Hi guys, had a shot at this question, any feedback would be appreciated! I did this verbally for the first part but had to do something else so just wrote down everything that came into my head for the rest.
A little boy has come to your house, knocking on the door furiously. You open the door, and see the boy’s face extremely pale with tears flowing. You ask him what has happened and he replies that he has accidentally lit a fire in the national park, and that it has now gone out of control. You also hear a report on the radio that there is a fire at the national park and anyone that has information on the perpetrator will get a reward of $50,000 from the police. Upon hearing the radio announcement, the boy pleads to you that you keep him in your home temporarily and to not tell anyone that he was responsible for the fire to avoid any harsh consequences.
What would you do next?
As the police are already looking for information surrounding the perpetrator, I can assume that the responsible authorities - firefighters etc - are already at the scene and the fire itself is not something I should be worrying about. First, I would invite the boy in and try to calm him down as he looks extremely agitated, which is understandable, and get him to drink some water and sit down. I would ask him about his parents, or where he lives, so that I can contact his immediate family or guardians, as they may be extremely worried about him - in the process of informing them where he is, I might refrain from saying anything about the fire so that the boy can tell them himself in the future. I would then discuss with him his reasons for lighting the fire to understand him better - was he just playing around? Was he on a dare by his friends and accidentally did it?
Following this, I would gently tell him that lighting this fire, whether accidental or not, is quite a serious action - as it is a national park, I assume that there may have been endangered or specific flora and fauna which consequently would have been damaged by the fire. I would try and explain to the boy that actions have consequences and that rather than hiding away from the truth and building up extreme regret and guilt which may damage his emotional wellbeing in the future, it would be good for both him and the society if he is able to own up to his actions and take responsibility for what he did. I believe that from a young age, good examples should be set for children and that they have the foundation to follow the right path and as such, the boy should be gently made aware that confessing would be the best course of action. As he would be feeling extremely scared about the consequences he may face, I would reassure him of the above and that he is only young and has a lot to learn!
The reward of $50 000 would be of low significance in my mind, as my main priority would be to help this boy take the right course of action - I could call the police and inform them that the boy is here with his consent if he agrees to own up for his actions, and accompany him if he wishes. If he is adamant about me hiding him to avoid facing the consequences, I would gently explain to him that I cannot do that and probably distract him with some toys or games while I wait for his parents to arrive so that I can discuss with them what to do. If the parents agree with the boy owning up, great! If they don't, I will tell them that I feel obliged to tell the police what has happened, and it would be best for the boy to acknowledge his wrongdoings.
Should children who commit the same crimes as adult also be charged or sentenced the same amount? Why or why not?
I do not believe that children who commit the same crimes as adults should be charged or sentenced the same amount - in fact, this is rarely the case in Australia. Under the age of 10, doli incapax applies, where it is assumed that these children do not have the mental capability to commit a crime as they essentially do not know between right and wrong. This doctrine protects vulnerable children from the consequences of mis-informed actions, as they simply might not know better due to their young age. To punish them the same way as adults would be extremely harsh and unnecessary, and would essentially inhibit the child's development and education - keeping children in prison is just not right. Between the ages of 10 and 14, doli incapax can be rebutted if the prosecution can prove that the child knew that they were doing, which still aims to protect these children who may not have the mental capacity to commit crimes. Between the ages of 14 and 18, children who commit the same crimes as adults are given lightened punishment aimed at rehabilitation rather than incapacitation or retribution to ensure that they understand their wrongdoings and refrain from doing so again in the future.
Should young children be disciplined strictly? If so what way?
Strict discipline in a sense could be actions such as using physical force or shouting, and often will not deter children but will instead strike fear into them without comprehension of their actions. I believe that while it is up to each parent to decide how to discipline children, the best way would be to try to help them understand their wrongdoings and acknowledge what they have done in order to ensure they understand not do so again in the future. Things such as listening to them, reinforcing good behaviour and discouraging others, showing that what they have done wrong and imposing consequences, such as no ice cream for dessert or toys, would be more effective in encouraging them to comprehend their actions, and establish a foundation for them to grow into emotionally and socially mature adults.
