According to the scientific approach, children’s ability to reason and make moral choices depends on their cognitive developmental stage. Piaget theorised that children undergo a series of transformations in how they think, passing through a sequence of stages of development. Piaget’s theory states that children aged between the ages of zero to two years of age begin with a sensory-motor stage; they then undergo a pre-operational stage between approximately two to six years old. From about six to twelve years they will then go through a concrete operational stage, and finally after the age of twelve they are formally operational (Chapter 1, p13). Piaget’s theory implies that children think fundamentally in different ways from adults. He says that children are unable to be de-centred, and that because of this they reflect their own egocentric view of the world. They are therefore unable to imagine another persons’ point of view and can therefore not fully grasp the ‘significance and the consequences of their actions’ (Chapter 1, p14). Science can help to establish the developmental stage a child needs to have attained in order to understand that they have committed a wrong doing. Until they have reached that stage, they cannot be held responsible for that wrongdoing. Similarly for a child to feel remorse for the crime they have committed, they will have had to pass through stages of moral development.
According to Kohlberg, children must pass through six stages of moral development, and each stage must be passed sequentially (Chapter 1, p17). Where children will begin with, an ‘’obey the rules or be punished’’ stage, into an ‘’I am going to do it because it pleases me’’ stage. These two stages are part of, what Kohlberg calls, the Pre-conventional level. The next level, Conventional, comprises of stage 3 ‘’I am loyal to you because you care for and love me’’. Stage 4 being ‘’ I must be good because the law states that I must’’. Moving onto the Principled level with stage 5 being, ‘’I am good because I do not wish to hurt others’, and finally into stage 6 of ‘’I am going to feel bad if I am not good’’ (Chapter 1, p17). While all children are said to pass through these stages, they are all greatly influenced by their culture and upbringing, and have similar morals to the people who have influenced them the most, i.e. their parents or guardians. However, Kohlberg’s theory is based on objective, impersonal and ideal grounds, implying that moral judgements are universal (Chapter 1, p16). In contrast the social constructionist approach ‘sees different ideas about children and childhood as products of different world views’ (Chapter 1, p19).
A very good example of that would be of the Japanese belief that children are not individuals, that they are actually extensions of their parents, and should their mother commit suicide, then they, as children, will no longer have an identity and would have an incomplete life. The mother will then commit yako shinju, family suicide (Chapter 2, p 54) to avoid severe criticism. Knowledge is constructed and is therefore influenced by whose knowledge it is, how they went about ‘discovering’ (Chapter 1, p24 quote) it and what they intend to do with that knowledge? (Chapter 1, p24) different cultures have different perceptions and understandings, and they also vary from one point in historical time to another. Social constructionism therefore emphasises the diversity of how childhood is constituted and experienced in different situations and circumstances around the world. Carol Gilligan proposed, in contrast to Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, where Kohlberg found girls’ development to be inferior to boys’ development, that moral judgements are not universal. She proposed that they merely differ between men and woman (Chapter 1, p25). Gilligan’s criticisms show how knowledge can be made to appear objective when it clearly is not, arguing the point that there is no such thing as ‘unbiased knowledge’ (Chapter 1, p25).
Moving onto a more practical focus, the applied approach deals with issues such as, the welfare of the child, or the form of justice to be had. The welfare model is more concerned with the welfare of the child, looking into what has happened in the child’s life, for them to be driven to commit a crime. Believing that children who do wrong, only do so because they themselves have been mistreated or disadvantaged in some way. This coincides with the Romantic discourse that all children are born pure of heart and innocent, that they are inherently good. And when their innocence is taken from them by means of mistreatment, they are no longer children. With their innocence stolen they can now see and do bad things in life, things ‘children’ do not think of. The welfare system offers these children therapy and opportunities to re-build their self-esteem and their self-confidence. The justice model however coincides with the Puritan discourse, the belief that children are inherently evil from birth, and need to be taught how to be good. Where, wrongdoings must be punished. The justice model sends children who have committed crimes, to young offenders’ institutes where they will have to ‘’do the time for the crime’’.
Because concepts of what a child is, vary from culture to culture and from one historical time to another, with children defined by the way they are dressed and treated and with social and cultural norms about what they should and should not do (Chapter 1, p11). Social constructions must be put in their contexts before judgements can be made about right from wrong (Chapter 2, p53). Similarly science can offer a guide to what age a child should have developed the cognitive and moral ability to be able to tell right from wrong, but this is only a guide and it has been proved, as discussed earlier, that it also greatly depends on the child’s upbringing with respect to where and when they are brought up. It seems the applied approach, making use of both scientific and social constructionist approaches within the relevant discourse is the best way to decide if a child is to be penalised for their crime. Weighing up whether that particular child, from their particular cultural background has reached the cognitive and moral developmental stage to be able to realise that they have committed a wrong and realise the consequences of their doing. Without the ability to do this, they will not be able to be held responsible for their actions.
Word count 1,332
References
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 2, ‘Childhood in time and place’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 1, ‘What is a child’
Block 1, Understanding Childhood, Chapter 2, ‘Childhood in time and place’