This newspaper has repeatedly argued that one major reason for the dysfunctional state of our society — manifested in high crime, violence, and disorder — has much to do with how our children are treated.

Two articles in yesterday’s Sunday Observer headlined ‘Lawyer says client incapable of love’ and ‘Extremely distressing…’ have strengthened our view.

The first article tells us that that the defence attorney for a 23-year-old man who was on Friday sentenced to 20 years in prison for the murder of a homeless man, told the St James Parish Circuit Court that his client’s troubled childhood left him unable to show love and affection.

This newspaper is obviously unable to say if the lawyer, Mr Albert Morgan, was correct in his assessment. Nor can we say whether the murder of the homeless man, Mr Matthew Lettman — repeatedly hit on the head with a stone while he slept — was the result of the murderer’s upbringing.

However, it seems clear from this newspaper’s report of the evidence in court that the convicted man, Mr Rushawn Bulgin, was abused as a child, including being exposed to violence and the use of ganja at an early age.

We are told that, although Mr Bulgin developed a tendency to steal and displayed disruptive behaviour, he got no help through expert counselling, prior to spending four years in State care.

Unfortunately, stories such as Mr Bulgin’s, and much worse, are common place in Jamaica. Child psychologists and other experts have repeatedly identified the need to take much better care of our children if we are to address crime, violence and antisocial behaviour.

Poor parenting is often blamed. What’s often missed is that many of our parents were themselves subjected to poor parenting. So the cycle continues.

What’s urgently needed is comprehensive social intervention across this land to break that cycle.

Sadly, a loose, off-hand approach to raising our children — more especially at the lower socio-economic end of society — persists.

We regret to have to say that loose approach appears to have shown itself in the courtroom as well.

The second article mentioned above tells of a security guard accused of having buggered a child with learning/intellectual challenges being freed on appeal because the child’s testimony was deemed unreliable.

We have no issue with the court’s verdict. However, we are appalled that the intellectually challenged child was — from all appearances, based on our news story — questioned in court without due regard for his condition.

Expert Dr Karla Hylton told our reporter that: “The challenges faced by such children may include difficulty expressing themselves verbally, understanding social cues, or navigating sensory sensitivities…

“Therefore, it becomes crucial for the legal system to adopt strategies that facilitate effective communication…”

We are unclear as to whether legal restrictions prevented possible solutions. Dr Hylton suggested that help could have been sought from professional experts to provide “insights into the child’s communication style and offer guidance on how to create a supportive environment” and, the use of visual aids “to help bridge the communication gap between the child and the court…”

What seems clear is that the child did not benefit from equal rights and justice. As a society, we have to do better.