9 year old charged with 5 counts of murder, 2 counts of arson, 1 count aggravated arson - Goodfield, IL - 6 April 2019

1621182610424.jpeg
2019 Goodfield arson
LocationGoodfield, Central Illinois
DateApril 6, 2019
Attack typeArson
Deaths5
On April 6, 2019, nine-year-old Kyle Alwood killed five family members after starting a fire in a mobile home in Goodfield, Illinois.[1][2] The nine-year-old boy was charged with the deaths on October 8.[3]

Incident​

At around 11:00 pm, a fire was reported in the central area of Peoria near the village of Goodfield, Illinois. Firefighters came a few minutes after the call. Five bodies, three children, all under three years old, Kathryn Murray, aged 69, and Jason Wall, aged 34, were all found dead from smoke inhalation.[4] Katrina Alwood, aged 27, and her son Kyle both survived the fire.[5]

Charges​

Nine-year-old Kyle Alwood was taken into custody and charged with murder six months after the incident. The child was charged with 5 counts of murder, two counts of arson, and one count of aggravated arson. If convicted, Alwood could face five years of probation.[6][7]

References​

  1. ^ 9-year-old boy accused of setting deadly fire appears in court on murder charges
  2. ^ "9-year-old charged with murder in 5 Illinois fire deaths". Yahoo News. Retrieved October 10, 2019.
  3. ^ Hauck, Grace. "'Extremely uncommon': 9-year-old charged with murder after 5 die in Illinois fire". USA TODAY. Retrieved October 10, 2019.
  4. ^ Gearty, Robert (October 9, 2019). "Child faces 5 murder charges for starting Illinois mobile home fire". New York Post. Retrieved October 10,2019.
  5. ^ "9-year-old accused of causing mobile home fire that killed 5". AOL. Retrieved October 10, 2019.[dead link]
  6. ^ 9-year-old boy accused of setting deadly fire appears in court on murder charges
  7. ^ "9-year-old charged with murder in 5 Illinois fire deaths". AP NEWS. October 9, 2019. Retrieved November 20, 2020.


Click for playlist of Kyle’s 28 videos though it shows black...
Be still your beating heart. Guard it carefully. Broken ♥️...
 
Last edited:
I am a pretty simple person and I would recommend intensive psychological treatment and a lifelong supervision. Yes he is a child and was failed, but IMO you still have a choice and even smaller kids can tell the difference between right from wrong 😕
 
Last edited:
I am a pretty simple person and I would recommend intensive psychological treatment and a lifelong supervision. Yes he is a child and was failed, but IMO you still have a choice and even smaller kids can tell the difference between right from wrong 😕
There’s a lot to unpack in this article:
Learning Right From Wrong

The fragile steps toward a child's understanding that lying, stealing, cheating and hurting are out of bounds.

by Sharon Begley and Claudia Kalb

To the legal system, the answer is clear: children have the requisite moral sense--the ability to tell right from wrong--by age 7 to 15, depending on which state they live in, and so can be held responsible for their actions. The Roman Catholic Church pegs it at the early end of that range: children reach the "age of reason" by the tender age of 7, a milestone marked by their first confession of sin and holy communion. Developmental psychologists and other researchers who study the question are not so sure. How old a child must be to both know in his mind and feel in his heart that lying, stealing, cheating, hurting--let alone murdering--are morally wrong is a matter of scientific debate.

But the question of when is not nearly so fraught as the question of how. Although they pretty much agree that living in a crack house--with people who respond to challenges with violence, and bereft of parental love, supervision and models of moral behavior--can leave a child's conscience stillborn, scientists are struggling toward a definitive answer to the question of how children develop a sense of right and wrong. "If there is any consensus, it is that conscience is a combination of head, heart and hand," says Marvin Berkowitz, professor of character development at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. "It is knowing the good, loving the good and doing the good. And that requires both cognitive and emotional components."

