and psychosocial stressors. In one off three cases female offenders who committed child homicide psychiatric disorders were identified (Falkov 1996).

Conclusion

The social situation of offenders such as poverty and social exclusion can lead to stress, depression and psychiatric disturbances which unfortunately can lead to committing homicide. Programs aimed at educating parents about appropriate parenting behaviours are one such measure that can be taken. These programs may educate parents about the vulnerability of children and their susceptibility to unintended injury, offer support services for young inexperienced mothers or teach parents non-violent coping skills (Scott 1995; Mouzos 2000). Other prevention strategies include:

• the use of home visitation programs for the families of children who have been deemed to be ‘at risk’ of abuse; or
• the use of child protection orders for children who have come to the attention of their jurisdictional community services department, and the careful monitoring of children under these orders.

Human services, law enforcement and other related agencies all play a role in the prevention of child homicide. The early recognition of warning signs of unsafe family situations would enable protective or supportive services to be provided (Lawrence & Fattore 2002, p. 142), thus minimising the risk of homicide, Children are not just at risk of homicide through fatal abuse incidents; family breakdown has also been identified as a precipitating factor in some filicides. The improvement of counselling and support services for separating parents may play an important role in reducing child homicide in these instances. Other family and friends may also play a vital role by raising the alarm if they notice a family breakdown affecting the parents’ mental health and by encouraging the parents to seek medical or other assistance in dealing with possible illnesses such as depression resulting from the separation.

References

• Mouzos, J & Rushforth, C 2003 Last modified 5 March 2019 Australian Institute of Criminology 2019
• Theoretical perspectives variables can be drawn from social disorganisation and anomie theories. (Tetzlaff-Bemiller 2013)

When A Child Knows The Meaning Of Murder

Growing up, the majority of adolescents are taught how to resolve disagreements in a gracious manner, encouraged to analyze all sides of a difference, as well as to find a solution to an issue. But what happens when a disagreement spirals out of control that it leads to a child committing murder? Who is to be held accountable? The one committing the crime, the child. During the years of 1980 through 2008, children under the age of fourteen made up 0.5% of murderers in the United States. Studies have shown children just at the age of eight, know the differences between committing malicious acts and what is the morality of murder is. When a child commits murder, it always tends to be a personal act due to something that may have occurred that caused the child to get upset. In 2016, an eleven-year-old boy shot and killed an 8-year-old girl, because she refused to let him see her puppy. Many children also take advantage of their age, because they believe that their actions may not result them in serving jail time. There have been known cases when underage kid believed that they would avoid serving a jail sentence due to the fact they are still not considered an adult. A child committing a murder always leaves people baffled, but it does happen and they have to take responsibility.

Whenever there are news when a child commits murder it always leads to assume that this child must have suffered a horrific childhood, have had drug addicts for parents, or simply did not hold the mental capacity to know what murder really meant or the consequences for this act, but what people have yet to realize that our brains are already 90% developed by the age of 5; meaning that we can differentiate between pushing another kid to murdering them. A developmental psychologist at Macquarie University, Kay Bussey, decided to conduct an investigation after the case involving a 10-year-old boy who killed his friend in 1998. Kay Bussey and one of her students gathered and studied 132 men and woman from four different age groups, those being between the ages of eight, twelve, sixteen, and adults. Each individual, was presented with various short stories, consisting of criminal acts that demonstrated the endangerments to the persons life was placed under and the other stories consisting with acts that did not cause harm to someone. The study concluded that 8 year olds were just as aware as the older age groups, that the criminal acts where one was endangered were considered unlawful rather than those that did not put ones life in harm. Children are aware of the meaning of murder and are able to tell how it does cause harm to another person.

Not only do adolescents know the meaning of murder, the majority of the time when they commit the senseless crime it was something personal and planned. Back in 2006, a 12 year old girl, who cannot be named, went on to kill both of her parents and 8 year old brother simply because they did not approve of her relationship. The relationship caused turmoil in the house between the parents and daughter since those were rules set out to her. In order to commit a senseless crime, it takes time and plotting. She was able to produce this hatred towards her family, plot out their murder, and carry on with the attack. At any given time she could have gone with an alternative, as waiting to turn 18 and leaving the house to just accepting the fact that her parents had rules she had to follow. She believed that if she made it seem as if it was a random attack towards her family she would go on and be with her boyfriend, but investigators were able to find evidence of the plotting the girl did in order to carry out the crime without leaving any trace. It takes an immense amount of skill and thinking to know what she was about to do was a crime that had consequences. She was able to convince herself that if she was able to destroy any evidence that lead back to her detectives could not prove she was involved; simply meant she knew the consequences that were responsible to her since she was aware and understood that she was to be held accountable for her crime and what she had done was capital murder.

