Child Homicide, Intent, and Court Jurisdiction Debate

Introduction

Some scholars maintain that the more common situations of child homicide arise not out of the intent to kill the child, but rather as the end result of harsh punishment. Based on this reasoning, such offenders should not be handled in criminal courts; instead, their cases should be handled in juvenile and domestic relations courts. To determine whether this reasoning is sound, this paper reviews the relevant literature concerning child homicide and intent, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

The recent high-profile case of Minnesota Vikings football star Adrian Peterson — who faced charges that he inadvertently injured his 4-year-old son while physically disciplining him — drives home two important points: that anyone can make a terrible and irrevocable mistake in the heat of passion, and that compared to young children, adults are veritable giants who can easily exert their will upon them. These two points are also at the heart of the debate over how child homicide defendants should be adjudicated by the courts. As Pritchard (2004) emphasizes, "Because child homicide is statistically so rare (a very large number of those in the risk groups do not kill or injure children), it is virtually impossible to devise predictive guidelines, or describe typical child homicide assailants" (p. 125).

Defining Child Homicide and Intent

According to Black's Law Dictionary (1990), homicide is "the killing of one human being by the act, procurement or omission of another; a person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being" (p. 734). Charges for criminal homicide can range from murder to manslaughter or negligent homicide, each with its own defining characteristics and burden of proof (Black's, 1990).

In the case of child homicide, it is fairly straightforward to understand — which is not to say approve — how some exhausted, overwrought, and depressed parents can lose control when disciplining their children without consciously meaning to physically harm anyone. In this regard, Pritchard (2004) emphasizes that "there is a strong element of the 'accidental' when child abuse goes to the extreme" (p. 125). The distinction between accidental harm and criminal culpability, however, is precisely what makes proper court jurisdiction so important.

Conclusion

The United States is a land of laws, and the law of the land is intended to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There is no more vulnerable group in American society than young children. In the past, harsh corporal punishment was regarded as the biblical path to rearing righteous and honest children. By sharp contrast, today harsh corporal punishment is regarded as a criminal offense in many jurisdictions, and the days are long gone when parents could physically punish their children to the point of severity with impunity — as Mr. Peterson discovered.

It is reasonable to conclude that had Mr. Peterson's son died as a result of his punishment, few observers would have called for his case to be resolved in a domestic relations court. In the final analysis, some adults will always kill children, accidentally or otherwise, and determining the truth in these cases requires the full authority and scrutiny of a criminal court. The vulnerability of child victims and the irreversibility of the harm they suffer demand nothing less.

References

Black's law dictionary. (1990). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Pritchard, C. (2004). The child abusers: Research and controversy. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.