10-Year-Old Killers Are Responsible for Their Actions?

A 13-year-old boy being found guilty of a horrendous act of murder and cruelty towards a four-year-old boy in 1994 shocked citizens. The murder, as described by the prosecutors, was savage and left questions in everyone’s mind about how a teen could commit such a crime.

The defense called in a forensic psychologist to explain that he thought the boy had intermittent explosive disorder (IED) that may have contributed to this and that, as a result, he had a serious mental illness that affected his capacity for civil behavior. The teen’s mother, the defense attorney offered, had been on a specific type of seizure medication during her pregnancy, which might have contributed to developmental or mental issues in the boy.

Recurrent behavioral outbursts that are excessive in relation to the severity of the triggers or stresses are characteristic of aggressive IED disorder. Childhood and adolescence are the initial stages of IED. It usually manifests by about age 10.

The boy’s defense attorney stated his stepfather instructed him to hit a pillow if he lost control of his anger and threatened to harm someone. Punching a tree afterward left his fists bleeding. He went untreated for mental health issues by both his family and the school.

I recall seeing portions of the trial on television, and my first impression when I saw the teen was that there was something physically different about his face and ears. Often, when children like this visit hospital emergency rooms, medical staff write a notation in the chart as “FLK” (funny-looking kid). At the time, I thought he should have had a neuropsychiatric exam and that a forensic exam might not have been sufficient for his defense.

The teen, Eric Smith, was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to prison. However, the authorities released him in 2022 after he had spent 27 years in prison.

In 1993, two 10-year-old boys faced charges for the torture and murder of a two-year-old boy, James Patrick Bulger. In June 2001, the parole board recommended releasing the boys from indefinite prison. One of them violated the conditions of his release and was incarcerated again in 2010. In 2023, his parole requests were denied.

A recent attack by a group of children (2024) in Great Britain resulted in the death of an 80-year-old man who was walking his dog. The ages of the five alleged assailants are between 12 and 14. In Louisiana, in the United States, a 10-year-old boy has just been charged with killing an 82-year-old former mayor of a town and his daughter. Reports in the media have indicated that neighbors had heard an argument between the older man and the boy over credit card charges for video games. Then, a few days later, a 14-year-old student in Georgia killed two teachers and two students and wounded nine others.

A study provided a perspective on child offenders. There were 154 juvenile suspects reviewed, which averages 1.2 juvenile offenders per million children per year. National estimates indicate that 74 juveniles commit murder each year in the US. The majority (79%) were male, and the ages ranged from 11 to 12.

Almost all of the teenagers (70%) fell into five categories: (1) teen was customarily entrusted with the care of a newborn, usually an older brother. Second, the murder of an adult family member, most often a parent or grandmother, usually takes place in a home. The majority of these incidents use weapons found in homes, such as guns or knives.

The third category is involved in cases of impulsive shooting during play; the victim is often a brother or friend. These incidents resemble unintentional gun deaths except for a brief outburst of rage. The fourth category involves a gang of juveniles attempting to rob an adult of their money, and the fifth group is assault, in which a gang of juveniles fights with other gangs of juveniles.

Adult or Child Trial?

According to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the bare minimum for culpability in a murder case should be fourteen years. Considering a decade’s worth of fresh study into childhood and teenage development, it increased this age from 12—its previous recommendation—in 2007.

To what end, therefore, does scientific evidence lead? How does the brain develop between the ages of 10 and 14? Also, how much do you think kids under the age of 14 can comprehend when their actions have repercussions?

Any discussion of youths’ actions between the ages of 10 and 14 must consider context. During this time, their brains undergo significant changes that make them more emotionally vulnerable and open to trying new, challenging things.

We could, of course, recall the case of Leopold and Loeb, who murdered a young boy just to see how it felt to kill and then to deceive the police in their investigation. The detectives identified them because one of them had eyeglasses with a unique prescription, which helped catch the killers.

The years between the ages of 10 and 14 are among the most formative for our cognitive capacities, which allow us to think about how our actions may play out in the future. According to experiments, teens (12–15 years old) are more likely to make reckless choices in a group setting than when they are alone. Additionally, their brain reactions imply individuals feel more rewarded when they take such risks in the company of their peers.

Brain maturation and competency present to vaccine considerations whenever a young child commits a crime such as murder. Not all children’s brains develop at the same rate, and there may be many intervening variables that could compromise the rate and the ability to fully comprehend their actions.

A simple forensic examination may not reveal the underlying pathology that a battery of non-invasive tests, such as MRI or others, could only fully appreciate. Of course, I am not an expert in this area, but it troubles me, as well as many others, whenever a child is charged with a crime of this nature.

Competency, simply put, is based on understanding the proceedings and the charges, and the potential punishment as well as the ability to participate in their defense. I saw this when I was working at a psychiatric hospital on a forensic unit. But, with children, we have an entirely different scenario.

What if, however, a defendant is too young to make a mature judgment about how to proceed with his case? Finally, how can an assessor convince the court that a juvenile offender is too young to have a reasonable comprehension?

Emotions regarding these crimes run high, and, unfortunately, many will insist on punishment that could be excessive, considering the age of the child. The authorities have transferred some teen offender cases from a children’s jurisdiction to that of an adult and are enforcing the adult standards. Is this justice, punishment, or error?

Certainly, we do not condone this behavior, and we would hope that it would have been discovered earlier prior to any offense, but there is no guarantee of that, even if there were early treatments.

The situation is grave, and the emotional turmoil in the world may contribute to even more crimes of this nature. How will we respond in an evenhanded manner?