There have been numerous amount of times, not only does a child try disposing of evidence that cannot lead back to them from a crime but another portion is able to convince themselves since they are not considered an adult, they cannot be charged with murder as an adult. In an episode of, “Killer Kids,” a teenage boy went onto killing his whole family to collect family inheritance believed he would serve a short sentence due to his age, the states age of being considered an adult, making him believe he was not fully held accountable, and would still receive the family inheritance. He should be able to take responsibility for the murders, because when a child is not held accountable for his or her actions they go on and do it again. Who is to say that a couple years from now he will not do the same thing. For every action there is a consequence, no exception should be made for him. He is attempting to take full advantage believing that he can get away with it, he is also aware that what he has done is wrong. One must suffer the consequences for all of our acts.

All in all, whenever we see a person has been murdered we are mortified by the idea that someone did such gruesome act and the one responsible for the crime should be convicted, but once it is revealed a child did it many opinions start to vary. When in reality it should not, when a child goes on to commit murder they should be accountable because they are aware of what they have done. The individual was able to plot and carry on with the act. Just at the age of eight, we can distinguish between a criminal acts that causes harm to an act that is not dangerous to ones life. Being held accountable for our actions is part of everyday life no matter the age. We should learn from our mistakes no matter the age. A child held accountable for murder is effective in order for it not to happen again, since they are aware of the significance of murder.

Corporal Punishment And Child Rights Violation

The right no is hit, is also a child’s right. A child is an abridged adult with a right that cannot be abridged. ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child’, this phrase has been prevalent in our society since a very long time. It is majorly believed that if a child is not punished for his misdeeds he will end up being a brat or undisciplined. Corporal punishment is just not restricted to the physical form of violence, but encapsulates mental torture such as humiliation, threats, scapegoats, scares and ridiculing a child in any given manner. Usually, infliction of such harm is done on the child dubbed as love and care, and in the best interest of a child, due to which a child never realises the need to report it. The parents often forget, that when they punish their child, they take the responsibility of misbehaviour away from the children and give it to themselves. Corporal punishment violates child rights guaranteed to the children under the Right to Education Act, which prohibits any child being from being subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment.

The problem is deep and serious. As part of their daily lives, children all over India are spanked, slapped, hit, smacked, shaken, kicked, pinched, punched, caned, flogged, belted, beaten and battered by adults – mainly by those whom they trust the most. Such violence may be a deliberate act of punishment or just an impulsive reaction of an irritated guardian or a teacher. In all such cases, there is a breach of fundamental human rights. Respect for humanity and the right to the physical integrity of an individual are universal principles. Yet social and legal acceptance of the physical infliction of pain and other humiliating treatment of children by adults persists in most countries across the world including India. According to a survey conducted in 2007 by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in the thirteen states in India, the studies showed that 2 out of every 3 children are physically abused and, every second child faces emotional abuse in some form or another. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) define the Child Rights as the minimum entitlements and freedom that should be awarded to every citizen below 18 years of age regardless of their race, national origin, colour, gender, language, religion, opinions, wealth, birth status, disability, and/or other characteristics. All these rights encompass freedom of children and their civil rights, family environment, necessary healthcare and welfare, education, leisure and cultural activities and special protection measures. According to the UNCRC fundamental human rights that should be afforded to the children that suitably cover all civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights of every child. The physical form of punishments has shown to hurt a child’s cognitive development. This may certainly be due to the effects of early experiences of stress and fear on their developing brain. Results from neuroimaging studies show that experiencing harsh physical punishment reduces the volume of the brain’s grey matter in areas associated with performance on a scale used to measure intelligence. Punishing a child gives rise to the plethora of harm physical, psychological and educational outcomes.

Such misdoings infringe the various rights guaranteed to the children including their fundamental rights. Corporal punishments interfere the Right to Education Act’s which prohibits any child from being subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment. Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution mentions the special provisions for children. Article 39(e) safeguards children against abuses and Article 39(f) talks about the opportunities and facilities for children to develop healthily, conditions of freedom and dignified childhood and youth and protection against moral and material abandonment. A child has right to invoke the various sections of the Indian Penal Code to get justice such as the section 352 that talks about the punishment for assault or section 323 and 325 that talk about voluntarily causing hurt. Right of not getting hit is also a child’s right.

There are various other methods of disciplining a child and making them realize about their mistakes other than punishing them physically or mentally. Developing a good rapport with the child from a very early age to be able to talk to them on a personal level as parents. Being vocal about the consequences of the act that the child indulges in also helps the child to differentiate between the right and wrong acts. The method of positive discipline such as rewarding good behaviour and curtailing negative behaviour. Teaching children about how to become responsible, respectful and resourceful inculcates a spirit of self-discipline. Punishing a child might not guarantee discipline but it does guarantee a lost childhood.

The Issue Of Convicting Child Murderers

Murder. It’s a horrendous crime no matter the age of those who are commiting the crime. Through this essay I will be reffering to the crime murder, defining what it is and the consequences of commiting it. I will discuss adult prisons and young offenders insitutions stating the differences between the two and the purposes of them both. My main objective Is to investigate why child murderers aren’t conviced the same as adult murderers due to age. The law states that anyone under the age of 18 can’t be sent to an adult prison but are sent to young offenders insitutions; I will discuss why.

