There is a stark difference between knowing the difference between right and wrong, and understanding the consequences of one's actions. Yes, at ten an understanding of the fact that murder is (i) wrong and (ii) illegal "should"/is in place (assuming "normal" upbringing, "normal" mental states). But at ten, the consequence for that (or any) wrong act does not even begin to manifest. What was the worst thing to happen to us as kids when we did something wrong -- grounding, yelling, spanking, a combination of all three? Those are a far cry from the penalties the legal system imposes.
On the subject of the legality and wrongfulness/rightfulness of murder... it is my belief that no one has the "right" to take the life of another, regardless the age or reason. Legality and morality are not always the same, although often we will claim that they are. Killing is against legal law and is also against moral law; "Thou shalt not kill," and whatever stature is applicable to your place of residence come the crime of murder. But, again, legality and morality, as often as they cross paths, are two different things, and we make exceptions and even "understand" the impulse to take the life of another over some reason, like the murder of a relative or whatever. In our eyes, that's "justice." In reality, however, a life for a life ends in the extermination of all people. Life in prison, assuming the prison is not corrupt and overcrowded, might be the "best" punishment: time to reflect, to make amends, to possibly grow as a person... but this is getting onto a soap-box, so I'll cease.
The point is that everything is connected, no matter how we try to slice it or look at it. Look where this conversation has veered already: morality, ethics, legality, parental responsibility. It's all one big tangled web -- if the parents are absent, the kids don't know right from wrong and commit vicious and heinous crimes against moral and legal law. But if we're going to blame the parents, let's ask "Why aren't the parents there?" If the answer is that (a) both parents are drunkards or cocaine addicts or some other atrocity, then we can indeed blame the parents. But if it turns out that the parents are (b) a single mother working four jobs to make rent, then can we really blame the parents? (I guess can we even blame the drunkards or addicts, as they are in need of help too, and may be reverting to a self-preservation mechanism as a reaction to something in their own past, etc) If the economy around the parents is falling apart, and they have no time for anything but making sure a roof over their children's heads is paid for, where did they go wrong?
For that matter, why didn't the schools interfere and where were the teachers? Why weren't the kids being taught about right, wrong and consequences at school? What are we teaching our youngsters if two ten year olds can kill a two year old?!
There's plenty of people and directions to toss the blame at. The fact of the matter is that there isn't one satisfactory answer to this... or issues of any sort (or like this). I think that even if they knew right from wrong, I maintain that they did not know the consequences of their actions and it was "playing gone wrong," and then again maybe they were mentally ill abused sociopaths who didn't give a fuck from a broken home and an impoverished family and neighborhood who were lashing out and asking for attention...
It happened. Now what do we do as a society to ensure that something like it never happens again? I can say one thing with certainty: We can stop passing the blame and work towards prevention, not reaction. Studying this case and discussing it is a good start. Never forgetting and looking for warning signs, and restructuring the core value system of the future generations? Even better....
