Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Irish Judge Orders 13-Year-Old To Surrender Xbox

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the put-down-the-controller dept.

The Courts 445

An anonymous reader writes "In Belfast a High Court judge has ordered a 13 year old to surrender his Xbox to the authorities. The boy was charged with a series of robberies and in the bail application the judge asked the boy what he owned that meant a lot to him. The teenager said it was his Xbox games system. The judge told the youth that the surrender of the Xbox would show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Excellent! (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619082)

I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

Re:Excellent! (1)

cyberstealth1024 (860459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619100)

Indeed! I've only read the summary and not TFA (hey, this is /.), but I concur with your comment!

Re:Excellent! (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619384)

Read the article later. Had to get in a first post while the opportunity arose. At least I didn't post "frist post". *LOL*

But I stand by my statement -- the judge made a fitting decision. The kid will want his XBox back, so it's a far more fitting bail fee than cash would be.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619544)

Bear in mind, the kid has been charged, not convicted. I would agree, if found guilty, with your reasoning; until then, you're proving a point that may or may not need to be made.

Re:Excellent! (3, Insightful)

Announcer (816755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619104)

Exactly! This might actually do something USEFUL: "Teach him a LESSON"! With proper guidance, this also could turn his life around! Kudos to a judge that actually DID use his head!

Re:Excellent! (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619242)

Yeah, now the kid has to go out and shoplift another XBox...

Re:Excellent! said the kid (5, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619472)

not likely. He told the Judge it was his Xbox because he really liked his PS3 and didn't want to lose that.

LoB

Re:Excellent! said the kid (1)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619608)

Did someone come to his house to collect the Xbox? Because I have an old workstation (with a cast iron chassis and case) and 21" CRT here that I'd like to get rid of, but I can barely lift them.

Re:Excellent! (2)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619290)

>>Kudos to a judge that actually DID use his head!

Naturally, this is not in America.

Ireland rocks. The last time I was there, I watched a horse (pulling a carriage) placidly chewing on the lawn of the Irish White House.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619388)

Its Northern Ireland, not the Irish Republic.

Re:Excellent! (2)

ZeRu (1486391) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619402)

Belfast is in Northern Ireland, which is part of UK, not part of Republic of Ireland.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619380)

Keeping in mind that this order isn't part of the kid's legal remedy ...

Have you ever been arrested as a kid? I was at that age, for "pushing" my incoherently drunk mom, where she fell and marked up her face, and hours later she claimed it was assault. During the police car drive (to a temp relocation home) I was terrified shitless. Losing a games console as form of penalty would have made me laugh in relief (even though I wasn't technically on the "wrong" side; I was taken away for both my protection and the inability of the police to contradict her illusory claims).

If the kid had been ordered to turn over his Xbox as compensation I think he'd be quite relieved.

Re:Excellent! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619116)

Yup. I wish they'd do that with vandals. Send the sheriff in with a sledgehammer into the convicted vandal's room and give him ten minutes to pulverize everything in sight.

Re:Excellent! (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619136)

I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and realize that punishment and pain have basically no correlation. It's that mentality which leads to our poor recidivism rate. And a lack of appropriate rehabilitation while the convicts are still in prison.

Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

Re:Excellent! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619268)

News Flash: You're not a behavioral psychologist either, chum, and your answer shows it. Stick with what you know.

You're talking about Pavlov's-dogs-style behaviorism, the judge isn't. And by the way, behaviorism is out of favor "in general" as a strategy, but that doesn't mean it is discredited.

So yeah, the judge isn't going to have the boy whipped (strict behaviorist strategy). Discomfort that encourages thinking about context is a different beast altogether, which is what the judge is proposing. This is more like putting your kid in time out and asking them to come back to you when they can explain why you are mad at them.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619276)

But this is just, right and proper! Obviously if someone does something bad, we do sometyhing bad to them and they will learn! they just will!

They won't resent society for doing these things to them, and if they do they are clearly immature and wrong, so they need to be punished even more! Why would you even question the sense of this policy?

I can see why people think this way. The fact is it's not helpful, but that won't change anything. Prison and other measures are seen as punishment, and people will never be happy with a penal system that is not punitive. it doesn't matter what's most cost effective for society, what has the best outcomes, what stops recidivism, any of that. Human nature says transgressors must be punished.

Re:Excellent! (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619326)

Moronic. If punishment isn't something to be feared, then people have no reason not to commit a crime. If I could steal a car and be "punished" by spending a few months at an all-expense-paid resort, I would do that in a heart-beat. I don't even want the car, I just want the paid vacation.

Punishment doesn't exist to "fix" transgressors. It exists to discourage more people from transgressing.

Re:Excellent! (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619450)

Please then, enlighten us as to why countries with punishment-centered 'justice' systems like the US have substantially higher crime and repeat crime than countries with "all-expense-paid resorts". I'm waiting.

Re:Excellent! (1)

mcl630 (1839996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619466)

He didn't say we should *reward* transgressors. And fear of punishment isn't the only reason not to commit crimes.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619568)

Yup, and that's exactly why so many people are in the thrall of religion. They believe that the fear of punishment is required to do good.

Stay classy.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619574)

Your post brilliantly emphasises my point.

You have decided, absent any supporting evidence, that punishment is necessary and right.

I'm not making the assertion that it's wrong, I'm saying that the best possible outcome for society, whatever that may be, is not even investigated because of this attitude.

Racism, Sexism, etc... (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619338)

> Human nature says transgressors must be punished.

It is also human nature to throw things, like rocks, at children who take our toys. We learn better.

People used to say human nature was that women were not landowners.

