Should a 2 year old child be tried as an adult for murder?

A 2 year old would not be tried at all because the 2 year old cannot grasp the concept of death yet (nevermind murder). There's an episode of CSI: Las Vegas that addresses a similar issue. The oldest (teen) son is minding his little brothers while his parents are out at a community meeting. While the oldest is on the phone, the 3 year old is playing and the baby is asleep. The 3 year old inadvertently suffocates the baby, not realizing that what he was doing will end the baby's life.

According to Piaget's Concrete-Operational Stage theory, "by about age 7, the typical child is entering the concrete-operational stage. In this stage, which lasts until about the age of 12, children show the beginnings of the capacity for adult logic. However, their logical thought, or operations, generally involves tangible objects rather than abstract ideas. Concrete operational children are capable of decentration. The can centre simultaneously on two dimensions of a problem. This attainment has implications for moral judgements, conservation & other intellectual undertakings.

Children now become sujbective in a their moral judgments. They centre on the motives of wrongdoers as well as the amount of damage done when assigning guilt. Concrete-operational children judge Henry more harshly than John because John's mideed was an accident."

In other words, the 2 year old has not developed enough to make the decision to murder or see the consequences of those actions.

Here is a what-if question. What the heck would a two-year-old use to kill an adult with? And wouldn't the adult see it coming? And wouldn't the adult be able to stop the kid? And why the heck would the kid go on trial? The wouldn't be competent to understand what was going on anyways, and wouldn't be able to be tried under either category. The child would get a new home, probably with grandma, and would be soothed for losing his parents, and would be raised in a place with more discipline, I'd hope!

Well what do you think? NO, not an adult. Its a freakin 2 year old. If it was 16 or 17, maybe. But 2?

You are really a moron aren't you?

First of all, "accidentally" killing someone is MANSLAUGHTER, not murder. Murder implies the death was no accident.

Also the law has a requirement that the person committing the crime be capable of fully understanding what they did and that is is wrong. 2, most certainly isn't aware of much when it comes to right and wrong. 2 year olds don't even know what death is.

So moron, no 2 year old is going to be tried for any crime.

a child below 9 years old is criminally exempted from liability, for the reason that under the law he is presumed not to have the freedom, intent and voluntariness to commit such an act, so the child should not be tried or even convicted for any crime, with the qualification that he child is below 9 years of age

How can you 'accidently murder' someone? That would be manslaughter. And no the child would not be tried as an adult.

if you can't do the time don't do the crime. if your old enough to plan a murder and make it look like an accident you should be tried as an adult

Hey Javier, apparently you are the department manager for the department of redundancy department. On top of the fact that that you factually stated the accidental murder by accident was a f****n accident they don't put people on trial for accidental accidents. In your case, though, it is no accident you are a brainless twit. Guilty!!!!

As Jamie says, except I would add, one of the top three most stupid, ridiculous questions of the week. People who accidentally murder someone are not charged with murder - except in cases where 'recklessness' can be proved. With a child - the thought is absolutely stupid.

Accidents are not crimes. This wouldn't be murder. It would be involuntary manslaughter. A two-year old could not discern right from wrong. The answer is no.