High-profile murders have shocked the nation. How can children perpetrate such deeds of mindless cruelty, with so little feeling for their victims? Much attention has been paid to knife and gun culture, and the way gangs operate in our inner-city areas.
While these issues are doubtless important, I believe they miss a crucial point. This is that violent behaviour by children is strongly associated with the experience of serious abuse that those children have suffered. The exploration of this link would provide powerful policy initiatives for how we might tackle violence by children. However, there is a powerful culture of resistance - even denial - by central and local government of the connection, which impedes efforts to address the issue of childhood violence effectively.
Cycle of violent abuse
On 25 March 1993, a child protection conference was held in Liverpool to consider the circumstances of a particular child. The central conclusion of that conference was that "no evidence of abuse is established" and "no connection has been established between any abuse and the alleged offence".
This conference was about 10-year-old Robert Thompson, one of the murderers of James Bulger, an appalling crime that shocked the nation. Liverpool social services convened the conference to consider whether anything in Robert's background might have indicated he was capable of such dreadful behaviour.
The conference also heard that Robert and his brothers hammered, battered and tortured each other. Violence was the family norm. One of the miscarriages Robert's mother suffered was caused by being jammed in a door during a row. One of the boys was made to eat a packet of cigarettes as a punishment. The report was a litany of violence and abuse. The astonishing conclusion of the conference presumably arose from the council's wish to exonerate itself, and a worry about the financial consequences of admitting to the connection.
My contention is that this is an example of a culture of denial of the link between child abuse and children who seriously offend.
In fact, much is known about this connection and there is a large body of research evidence that is all pointing in the same direction.
A 1997 study of children in custody for "grave crimes", for instance, found that out of 200 such children, 72 per cent had suffered serious abuse, 57 per cent had suffered traumatic loss and 91 per cent had suffered one or both of these.
A 2002 study found a 55 per cent correlation between abuse and offending among 79 children held in secure institutions.
The experience of abuse is also associated strongly with other problems, including difficulties in forming relationships, educational problems, mental health difficulties, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy.
Advances in neuroscience tell us that abuse may cause damage to brain development, resulting in cognitive impairment, lack of empathy and lack of ability to regulate powerful feelings. These deficits may lead to poor capacity to make relationships, poor achievement at school, lack of sympathy for suffering, feelings of low self-esteem and the recourse to drugs. These are all risk factors associated with criminal behaviour. A whole series of consequences may be set in motion by abuse and particularly early abuse. Abuse can be seen as not so much a direct cause, but rather an early event in an indirect chain mechanism.
It is clear that child abuse, and particularly early child abuse, should be regarded as a critical risk factor in relation to violent offending behaviour.
The evidence from the numerous studies relates to looking retrospectively at children who have offended. But studies that look forward give a different picture. In fact, most abused children don't go on to offend (70 per cent according to one study). What is it that enables some children not to go on to suffer some of the negative consequences of abuse? There is a growing body of research about what provides resilience for children, and how resilience factors may be strengthened. Moreover, some therapeutic interventions are looking very promising. Of course, while the link is not properly recognised, full advantage is not likely to be taken of opportunities to help.
There is abundant evidence of government denial. In July 2008, the government issued a Youth Crime Action Plan. In this document there was no mention of child abuse at all, let alone its role in contributing to violent or sexual crime.
In December 2008, the Sentencing Advisory Panel issued draft guidance on the sentencing of youths. No mention was made of child abuse as a factor that courts should consider when sentencing children.
In November 2006, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) prepared a report on this topic entitled Past Abuse Suffered by Children in Custody - A Way Forward. This report summarised the evidence about child abuse and serious offending and made modest recommendations for the way forward. The YJB and the government refused to publish the report, and have stoutly resisted requests to even discuss it.
Support for abused children
It is difficult to understand why there should be such resistance. Is it fear of opening Pandora's box with its unknown contents? The potential cost implications? Or is it that recognising the link might be seen by some as excuse-making, and "going soft on crime"?
Whatever the reasons, four steps need to be taken. First, the evidence that abused children go on to offend should be disseminated widely, and in particular to children's trusts, youth offending teams, courts, and local safeguarding children's boards. Second, provision of therapeutic and other support services for children who have been abused should be strengthened. Third, whenever a child is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence, they should be referred for an assessment of the possibility of previous abuse. And finally, reports for children appearing before the courts, should explicitly and routinely address the issue of past maltreatment.
If these measures were introduced, there would be some prospect of addressing the problems of abused and violent children, and reducing some of the terrible consequences of their behaviour.
- Jon Fayle is a freelance consultant in youth justice and children's services, and chair of the National Association of Independent Reviewing Officers.
