Review other stories of kids who have killed other students or teachers in high school in the past five years. What did Nathaniel Brazill have in common with them? What did he not have in common with them?

Examine stories of other types of serious wrongdoing that kids of the same age have been involved in, but have not been considered fully responsible for. There's a story currently in the news that invites an interesting comparison. A little league baseball team from the Bronx went almost all the way to the little league world series only to have their championship title and their charter revoked after it was determined that their star pitcher had lied about his age and eligibility. He should have been ineligible to play because he was 14, not 12, and had come to New York from the Dominican Republic, where he was not enrolled in school. Little league authorities were sympathetic to his situation and said they would encourage him to stay in the U.S., get an education, and learn from this experience. They blamed the adults involved, including his parents, for the deception. So if a fourteen-year-old cheats or lies and is not responsible for his actions, why is a fourteen-year-old who kills responsible for his actions? Indeed, why do we even have a crime called "contributing to the deliquency of a minor"?

Take a look at the second suggestion under "examples and illustrations," above. Does it suggest to you that perhaps we classify misbehavior into types? Why do we do this? Comparing these different kinds of misbehavior, does it seem to make sense that we hold juveniles more responsible for the most serious forms of misbehavior but less responsible for the less serious forms of misbehavior? Why or why not?

Take a look at the first suggestion under "examples and illustrations," above. Do we classify juvenile murderers into types? Using what criteria? Do these classifications make sense? Why or why not?

How do we define "adult"? What distinguishes an adult from a child? What are the defining characteristics of an adult versus those of a child?

How do we define "serious" wrongdoing? How do we define "crime"? How do we distinguish these from simple "mistakes"? Once we define the characteristics of these two different types of error, does it make sense that we expect adolescents to be more confused about mistakes than about crimes? Or, to put it in legal terms, if we define "misdemeanor" and "felony," does it make sense that we expect young teens to be more confused about the former than the latter?

Why do teens break the social contact? Much of our discussion seems to make the assumption that young people are more likely to break the rules of society because they are less likely to know these rules or because they have a harder time telling right from wrong. But is this really the reason why they're more likely to rebel against social rules and restrictions? What are some other reasons that might be important?

When kids kill, do they really do this because of the violence they see around them in the media? If so, then why don't we have lots more adolescent murderers than we do, since all kids are exposed to violent media? Even more puzzling is the fact that the rate of violent crimes committed by juveniles has decreased in the last five-ten years even as the amount of violent entertainment they see has increased. How could this happen if exposure to violent entertainment necessarily caused kids to imitate violent acts?

Do kids kill other kids in order to impress their peers, as we often hear? If so, how do you impress people by threatening their lives? Does that really make sense?

Do kids become violent because of a lack of adult supervision? What exactly is "adult supervision", and why is it so lacking in our society? Are there different kinds of supervision? To most people, does "supervision" mean simply babysitting? Does it mean disciplining? Does it mean something more complicated? If so, what?

Do kids become violent because of peer pressure? What exactly is "peer pressure" and how does it work?

Do kids become violent because of media influence? What exactly is "media influence" and how does it work?

How does "adult supervision," whatever that is, combine with "peer pressure", whatever that is, and "media influence", whatever that is, to create a sequence of events that might lead to violence?

Why does the combination of peer pressure, media influence, and lack of adult supervision lead to violent behavior in some kids but not in others?

In general, isn't it true that some kids are turned off by media violence and peer pressure to hurt others, while other kids are turned on by these influences? Why?

What other hidden factors might contribute to juvenile violence? Why?

For example, what about schools that have too many rules?

What about schools that have too few rules?

What about schools that have poor teachers?

What about schools that are too large?

What about the hidden influence of step-parents?

What about conflict-ridden divorces?

What about other forms of peer pressure, like pressure to look good or come from a home with a lot of money?

In general, assuming that kids kill only when they are very very angry, what would make kids that angry?

What if we don't assume that anger is the deciding factor? Is there anything else that could matter? What, and why?

Return to Patterns of Development