The dictionary definition of murder is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. Murder is also known as homicide which is defined as the taking of human life. Murder has several sub-catogries; First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. First degree murder is the most common as well as second degree murder, and is the most consequential of all murder charges. It results in the murderer planning on killing the victim, with an outcome of life in prison. Second degree murder is similar with the murderer intending to kill but hasn’t planned it, some situations of someone acting reckless and leading to the death of another human being, can also be classed as second degree murder too. This can also result in life in prison for the offender or a harsh but realistic sentence. Manslaughter is a crime in which the offendent didn’t intend or plan for the victim to die due to their actions. Their conviction will widely depend on the circumstances. Voluntary manslaughter is an act of killing someone that does not amount to murder, but the killer can receive fines, 10 years or less in prison or even both. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without the intention of doing it for example killing someone why driving recklessly.

For a killing of a human being to be classified as murder it can’t be in a situation of self defence, under the Queens peace, so not in the circumstances of war or in police matters and the killer has to have intended to kill or bring great harm to the victum. In the situation of war a soldier who has been trained to use a loaded weapon is allowed to kill If they can see imminent danger/threat to a human life, this would then not be classed as murder.

Adult imprisonment rates have risen by 69% in the past 30 years, however, this has dropped in the last 2 years. In western Europe, Scotland has the highest imprisonment rate, with 48% of them returning to prison within a year of their release. There are six different sentences; Short term, Long term, Extended, Indeterminant, life sentences and in some cases an order for lifelong restrictions may be applied. Angus Sinclair is best known for the killings of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie, in October 1977. It is believed that he killed 8 women/girls within 7 months; Frances Barker 37 years of age, Hilda McAuley 36 years old, Agnes Cooney aged 23, Anna Kenny 20, Catherine Reehill ages 7, Christine Eadie, Helen Scot and Mary Gallacher who were all ages 17. After murdering Helen Scott and Christine Eadie he moved the bodies 6 miles apart in east Lothian the next day, leading to the biggest man hunt in Scottish police history. Angus was sentenced to a minimum of 37 years the given a chance of parole 20 years in his sentence and was given another life sentence after being found guilty to murdering Mary Gallacher. He was given the largest sentence in Scottish history.

The reoffending rate of young offenders is 38% and has increased by 2.3% in the past 10 years, however, has decreased by 1.3% in the last year. There are 3 types of secure centers for young offenders; young offenders insitutions which caters for those aged 15 to 21, secure training centers are for offenders aged up to 17 and secure childrens homes for children aged 10 to 14. Jamie Patrick Bulger is a 2 year-old boy or was adbducted, battered with bricks, stones and peiecs of metal leading to his death. In 1993 John Vendables and Robert Thompson both ages 10, took Jamie from a shopping center at bootle and made him walk 2 miles to his death. After beating Jamie to his death they then placed his body on a railway line for a train to eventually come and cut his body in two. They were released at the age of 18 meaning they only spend 8 years being punished for the crime they commited, only because their age if they were an adult they would have received life in prison. Jon never learned his lesson about crime commiting as he was inprisoned again in 2010 and 2017. After leaving both murderers got given new identities, and given a life long lisence.

The purposes of a young offenders instituitions One purpose is they are seen to be able get rehabilitated. Many of those who kill at a young age have been abused, seen abuse or just not had a great childhood and have never been told right from wrong and are just angry kids. Child killers’ identities are kept anonymous to be given the chance for them to rebuild their lives after the are released. Boris Johnson Is introducing tougher sentences for the worst crimes, i.e. murder which should allow child murderers to get life just like those of an older age. Another purpose is they are treated differently is that adult murderers should know what they are doing is wrong and have and understanding of what it is they are doing. Whereas children are seen as they don’t understand what they did was wrong and that a smaller punishment is enough for them to learn. This isn’t always true as there are many examples of child murderers being sent back to prison. Between the age of 10 and 17 those who commited a crime are treated differently from adults and are dealt with by youth courts and sent to a young offenders institution. Thirdly due to the law they aren’t actually classed as adult till they are 18, so can’t be tried the same as an adult.

Purposes on why and why not child murders should be sent to an adult. One point on why child murderers should be sent to an adult prison is they commited the same crime so should receive the same punishment. One purpose why they shouldn’t be sent to an adult prison is it could be to violent for them and could lead to them getting bullied inside. Another point for against child murderers being sent to an adult prison the reoffending rates of adult offenders reoffending is higher than young offenders reoffending so could be a bad influence of them and they could commit a crime again. Second point on why child murderers should be sent to an adult prison is it could show offender the negative impact they can make on the future.

So, why aren’t child murderers convicted the same as an adult murderers? It is all to do with age really, this affects the way the judge looks at the killer, impacting the sentence. My judgement on the topic is that child murderers should be convicted the same as an adult murderer. This is because a murderer is someone who has taken a life no matter the age of the killer, if I was related to someone who got murdered by a child, I believe they couldn’t be punished enough for what they have done, because once they have served their sentence they can still live a life with only a drop of guilty under the surface.