What they said ... `It doesn't matter to me that these were boys. Their age has nothing to do with the fact that they murdered my wife and four others' Mitchell Wright, whose wife Shannon, was one of five killed at Jonesboro
`At age 11 or 12 kids ... don't think anything can happen to them, there is going to be no retribution' Child psychiatrist, William Licamele
On Tuesday, March 24, 1998, four schoolgirls and a teacher were shot dead in the grounds of Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The two boys accused of their murders, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, are aged 11 and 13 years and are also students of Westside Middle School.
In addition to grief, the shootings have led to much public debate as to what can have caused two minors to kill other children. Included in this discussion has been concern as to how severely these boys should be punished for any offences proven against them.
Background
Prior to Jonesboro, there have been ten fatal schoolyard shootings in the United States since January, 1993. The ages of the suspects range from 17 to 13 years. These shooting have resulted in thirteen deaths and seven injuries The Jonesboro shootings resulted in five deaths and ten injuries.
A particular sense of urgency appears to have been given to the debate surrounding how best to handle the problem because the two most recent episodes prior to Jonesboro occurred within the last six months. One involved a 16-year-old who killed two schoolmates in Pearl, Mississippi, and the other involved a 14-year-old who killed three classmates in Paducah, Kentucky. Each of the juveniles accused of these murders has been charged as an adult.
In Arkansas, where the Jonesboro shootings occurred, no child can be tried as an adult who is under fourteen years of age when any alleged offence took place.
There are jurisdictions in The United States where, at least technically, child criminals could either receive the death penalty or life imprisonment. Twenty-seven states have no minimum age below which a child cannot be tried as an adult. This means that in these states a child of any age who commits a serious offence can potentially suffer the same penalty as an adult.
However, in New York State the age is seven years; in Vermont it is ten years; in Colorado it is twelve; in Illinois and North Carolina it is thirteen and in Louisiana it is fifteen. Of those states which specify an age, the most common is fourteen years. Eighteen states regard fourteen as the earliest age at which a child can be tried as an adult.
Under Arkansas law, Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, are not eligible for the death penalty. They also cannot be sentenced to life in prison. As juveniles, the maximum sentence they face is termed `indeterminate' which means that they cannot be held in prison beyond their 21st birthdays. Given that Arkansas only has juvenile facilities to hold those up to eighteen years of age, all juvenile offenders given indeterminate sentences have been released at eighteen.
Arkansas currently has 275 juveniles in custody, three of them being imprisoned for murder.
Similar laws pertain in other parts of the world. In Germany, Austria, Italy and many Eastern European countries the age of criminal responsibility is fourteen. In France it is thirteen; in Scandinavia it is fifteen; in Spain, Portugal and Poland it is sixteen and in Belgium and Luxembourg it is eighteen.
The age limit is lowest in Britain. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland it is ten and in Scotland it is eight.
In most parts of Australia children under ten who commit even the most serious crimes are regarded as lacking criminal responsibility. From the age of fourteen, Australian juveniles convicted of murder have historically been `detained at the governor's pleasure'. This generally converts into a sentence of about twelve years.
In Victoria, such children were usually kept in J ward at Ararat Prison with the criminally insane. Those over fifteen used to serve their sentences in an adult prison.
Today a child convicted of murder is sentenced to adult prison but the Adult Parole Board has the power to transfer the child to a secure youth training centre until he or she is considered ready for adult prison.
The issues of juvenile crime and how best to deal with it have attracted significant attention in the United States. There are a number of Internet sites that treat the issue.
A 1997 edition of Daily Sundial, the daily student newspaper for the California State University, carried a counter argument to Governor Peter Wilson's proposal that the death penalty be lowered to 14 in California. The article, titled, Death penalty was not meant for kids and written by Raul Mora, has been reproduced on the Internet.
