Should boy be tried with arson?

People are responsible for the damage they do to others and their property, whether the damage was intentional or not. If I accidently lost control of my car and parked it in your living room, I'll bet you'd expect me to make restitution.

We're talking about protecting the innocent, which is the whole purpose of government.

Robin Hood and his men resisted a usurper to the throne and his tyranical oppression. They did not "rob the rich to give to the poor." What does Robin Hood have to do with this discussion anyway?

 

==The person in this case is a minor child who was doing was most children do at some point in their lives (ie...play with fire). He should not be punished by the government and his family should not be punished for his mistake. His brothers/sisters should not be punished for the mistakes of this boy. Nothing the family can sell or do will pay for the damage.

==I would not expect you, or your family, to lose everything you own.

The only thing I would expect the government to do is to issue a traffic ticket if the police determine that a ticket needs to be issued. Otherwise I would look to my insurance company to cover the damage. Which, in my experience, is a waste of time anyway.

People are better off solving their own problems and leaving government (etc) out of it. In fact, Christians are commanded to handle their problems this way (1Cor 6:1-8). If you ran car your into my living room I am sure you would help pay for the damages. But again, I would not expect you to lose everything you own nor would I expect the government to garnish your wages till all the bill is paid. I would rather forgive the debt than be responsible for some family losing everything they own.

==The government cannot protect the innocent by punishing the innocent. I am sure this child's parents will deal with him. I am also sure that the government should not. Unless, of course, he was playing with fire in an area where there was a burn ban (etc). In such case, the parents could be cited (since the boy is a minor).

==It has to do with the attempt to take what does not belong to one's self and justifying it with noble words.

 

==If the person is a minor child, who did not intend to star the fire, the child is not criminally guilty. The person may not be innocent of starting the fire, but they are innocent of doing it with criminal intent.

 

I doubt he planned to light the town on fire. Little boys love to play with fire.
Imo, there is no reason to desire this innocent family be financially ruined.
The fire department puts out the fire (my/our tax $), and the person's homeowners insurance pays for the damage. These appropriate resources come into play when these accidents occur, that is their purpose.

While driving, I was struck by a teenager. She was crying, apparently didn't have the money for insurance. She held a job, but it was just enough to help her family pay rent (It is almost impossible for a couple to live in this area earing min. wage). I met the parents, and checked out their story. I paid for my own car, it was a dent, that's it.

Upon praying, I learned I needed to buy cheaper vehicles, and ignore it when someone runs into me. Last time I got "bumped", I just looked back at the driver and yelled "it's ok, no problem".
Maybe there is a lesson for the folks involved in this situation?

 

I agree with Scarlett that he needs to make amends to the families as best a 10 yr old can. Her examples for retribution were perfect, very relevant to the situation.

 

No one is desiring their financial ruin. It's a tragedy no doubt. But they are responsible for the losses suffered by others as a direct result of their actions.

The intent of one's heart is only relevant to judging this as crime or an unfortunate accident. It doesn't relieve one of his responsibility to make resititution for the losses he inflicted upon another.

The fire department is there to minimize the damage and save lives. Whether or not a homeowner's insurance company cut a check for damages does not relieve the offender of his responsibility. That was simply a prudent investment on the part of the homeowner to limit his loss. It was protection that was purchased by the homeowner. But the one who damaged him is still responsible to make restitution.

And that is your right. As I said before, the victims of this child's fire can choose to forgive his debt.

Amen!

 

He wasn't dissing women at all. Simply making the case that women shouldn't rule men or participate in lawmaking.

And yes, it was a glorifying of the woman in her role as "the mother of the infant and mistress of the mate." Those are the "powers that make her great."

It certainly wasn't meant as an insult.

Of course, but I wasn't riled, only surprised at the ferocity of your judgment.

Parents are responsible for the actions of their children.

 

The kid probably won't be charged with a crime, but the people whose houses were burned in that fire will sue the pants off his parents.

 

Since almost everyone has homeowners insurance, do these people become billionaires being paid by the parents and their insurance company due to the loss of their homes?
That doesn't sound legal, or fair. The reason we have insurance is to cover us, and others in cases of accidents. Auto, Fire, Theft etc...

 

I took Aaron's comment as a slap at Scarlett, and I apologize.

I do stand by my public service comments.

 

By garnishing the future wages of the family.

 

I almost can't believe this thread. A tragedy results from a 10 year old, a 10 year old mind you - and all some can think about is how he and his family can be destroyed. These fires were the result of a tragic accident. There was no intent. Why in the world would anyone want to traumatise a child by making him look at burn victims.

However, I am certain that if this child belonged to any of the posters calling for such action they would all agree that he and them should be punished for the rest of their lives.

 

This thread has reached or passed page three. It will be closed sometime after 9.00 am EST today

 

I disagree with the consensus - let his parents deal with him. It a childish accident.

 

100% agreement

 

It's not punishment, it's liability.