They are now saying.......

We can never know what was in this boy's mind, but he still is just a boy - the same age in fact as the one who killed my son in law - and we have no idea what influences he was under or what events shaped him. What he did was wrong and he must take the consequences, but my heart breaks for him and his poor family.

Greatnan, I also find the 'tabula rasa' argument difficult to swallow, as I think a child's own personality manifests itself soon after birth. I do think that nurture can overcome or exaggerate some inherent tendencies. In the same family, with similar upbringing you can have a selfish child, a kind child, a shy child an aggressive child.....

I don't think we are born as 'tabula rasa' - i.e. with a brain that is a blank canvas just waiting to be formed by our upbringing.
I saw a fascinating programme, (I think it was in the Horizon series) where a psychiatrist postulated that there is a violent gene and he was horrified to find he had it himself. Apparently, it usually needs to interact with some kind of real or perceived bad treatment or neglect to influence behaviour and in his case his loving childhood over-rode it.
The boys who killed Jamie Bulger had both had very poor childhoods, as had Ian Brady. And of course they were children who would not have been old enough to be put through the process of a criminal prosecution in most countries. If they had been born into a safe, loving environment, would they have behaved the same? Of course, their punishment may well have confirmed their belief that the world was a cruel,unfair place which had no time for them.

I saw his face on TV and he didn't look quite right to me. He can't have been normal. What he did broke through one of the strongest barriers in human behaviour.

No it's not their deliberate plan. But they don't care do they? And that's where the law should step in.

I don't believe a child is ever born with a "nasty nature" although I suspect that nature does trump nurture - but only very slightly. I find it interesting that the multi-million-pound advertising industry employs some of the best brains in the country and spends huge sums of money persuading people to buy certain products through a variety of media. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. So what is the difference with violent video games, movies and so on? It's not their deliberate plan to influence the actions of the young people watching but it might have that seriously worrying effect.

Interesting post Joan.

I guess he will be in secure children's accommodation at least until he is eighteen, where he will be monitored and treated. That would be the same as the Bulger killers. Though whether it's worked in one of their cases seems to be in some doubt. But it's all they can do.

Sometimes a child is born with a very nasty nature, and even the best of families can do little to change this. Nurture and nature always interact, but nature often wins.

There is no real answer, but it must be dreadful for the family. I hope the lad is monitored and studied while in jail, so that psychiatrists can learn from his condition and perhaps one day there will be a way of diagnosing and treating whatever he has in his brain and psyche that caused this.

I know that a lack of empathy is sometimes behind such things, and to develop empathy needs imagination. Watching violent videos and playing violent games dominate a child's thoughts, leaving no room for imagination. A child needs to be bored sometimes, and left to their own devices without artificial stimulation.

My son teaches 15 to 18 year old high school students and reckons imagination or lack of it is behind good or bad behaviour.

That poor family.

He must obviously have been a very disturbed boy to act in the way he did; what has led to that we will never know. He appears to have come from a loving family and the way that he appears to have planned the attack on his mother is truly chilling.

I do agree that parents should restrict their children's access to violent films and games, but this is very difficult when such violence is depicted on mainstream programmes such as soaps. I don't think it is healthy for us as adults to be exposed to this on a daily basis, let alone for children to grow up with it. As Anagram says, this is big business and it feels as though it would be impossible to turn back the tide now

They maybe won't ever be able to ban them, but surely it's the parents' responsibility to do so? I know that I wouldn't allow any youngster of mine to watch anything like that, but that wouldn't stop him/her seeing them at a friend's house. One couple I know, allow their 10-year-old son to watch and play these explicitly violent games. He has problems interacting with other children and adults - that in itself would ring alarm bells for me.

They're also saying he copied a Coronation Street storyline and even had clips of it stored on his computer.

Wasn't it eventually conceded that the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger had probably not seen the video in question (Child's Play II or III)?

I can't see them ever banning the revolting video games and nasties, jingl - there's too much money to be made.