Neighbor: Fire-starting boy a 'good kid'

[Caladan 19]

Growing up in SoCal, you are well aware of the annual fire season. We have red flag warnings daily on the newscasts.

He's 10, not a clueless 5 year old. He should def. be punished.

That's only half the story, though. We don't treat juvenile offenders (say, a 14-year-old thief) differently on the grounds that they didn't know it was wrong, but on the grounds that they can't fully comprehend the likely consequences of their actions. In other words, the kid could know that 'it's fire season' and 'large wildfires destroy property and hurt people' and think 'this little flame isn't a wildfire.' That's why we treat kids differently; they can't make the connection at that age. And ten years old is certainly young enough to count as a juvenile for other purposes.

I have no idea what the punishment should be. What do you charge him with? What do you charge the parents with? Matches aren't controlled substances, and unless the kid has a history of setting fires, this could be as simple as mom says 'go out to play while I cook dinner', not the sort of thing that would constitute negligence any more than my parents were negligent when my little sister fell off the swing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Growing up in SoCal, you are well aware of the annual fire season. We have red flag warnings daily on the newscasts.

He's 10, not a clueless 5 year old. He should def. be punished.

That's only half the story, though. We don't treat juvenile offenders (say, a 14-year-old thief) differently on the grounds that they didn't know it was wrong, but on the grounds that they can't fully comprehend the likely consequences of their actions. In other words, the kid could know that 'it's fire season' and 'large wildfires destroy property and hurt people' and think 'this little flame isn't a wildfire.' That's why we treat kids differently; they can't make the connection at that age. And ten years old is certainly young enough to count as a juvenile for other purposes.

I have no idea what the punishment should be. What do you charge him with? What do you charge the parents with? Matches aren't controlled substances, and unless the kid has a history of setting fires, this could be as simple as mom says 'go out to play while I cook dinner', not the sort of thing that would constitute negligence any more than my parents were negligent when my little sister fell off the swing.

That's why I'm a little sceptical of charging kids as adults. Perhaps someone can fill me in on why we have a distinction at all if it can be overridden merely because of public outcry and a politically ambitious District Attorney.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Growing up in SoCal, you are well aware of the annual fire season. We have red flag warnings daily on the newscasts.

He's 10, not a clueless 5 year old. He should def. be punished.

That's only half the story, though. We don't treat juvenile offenders (say, a 14-year-old thief) differently on the grounds that they didn't know it was wrong, but on the grounds that they can't fully comprehend the likely consequences of their actions. In other words, the kid could know that 'it's fire season' and 'large wildfires destroy property and hurt people' and think 'this little flame isn't a wildfire.' That's why we treat kids differently; they can't make the connection at that age. And ten years old is certainly young enough to count as a juvenile for other purposes.

I have no idea what the punishment should be. What do you charge him with? What do you charge the parents with? Matches aren't controlled substances, and unless the kid has a history of setting fires, this could be as simple as mom says 'go out to play while I cook dinner', not the sort of thing that would constitute negligence any more than my parents were negligent when my little sister fell off the swing.

That's why I'm a little sceptical of charging kids as adults. Perhaps someone can fill me in on why we have a distinction at all if it can be overridden merely because of public outcry and a politically ambitious District Attorney.

perhaps it's best to let those who lost homes, loved ones, and were terrified decide.

Edited November 2, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Peikko 1,575]

That's the point though, the law shouldn't be as changeable as the wind. That's why public lynch mobs are no longer acceptable.

Public opinion needs to be tempered by impartial judgment for law to be practiced without prejudice which is what is required in a civilized country, no?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Growing up in SoCal, you are well aware of the annual fire season. We have red flag warnings daily on the newscasts.

He's 10, not a clueless 5 year old. He should def. be punished.

That's only half the story, though. We don't treat juvenile offenders (say, a 14-year-old thief) differently on the grounds that they didn't know it was wrong, but on the grounds that they can't fully comprehend the likely consequences of their actions. In other words, the kid could know that 'it's fire season' and 'large wildfires destroy property and hurt people' and think 'this little flame isn't a wildfire.' That's why we treat kids differently; they can't make the connection at that age. And ten years old is certainly young enough to count as a juvenile for other purposes.

I have no idea what the punishment should be. What do you charge him with? What do you charge the parents with? Matches aren't controlled substances, and unless the kid has a history of setting fires, this could be as simple as mom says 'go out to play while I cook dinner', not the sort of thing that would constitute negligence any more than my parents were negligent when my little sister fell off the swing.

That's why I'm a little sceptical of charging kids as adults. Perhaps someone can fill me in on why we have a distinction at all if it can be overridden merely because of public outcry and a politically ambitious District Attorney.

perhaps it's best to let those who lost homes, loved ones, and were terrified decide.

Yeah they do that in Saudi Arabia - letting family members "Swing the axe" as it were. I don't agree with that BTW - nor would I assume that the victims of this disaster would be up for that sort of thing.

Revenge is pretty ugly IMO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's the point though, the law shouldn't be as changeable as the wind. That's why public lynch mobs are no longer acceptable.

Public opinion needs to be tempered by impartial judgment for law to be practiced without prejudice which is what is required in a civilized country, no?

Little O/T - but this is the same reason we have contract law, rather than people agreeing over informal "spit handshakes". So that if you renege on your side there's a recourse to the courts - rather than people sorting out their problems with a lead pipe.