The Limitations of Hysteria: What Can Actually Be Done?

Nothing raises the blood pressure of the Great British Public more than the news that a child has been hurt or killed. And when we hear that a child was hurt or killed by another child, well, that is the worst thing in the world. It is bound to create hysteria, anger and unthinking demands that someone does something! Whilst the outpouring of rage and grief can be taken as positive signs that people still care about each other and in particular for the young, such raw emotions seldom lead to sensible or considered pronouncements. When someone shrieks "won't someone think of the children!" they are often unable to think rationally about anything at all. Even the children they seek to protect.

This article is a great example of the sort of strident and impotent ranting I'm talking about. And, unfortunately, it also shows the limitations of all such angry, strident shouting. Take this extract:

How can it be, people will demand to know, that in this affluent civilised society young children are still emerging as monstrous savages? Sixteen years on from the shadow of Jamie Bulger’s death; after nearly 13 years of new Labour and its emphasis on child poverty; and at a time when there has never been more money devoted to protection, education, testing, checking and child development strategies, how on earth could something like this happen?

But we know why. And there really is no point in getting emotional. This horror occurred because the system for intervention in the lives of neglected children is woefully inadequate and intellectually and economically flawed. Too late, too short-term, too wishy-washy, too cheapskate.

Ignoring the fact that claiming you're not going to get emotional and then using such an emotive term as "horror" less that a second later is completely contradictory, the strident nature of the extract shows the real concern and the very real anger felt by the author about these crimes. Unfortunately, the anger seems to be directed against the state rather than the people actually responsible for this crime - the two boys. Yet what could the state actually do? And what warning signs were there about these two kids? Was there anything that truly differentiated them from other kids from underprivileged backgrounds? Was there anything to mark them out from other children whose parents appeared to be neglectful and were struggling to cope? Was there anything that marked them out from similar children in their peer group as potential psychopaths before they attacked?

Of course there wasn't. These children only stood out from the crowd after they had committed their crimes. And whilst we might demand more from local and central government employees, the simple fact is that they would need divine knowledge of the future to prioritise these two over other needy children in the country. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it can also be a frustrating thing. And you can't prevent crime retrospectively, just as you can't use precognition as a legal basis to accuse people of potential future crimes.

So, what can be done? If we want to prevent a recurrence, then what should we expect from the state? Our author has a solution:

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, believes that early intervention is critical: that children must be helped before their third birthday to be saved. Can he convince David Cameron of the political merits of such a courageous, compassionate policy shift? We must cross our fingers and hope.

Great. So we're reliant on the radicalism of Iain Duncan Smith. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

But let's look at two key questions that arise around this idea of "early intervention." First of all, what does intervention mean? Does it mean advising the parents? Coaching them on *better* parental actions? Because in this case and the case of Baby P, advising the parents wouldn't achieve a great deal. So does intervention mean taking the kids away from their parents? If so, at what point do we move from advising to removal? And is there any evidence that taking these children into state care will actually improve their chances in life? If they are problem children, then it may be very difficult to find a permanent foster placement for them. Are they simply being removed from their homes only to face the same long term, bleak fate as they would have done with their parents, but this time sponsored by the state? We need to know - explicitly - what intervention means and then what good it will do for the kids before we can allow the state any further power over parents and/or their children.

And then who makes the choice of when to intervene? Oh yes, in this case the state should have intervened. But where to draw the line? At what point do kids become vulnerable? Who's going to judge when the children are being harmed by their parenting? Who is going to make the value judgment that their upbringing is not normal? Because, as a strident atheist, I could easily formulate an argument that anyone being raised as a devout Christian is being abused and having their horizons limited and that the state needs to intervene. But those with religious beliefs would point out I am simply reacting to my own prejudices, and have no right to tell them what to believe in or how to raise their kids. And they'd be right. So under the IDS programme, who does make the choice? Surely not Duncan-Smith - who as a socially conservative Catholic would have a very limited and skewered idea both of what normality and a healthy upbringing is. Maybe we can have a checklist of what is right for a child - because that sort of mentality really helps, doesn't it? And even if we can decide who makes the choice, you can guarantee that whatever limits they set will be deeply controversial and still open to vast interpretation. Even with the best of intentions - the saving of vulnerable children - you can be sure that innocent people would suffer, and loving families would be torn apart. And before anyone states that it is worth that risk, think how you would feel if it was your family.

Part of the problem is that, after decades of intrusive state intervention into every part of British life, the population is largely broken and sees the state as something that can make everything ok again. Of course it can't. We have a ludicrously high opinion of the state, that isn't backed up by reality. The sad fact is that it is in the nature of some people - both adults and children - to hurt others. No amount of state intervention is going to change that. The Soviet Union - one of the most controlling, totalitarian regimes that ever existed - still managed to have a prolific serial killer. And - on top of that - we need to get a grip on the idea that state intervention can be just as damaging as the state failing to intervene.

There are no simple answers to the questions posed by this sort of event; no matter how stridently the voices of impotent rage in the aftermath might demand them.