On May 18, 1997, The Detroit News printed an article titled The young and the ruthless? Predicted wave of `predators' fuels debate on stricter juvenile penalties. It was written by George Cantor. It refers to the 1996 publication of a book titled Body Count which predicted a wave of juvenile crime in American cities committed by `super predators', supposedly `the youngest, biggest and baddest generation any society has ever known'.
The book has been credited with having encouraged Congress to pass one of the toughest juvenile crime bills in American history. The bill would make 13 the age at which juveniles accused of certain violent crimes could be tried as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons. It has still to pass the Senate. The Detroit News article canvasses a wide range of opinion for and against this juvenile crime bill.
Arguments in favour of children who commit serious crimes facing the same penalties as adults
Those who argue that juveniles should receive adult penalties for serious crimes often claim that many young children are fully aware of the nature of the crimes they commit and of the harm they will cause others.
In the Jonesboro shootings, for example, critics note that the attack was not committed on the spur of the moment, under the immediate influence of strong emotion. Instead, some critics have claimed, the killings were elaborately planned and carefully carried out.
It has been noted, for example, that the young shooters supplied themselves with a getaway vehicle, wore camouflage clothing, selected a high and protected vantage point from which to shoot, lured their victims out by triggering a false fire alarm and waited until the doors of the school building had locked automatically before opening fire.
According to those who believe that young criminals should receive adult penalties, fully premeditated murders (such as the Jonesboro deaths have been said to be) are not different crimes because they have been committed by a juvenile.
This point goes to the question of intent and whether or not young offenders are sufficiently aware of the consequences of their actions to be able to be held legally responsible for them.
Mr Gerard Henderson, executive director of the Sydney Institute, has summed up the position of those who believe young offenders should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Mr Henderson has claimed, `... I certainly knew what I was doing when I was 13 and 11. I suspect that Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden - charged with the shooting murders of four schoolmates and one teacher in Jonesboro, Arkansas - also knew what they were doing.'
It has further been claimed that today's youth may well be more mature and so, it is argued, more capable of appreciating the consequences of their actions then youth in earlier times.
This point has also been made by Gerard Henderson. Mr Henderson has asserted, `These days it is increasingly accepted that most children mature relatively early and that, in an intellectual and recreational sense, most are relatively independent by 16.'
It has also been noted that the damage caused to victims is the same irrespective of the age of the perpetrator.
This view has been put by Mitchell Wright, whose wife Shannon, was one of the five killed at Jonesboro. Mr Wright has claimed, `It doesn't matter to me that these were boys. Their age has nothing to do with the fact that they murdered my wife and four others.' Mr Wright has talked of his family's dreams which have been `shattered' and of the damage done to his three year old son who cannot understand or accept his mother's death.
Those who stress that the crime and the damage it does remain the same despite the age of the criminal seem to imply that the punishment should therefore by the same. This argument appears to be based on the notion of retribution as justice.
According to this line of argument, those who cause serious damage to others should receive a proportionately severe penalty for their crimes.
It has also been argued that unless juvenile offenders receive comparable penalties to adult criminals then other young people may be prompted to copy them. This point has also been put by Mr Gerard Henderson.
Mr Henderson has argued, `The Jonesboro shooting was but the most recent in a wave of schoolyard murders where boys or young men have murdered students and teachers. Who is to say the soft treatment of one young murderer will not encourage another?'
There is also concern among some critics that children who commit particularly serious crimes, such as premeditated murder, may well commit those crimes again, if released from prison within a relatively short period.
Those who hold this point of view argue that severe penalties, including possibly life imprisonment or execution, may be necessary to protect the community from certain criminals, irrespective of their age when the crime was committed.
It has also been argued that it is not appropriate to blame the availability of weapons for any crime committed using them.
This point has been made by one local of Jonesboro who was cited in the town's newspaper. The man said, `You lay a gun on a table and a hundred years from now the gun will still be sitting there, unless someone touches.'