The emotional piece falls into place first. "All children are born with a running start on the path to moral development," says psychologist William Damon of Stanford University. The reason is that empathy, the key emotion supporting a sense of right and wrong, emerges early and, it seems, naturally. Babies cry in response to the wails of other babies, "and not just because it's a sound that upsets them," notes Carolyn Zahn-Waxler of the National Institute of Mental Health. "They cry more in response to human cries than to other aversive sounds. Somehow, there's a built-in capacity to respond to the needs of others." Babies as young as 1 try to console others in distress. Toddlers offer their security blanket to a teary-eyed parent or a favorite toy to a distraught sibling, as if understanding that the very object that brings them comfort will do the same to another.
...
Heart and head will take a child only so far, however. "I suspect that if you sat down [the first-grade shooter] when he was quiet and calm, before this happened, and asked, 'Is it bad to shoot someone?' he would have said yes," says psychologist Laurence Steinberg of Temple University and director of a MacArthur Foundation program on juvenile justice. How much he understood about the consequences of shooting and the finality of death is unknown. But choosing not to undertake a horrific act requires the third ingredient of conscience: a gut-wrenching aversion to wrong. "Gut-wrenching" is not merely a figure of speech: it means the racing heart, sweaty palms and churning stomach that moral individuals would feel if forced to, say, burglarize a house. Some people simply lack this stress response, but probably not because of a genetic defect. When Adrian Raine of the University of Southern California recorded how 15-year-olds' heart rates, EEGs (a measure of brain activity) and other factors changed in response to stress, he found some cool customers who were not fazed by anything. Compared with kids with a normal stress response, they had a greater chance of being criminals at the age of 24. Perhaps low arousability makes kids seek out excitement and danger, Raine suggests. Or maybe it makes them fearless. "Kids who come from a bad home environment, who are battered from pillar to post, may become inoculated to stress," says Raine. "Their nervous system may simply not be wired to ring a warning bell" when they are about to do something dangerous--or wrong. This brain wiring may be what's missing in kids who "know" right from wrong but fail to act on it.

When do the heart, the head and the gut come together to produce, if not a moral philosopher, at least a moral child? "My hunch is that it's probably not complete until a child is close to 12," says Steinberg. "But a lot of these things are still developing at 15." And sometimes, as any glance at the headlines will tell you, they fail to develop at all.


 
Last edited:
When do the heart, the head and the gut come together to produce, if not a moral philosopher, at least a moral child? "My hunch is that it's probably not complete until a child is close to 12," says Steinberg. "But a lot of these things are still developing at 15." And sometimes, as any glance at the headlines will tell you, they fail to develop at all.
And the frontal lobe does not finish developing until your early 20s.


Parents and teachers have long known that teenagers have a poor ability to measure their current actions against potential future consequences. While it’s not true for every teenager, the vast majority of them struggle to comprehend the fact that they are not immortal, their chances are not limitless, and that they may, through their current actions, burn bridges that they won’t be able to get back across. Research now shows that this isn’t just that your teen doesn’t care; rather, their inability to grasp these seemingly basic (to adults) concepts is based in the brain.

The decision-making process doesn’t take place entirely in the frontal lobe. For adults, the majority of the decision-making process–even in the middle of an emotional decision–takes place in the frontal lobe, which is able to bring logic and reason into play. This is what prevents adults from, say, storming emotionally out of a classroom because they’ve had an argument with a friend or quitting their favorite sport because “the coach doesn’t like them.” For teens, however, much of that process still takes place within the amygdala–the part of the brain responsible for the “fight or flight” response.

Neural insulators that connect the frontal lobe to the rest of the brain aren’t present yet. This means that when you look at your teen and wonder how they can be so self-centered, it’s not because you’ve failed as a parent. Rather, it’s because their brain hasn’t yet fully developed the connections it needs in order to genuinely understand the impact of their actions on others–and it likely won’t until your teen is in their twenties.



I am a pretty simple person and I would recommend intensive psychological treatment and a lifelong supervision. Yes he is a child and was failed, but IMO you still have a choice and even smaller kids can tell the difference between right from wrong 😕
If you sit down a dang 4-year-old, they'll be able to tell you if something is "right" or "wrong" to do. That doesn't mean they understand what that means, or what the ultimate consequences of doing the "wrong" thing would be.
 
I am a pretty simple person and I would recommend intensive psychological treatment and a lifelong supervision. Yes he is a child and was failed, but IMO you still have a choice and even smaller kids can tell the difference between right from wrong 😕
They would know if they'd been taught over and over. My 4 year olds knew it was "right" when Mom was happy and "wrong" when Mom was not.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,425
Members
964
Latest member
ztw1990
Back
Top Bottom