The data obtained from such studies can be used to address practical questions such as the ages and stages at which children acquire an understanding of right from wrong as in the case of the murder if James Bulger by two 10 year olds.
As young people cannot be held responsible for their actions until they have gained an understanding of “right and “wrong” Kohlberg’s theory was used to establish whether or not the two accused, Venables and Thompson, had reached that stage of development in order to be judged as criminal or wayward. (Chapter 1 page 18)
Although Kholberg's theory provides a general guide as to a child’s moral development it has been heavily criticised mainly as it does not take into account the differences between genders or the cultural and upbringing of the youth.
However a social constructionist approach would suggest that knowledge is an understanding of what people make of it (Chapter 1 page13) All
knowledge is a product of human interpretation or worldview, for example a young criminal is not a fixed discourse but a product of society, a social construction. Social construction of children does not treat it as a specific biological life stage but as a process of meaning.
Language is a crucial part of social construction as it conveys meanings that have implicit consequences. Any view of a situation depends on the perspective of the person doing the viewing. No view is correct and all are equally valid.
Common-sense belief suggests that “everybody knows” what a young criminal is, that it some one who is neither a child nor an adult who commits a crime. Whilst in England children aged 10 years and over are deemed to be part responsible for the decisions that they make and the crimes they commit, societies different attitudes are recognised, for example children are either constructed as innocent and good (Romantic Discourse) (chapter 1 page 22) requiring protection or as evil and wicked (Puritan discourse) which sees children as naturally sinful (chapter 1 page 23) requiring socialization through discipline (control) each discourse presents a different truth for the society and culture in which they are
constructed, meaning what we see as crime or whom we consider to be a criminal are both socially and historically specific, they are social constructions.
In the case of James Bulger the perpetrators were viewed as wicked and sinful (Puritan discourse) Therefore they were seen as in need of punishment and control. Had they been viewed as inherently good (Romantic discourse) they would have been viewed as a product of their upbringing and environment therefore not totally responsible for their actions thus in need of help and nurture
These two very different ideas about children leads to a particular discourse (self contained set of interconnected ideas held together by a particular ideology or view of the world). Social constructionist aim to describe alternate ways in which we can answer the question of young criminals and therefore challenge Kholberg’s assumption that moral judgement tends to be universal (chapter 1 page 34)
A social constructionist does not try to establish facts but concentrates on taking a critical stance towards knowledge.
An applied approach uses both scientific (chapter 1 page 3) and social constructionist (chapter 1 page 19) approaches to arrive at assumptions as to whether young criminals should be held responsible for their actions.
Concern is focused on practical issues and questions such as how children should be brought up and cared for.
The two discourses draw on two models. The Welfare and Justice models. The first is based on a romantic discourse; a child who does wrong does so because they themselves have been mistreated or deprived and hence need nurture and care to overcome their disadvantages. This view holds the youth responsible for their criminal act. tries them as an adult but still treats them as children and deals with them by measures that promote their welfare or in their best interests and the interest of society as a whole. This approach suggests that we need to understand children appropriately.
The Justice model is based on the puritan discourse, which sees the youth as wicked and evil, naturally sinful requiring socialisation through control therefore seeing the criminal as, responsible for the crime and punished appropriately.
Each discourse comes with different a conclusion of how to deal with children who commit crimes. In the case of Venables and Thompson. Each discourse would provide different outcomes.
The welfare model at it’s extreme would find the two youths innocent of their actions and therefore they would probably be placed back into society with appropriate support and nurture as in the case of the perpetrator of the murder of Silje Raederdard, Norway (Book I page 21)
On the other hand the Justice model could view the boys as being evil, totally in control of their actions and sentence them to death.
Thus if a child is constructed (perceived) as having a problem then society's response is more likely to be an understanding one, intervention can be prescribed to address the problems. e.g. Raederdard, Norway.
However if considered to be a problem society is likely to be unsympathetic enforcing regulatory interventions to control it, such as intervening with a child who has committed a crime, as in the case of Venables and Thompson.
Welfare and justice models polarizes both philosophies and allows people to recognise that children who commit serious crime can be sent through two different discourses
Answering the question of should young criminals be held responsible for their actions is complex and as has been stated there are various viewpoints as to whether or not young criminals should be responsible for their actions. The three approaches are complimentary but the applied approach seems to be the most commonly used in the United Kingdom and popular notions of childhood are of childhood as being a time of innocence.
Children's egocentricity (self interest) and perspective taking abilities can have important implications for the way people think about individual children's actions, they may appear old enough to know right from wrong but not old enough to know what they were doing and what the repercussions of their actions would be.
Can young people be responsible for actions, do they know what they are doing and do they understand the implications of their actions?
I believe young people criminals should be held responsible for their criminal activity but in deciding what the punishment or rehabilitation should be, many factor individual to that person must be considered.
Science can produce facts about children but cannot say what to do about criminal behaviour. (Chap 1 p 33) There is no clear-cut empirical answer to the question of at what age children reach the stage of moral development and young people have to gain an understanding of right and wrong before they can be held responsible for their wrongdoing.
Differences of the age of criminal responsibility are reflected in legal systems around the globe. Countries, which have laws generally, use Kohlberg's theory of moral development, which gives a guide to the age of a child’s moral and cognitive development but does not tell us how they should be held them responsible.
Yong people are different types of human beings with their own life experiences is their moral development related to age, emotional stability or both. The boundaries between childhood, youth and adulthood are blurred, as are the boundaries between right and wrong.
References: Understanding Childhood (2003) Edited by Martin Woodhead and Heather Montgomery. The Open University. Willey
Word Count 1503
Tutors comments
Good points and clear examples in places. You make all the points and have a grasp of social constructions. You have made an attempt to address the question and that has made a focus to the essay. However the structure needs attention. Your ideas are valid, your points good. You obviously understand the issues. So with a clearer structure you will gain a much higher grade.