According to this line of argument, the responsibility for shootings rests with the shooter, not the weapon. A cartoon in an Arkansas newspaper has apparently included the slogan, `Guns don't kill - children do.'
Arguments against children who commit serious crimes facing the same penalties as adults
One of the arguments offered against having children who commit serious crimes face the same penalties as adults is that it is claimed that children are frequently unable to grasp the consequences of their actions.
According to this line of argument, a child who kills very probably does not recognise the finality of death and so does not fully appreciate what he or she is doing when he or she takes a life.
Similarly, it is claimed, children are unlikely to be deterred from a crime because they are afraid of a severe punishment.
According to this line of argument, most children are impulsive and have a na‹ve belief in their own immortality. This, it is argued, means they are unlikely to consider possible punishments before committing a crime and are also unlikely to be able even to imagine penalties like capital punishment or life in prison being applied to them.
This point has been put by child psychiatrist William Licamele, who has claimed, `At age 11 or 12 kids are normally narcissistic, self-centred, magical, they don't think anything can happen to them, there is going to be no retribution.'
Those who hold this point of view argue that if children are unable to appreciate that they will probably be punished severely for any crime they commit, then the threat of harsh punishment will not prevent them from committing a crime. Thus, it is argued, applying adult penalties to child criminals will have little or no deterrent effect.
It is also argued that focusing on the punishment to be given is short-sighted because the causes of child crime are probably outside the control of children. According to this line of argument, society is more likely to be able to prevent these crimes occurring if it can discover why they occur, rather than concentrating on punishing individual offenders.
This argument suggests that children who commit serious crimes are often the victims of developments within society or within their own families that they are not responsible for.
For example, some authorities have suggested that marital breakdown, the disintegration of the extended family and families where both parents work may all be factors contributing to child crime.
Those who hold this point of view argue that many children are given inadequate guidance and emotional support. It has been argued that such children may suffer from feelings of desertion, alienation and damaged self-esteem. These feelings may encourage them to strike out at others. It is also argued that such children may not have been given adequate role models to help them cope with whatever difficulties they encounter in their lives.
It is further claimed that factors such as violent television and video games are partial causes of many crimes committed by children.
According to this line of argument violent films and other forms of entertainment may desensitise young people to violence. This means that the children find violence more attractive and less disturbing than they did before being exposed to it in games and on television.
In addition it is argued that because no one actually dies in fictionalised violence or in violent games then the tendency of most children not be appreciate the consequences of their actions is increased. According to this line of argument, children used to violence as entertainment after which no one is hurt may be particularly unable to recognise that their own violent behaviour in the real world will have lasting consequences.
Finally it is argued that societies such as the United States where guns are widely accepted and where even young children are trained in their use are giving child offenders a means of turning youthful anger and resentment into homicide.
According to this line of argument, if guns were not readily available then most of the recent school shooting sprees would not have occurred, the child with the sense of grievance would have been likely to have expressed it in much milder forms such as fights, truancy or disobedience in class.
Critics of American gun laws have noted with disapproval the comments of Andrew Golden's grandfather. (Andrew Golden is one of two boys accused of the Jonesboro shootings.) Mr Golden has been reported as saying, `Andrew is a very good target with a gun - he'd get out here, shoot the little birds right around the house, shoot the little old sweet gumballs off the trees.'
It is claimed that children trained from an early age in the use of firearms may by desensitised to their potentially fatal consequences. Those who hold this view argue that children introduced early to guns may simply come to regard them as one more toy.
Further implications
United States president, Bill Clinton, has ordered Attorney-General, Janet Reno, to investigate the Jonesboro shootings and to search for common threads with two others that have occurred in the last six months at American public schools.
It will be interesting to note what recommendations, if any, emerge from the investigation to be conducted by Janet Reno. One thing which does seem unlikely is that there will be significant restrictions placed on gun ownership in the United States. The gun lobby is an enormously powerful political force in the United States and most Americans regard gun ownership as one of the rights guaranteed them under their constitution. This means that even restrictions on juvenile gun ownership are unlikely.
