Being unable to sleep till dawn is never a good thing. Last night therefore was not filled with good things. Anyhow, the insomnia meant i ended up watching the movie 28 Weeks Later at 4 in the morning.
About 30 minutes into the movie, I got this strong urge to take a gun and put two bullets in the young boy's head. By 90 minutes, if I had been in the movie, the kid would have been stone cold dead. Understandably, if I had been there, it would have been a very short movie. LoL.
Yep, I am reading too much into a movie. But I'm doing it because this happens to be a convenient vehicle to explore the idea of the responsibility of child offenders and whether and how they deserve to be punished.
These kids broke martial law knowing full well the dangers of leaving the safe zone and in essence were responsible for bringing back a virus known to be able to decimate the entire population. And yet, the whole premise of the movie was about protecting these kids and getting them away safely.
I just don't buy the argument that kids cannot be held responsible for any of their actions. In such a case where the effects included deaths and serious societal damage, and where the children could see full well the effects of their actions, there can be no excuse. They do not deserve to be protected completely from the consequences of their actions. Why is it so hard to admit that monsters can start young too?
Additional reading can be found in 28 Articles (David Kilcullen, 2006) accepted as a must read for active duty soldiers in the US Army. Written as an unofficial manual of the do's and dont's of being a soldier in an occupied zone, at one point it deals with the relationships formed within the community. The gist of one of the articles is not to trust the children. Why? The explanation of Article 19 "Engage the women, beware the children." explains, "Conversely, though, stop your people fraternizing with local children. Your troops are homesick; they want to drop their guard with the kids. But children are sharp-eyed, lacking in empathy, and willing to commit atrocities their elders would shrink from. The insurgents are watching: they will notice a growing friendship between one of your people and a local child, and either harm the child as punishment, or use them against you."
This isn't a statement based on obscure theories, but rather one based on observations culled in the first two bloody years of the Iraq war. The writer is one of the chief strategists on the personal staff of General Petraeus, the general responsible for the success of the complex task of stabilising post war Iraq.
The young boy in the movie was exactly like this, selfish and unthinking. And for this little runt, the soldier dude shot another soldier dude who was carrying out his orders necessary to control the epidemic. And the kid didn't even show an ounce of remorse or emotion.
People would argue that kids aren't able to understand the world around them fully or comprehend the weight of their actions. That, is irrefutable. But I argue that we should also take into account what they ARE able to understand and based on that kids deserve to hold some sort of responsibility. Kids know what death is, and they too are afraid of death. When someone dies, they know it's sad, and they know causing pain and sadness is wrong. They too have free will and they too can make choices. This is a reference to that internal compass that we know as the conscience the bases principles of which do not have to be taught. If we celebrate the fact there are many people out there who have had massively troubled childhoods and yet turned out right, we must also accept what it implies, that children/teenagers are able to take control of their lives and make decisions for the better. Conversely, they're also able to make decisions for the worse. Horrible crimes are not a one-off thing, they're a result of a series of bad decisions which ingrain and reinforce negative attitudes. At any of these points, the child/teenager can choose to listen to the conscience and yet they've failed to do so.
Therefore when the consequences of an action are of great detriment to the very society and the societal rules that protect them, it only makes sense that they carry the consequences as demanded by the weight of the detriment caused and what they are able to understand. This should be particularly applicable in cases where death and great detriment to sections of societies is involved, murder and intent to cause harm should certainly be examine in this light.
Don't get me wrong, I love kids. But just as any successful parent will be able to tell you, kids who are totally shielded from the effects of their actions will never be ready to enter society.
Society functions based on societal rules. When these are damaged to a huge degree, the damage must be corrected to the degree possible taking into account the individual causing the damage irrespective of age.
Kids are not totally helpless, neither should they hold no responsibility for their actions. We treat adult monsters as monsters. It's time we treat child monsters as little monsters.
About 30 minutes into the movie, I got this strong urge to take a gun and put two bullets in the young boy's head. By 90 minutes, if I had been in the movie, the kid would have been stone cold dead. Understandably, if I had been there, it would have been a very short movie. LoL.
Yep, I am reading too much into a movie. But I'm doing it because this happens to be a convenient vehicle to explore the idea of the responsibility of child offenders and whether and how they deserve to be punished.
These kids broke martial law knowing full well the dangers of leaving the safe zone and in essence were responsible for bringing back a virus known to be able to decimate the entire population. And yet, the whole premise of the movie was about protecting these kids and getting them away safely.
I just don't buy the argument that kids cannot be held responsible for any of their actions. In such a case where the effects included deaths and serious societal damage, and where the children could see full well the effects of their actions, there can be no excuse. They do not deserve to be protected completely from the consequences of their actions. Why is it so hard to admit that monsters can start young too?
Additional reading can be found in 28 Articles (David Kilcullen, 2006) accepted as a must read for active duty soldiers in the US Army. Written as an unofficial manual of the do's and dont's of being a soldier in an occupied zone, at one point it deals with the relationships formed within the community. The gist of one of the articles is not to trust the children. Why? The explanation of Article 19 "Engage the women, beware the children." explains, "Conversely, though, stop your people fraternizing with local children. Your troops are homesick; they want to drop their guard with the kids. But children are sharp-eyed, lacking in empathy, and willing to commit atrocities their elders would shrink from. The insurgents are watching: they will notice a growing friendship between one of your people and a local child, and either harm the child as punishment, or use them against you."
This isn't a statement based on obscure theories, but rather one based on observations culled in the first two bloody years of the Iraq war. The writer is one of the chief strategists on the personal staff of General Petraeus, the general responsible for the success of the complex task of stabilising post war Iraq.
The young boy in the movie was exactly like this, selfish and unthinking. And for this little runt, the soldier dude shot another soldier dude who was carrying out his orders necessary to control the epidemic. And the kid didn't even show an ounce of remorse or emotion.
People would argue that kids aren't able to understand the world around them fully or comprehend the weight of their actions. That, is irrefutable. But I argue that we should also take into account what they ARE able to understand and based on that kids deserve to hold some sort of responsibility. Kids know what death is, and they too are afraid of death. When someone dies, they know it's sad, and they know causing pain and sadness is wrong. They too have free will and they too can make choices. This is a reference to that internal compass that we know as the conscience the bases principles of which do not have to be taught. If we celebrate the fact there are many people out there who have had massively troubled childhoods and yet turned out right, we must also accept what it implies, that children/teenagers are able to take control of their lives and make decisions for the better. Conversely, they're also able to make decisions for the worse. Horrible crimes are not a one-off thing, they're a result of a series of bad decisions which ingrain and reinforce negative attitudes. At any of these points, the child/teenager can choose to listen to the conscience and yet they've failed to do so.
Therefore when the consequences of an action are of great detriment to the very society and the societal rules that protect them, it only makes sense that they carry the consequences as demanded by the weight of the detriment caused and what they are able to understand. This should be particularly applicable in cases where death and great detriment to sections of societies is involved, murder and intent to cause harm should certainly be examine in this light.
Don't get me wrong, I love kids. But just as any successful parent will be able to tell you, kids who are totally shielded from the effects of their actions will never be ready to enter society.
Society functions based on societal rules. When these are damaged to a huge degree, the damage must be corrected to the degree possible taking into account the individual causing the damage irrespective of age.
Kids are not totally helpless, neither should they hold no responsibility for their actions. We treat adult monsters as monsters. It's time we treat child monsters as little monsters.