It is more possible that there may be attempts to reduce the exposure of children to violent films, television programs and video games. There appears to be a fairly general consensus within the American community that exposure to recreational violence can have a damaging influence on children.
It is more uncertain that there will any federal action to increase penalties for juvenile offenders. The state of Arkansas has indicated that it will investigate whether there are any federal laws which would enable it to punish the two boys concerned more severely than Arkansas law will allow. United States Attorney, Paula Casey, has indicated that her office was exploring the possibility of charging the suspects as juveniles under federal guns laws. To date, however, nothing has eventuated with regard to the application of federal laws in this case.
What seems more likely is that Arkansas may alter its own legislation, allowing it to apply full adult penalties to juvenile offenders who commit particularly serious crimes. Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee, has said he might seek to charge his state's laws to allow life sentences or the death penalty for youths who commit `heinous' crimes.
Sources The Age
28/3/98 page 21 analysis by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, `The sweeping gun virus'
28/3/98 page 21 news item by Robert Suro, `Law officials seeking maximum punishment'
31/3/98 page analysis by Alan Attwood, `
31/3/98 page comment by Gerard Henderson, `Young killers don't deserve kid gloves'
2/4/98 page 17 comment by John Smallwood, `The tragic reality behind the panic over kids who kill'
3/4/98 page 14 comment by Steve Carey, `When is a child responsible?'
The Australian
27/3/98 page 1 news item, `At age 6, he was shooting targets. At 11, Andrew turned his sights on his classmates'
27/3/98 page 8 analysis, `How to deal with the kids who kill?'
30/3/98 page 10 analysis by Tony Allen-Mills, `Nation recoils from pocket Rambos'
The Herald Sun
27/3/98 page 1 news item, `Child's play'
27/3/98 page 2 news item, `Massacre boys stole weapons'
27/3/98 page 28 news item by Sharon Krum, `Massacre boy weeps in court'
28/3/98 page 23 news item by Peter Katel and Carol Morello, `Little boys trying to be tough guys'
30/3/98 page 25 news item by Tom Skotnicki, `Jailed boys look to Bible'
31/3/98 page 20 letter from N Kelly, `Respect life, not death'
Time
6/4/98 page 23 news item by Nadya Labi, `The hunter and the choirboy'
6/4/98 page 32 analysis by Charlotte Faltermayer, `What is justice for a sixth-grade killer?'
6/4/98 page 34 analysis by Richard Lacayo, `Toward the root of evil'
Internet
* It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
* Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
* Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
The issues of juvenile crime and how best to deal with it have attracted significant attention in the United States. There are a number of Internet sites that treat the issue.
A 1997 edition of Daily Sundial, the daily student newspaper for the California State University, carried a counter argument to Governor Peter Wilson's proposal that the death penalty be lowered to 14 in California. The article, titled, Death penalty was not meant for kids and written by Raul Mora, has been reproduced on the Internet. It can be found at http:sundail.csun.edu/sun/97s/042897op5.htm
On May 18, 1997, The Detroit News printed an article titled The young and the ruthless? Predicted wave of `predators' fuels debate on stricter juvenile penalties. It was written by George Cantor. It has been reproduced on the Internet and can be found at http://www.detnews.com/1997/outlook/9705/24/05180011.htm It refers to the 1996 publication of a book titled Body Count which predicted a wave of juvenile crime in American cities committed by `super predators', supposedly `the youngest, biggest and baddest generation any society has ever known'.
The book has been credited with having encouraged Congress to pass one of the toughest juvenile crime bills in American history. The bill would make 13 the age at which juveniles accused of certain violent crimes could be tried as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons. It has still to pass the Senate. The Detroit News article canvasses a wide range of opinion for and against this juvenile crime bill.
Back to previous page