If we find things that work, and that are economically efficient, we can work on changing minds. The political system will delay the effects of that effort greatly, but that does not mean we will not learn better in another century or three.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619564)

My children, like all children, had a tendancy to run across the parking lot. I decided that this was bad, and I swatted their hands every time they did. I held their hands near parking lots and the street and told them that they'd get swatted if they left go. Each of them learned after 4 swats, and only the younger needed the lesson reapplied once. By your logic, I didn't help anything. By my logic, the kids don't run into the street, ever. This will become a problem if they insist on holding my hand when they're teenagers, but they're 4 and 6, so it's still a good thing.

Re:Excellent! (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619422)

Punishment and pain have no correlation? Are you kidding? What about torture and pain, are you one of those people who think those have no correlation either? I mean, the whole reason people are opposed to torture is because it hurts. If it didn't hurt, people would be waterboarding themselves at raves.

Re:Excellent! (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619506)

Right. And criminology is still in the dark ages, and we use leeches and blood letting as the main sources of medical treatment today. Dig your head out of your ass, there are competing theories on crime. And many criminal theories rest into two specific schools. Those being:

Bad parenting+lifestyle+societal factors = criminal action
and
Chance+opportunity+risk = criminal action

I believe that the second is more appropriate. As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it, and 30% will steal no matter what. This is your basic material covered in your crim101 courses.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619572)

Its actually well documented to work as prescribed. The problem is, almost the entire US prison system is specifically designed to encourage a high reviticism rate. And to make matters worse, law after law is constantly passed to allow for legal imprisonment for things which only absolute fucking idiots consider a crime. Worse yet, once you're in, the system is then rigged to makes it extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to escape the system as it makes every attempt to punish you for the rest of your life, even though you've served your punishment. Constitutionally, unlike the death penalty, actually is cruel and unusual punishment.

Basically the legal system in the US is badly broken. The US prison system is completely fucked. The laws are seriously fucked up. And politicians can now be legally bridged and legally protected. The US prison system is both the largest and fastest growing government service. The US has more people locked up than any other industrialized country in the world. And sadly, the vast majority of the people currently in prison don't belong there. And worse, a massive segment of those same people do belong there because for their second offense specifically because the US legal system is so completely fucked it ensures they have no choice but to return.

The US legal/prison system is a farce, fraud, and a scam. Anyone how supports the current system is absolutely corrupt or completely ignorant.

send him to one of jail boot camps (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619148)

send him to one of jail boot camps that can trun some kids around.

Re:send him to one of jail boot camps (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619262)

The rule of thumb is:

correctional facilities aren't

For low level crimes the better response is not to put the person in an environment surrounded by others who are worse. He may learn something, but not necessarily what the system hopes.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619156)

I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

Totally agree.

Hope the parents aren't dumb enough to go and buy this kid another xbox when he starts crying his head off.

Re:Excellent! (0)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619172)

What I don't love... when a judge hands out punishment to someone WHO HAS NOT BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED YET.

The judge didn't think about the important part.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619246)

Except it is not a punishment in that sense. It's bail. You have to post that even without conviction. It's not like they'll keep it.

Re:Excellent! (1)

LambdaWolf (1561517) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619458)

Except it is not a punishment in that sense. It's bail. You have to post that even without conviction. It's not like they'll keep it.

But then what is the value of showing the defendant "what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him" if the court hasn't even concluded yet that he's guilty of taking anything of value from anyone else?

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619510)

Bullshit. Bail's purpose is to ensure you return for trial and don't flee the country or go into hiding.

What bail isn't for is to "show you what it is like to have something you really value taken from you"

This was a 'lesson' plain and simple for a kid the juge thought was a thief, without bothering to have it proven first.

What it was not was a preventitive measure to keep a 13 year old kid from skipping the country, or having his parents decide "gee, we were all go into hiding, but... They have his x-box, so I guess we won't"

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619258)

This isn't a punishment. This is just bail, meaning it must be something valuable to ensure the boy returns for trial. In other words, the boy will get it back once the trial is complete.

dom

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619344)

Ahh, yes of course. I bet that 13 year old kid was about to flee the country. Holding onto that x-box will certainly make sure he shows back up for trial.

Re:Excellent! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619270)

Actually he did. He told the child that it would be returned to him when the charges were disposed of.

The only difference between this and something that would be normal everywhere, is that instead of paying money for bail, or making the parents put up collateral or something for his release pending the case's conclusion, the child had to surrender something he valued to the authorities.

Re:Excellent! (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619204)

So you think a punishment should be enacted before found guilty eh? He was forced to give over his xbox as bail, not given any monetary option for bail. Meaning he was punished before he was even found guilty.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Xenx (2211586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619220)

As a kid, the punishment would of definitely hurt. Especially so, if my parents had to shell out for a fine.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619442)

would of

You should be punished for that.

Re:Excellent! (2)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619248)

> I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime

I love it even better when people RTFA to see that the xbox was not removed as a punishment but as a condition for the bail, which is different. Punishment is usually for people who are convicted, which occurs at the end of the trial, not at the time of discussing bail conditions.

Sounds like this judge has a serious bias against the accused.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619294)

And it's a stupid condition for bail. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused will not flee and will actually show up to court. Since the kid is . . . you know, a kid . . . I'm pretty sure that isn't going to be a concern. Unless he is an orphan and living on the streets.

Re:Excellent! (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619512)

It's probably the kids parents' Xbox anyways that they bought for him to use. Nice "lesson".... steal something, and something of your parents' that they allowed you to use gets seized, so they have to buy a new one (the latest Xbox model no less) .....

Re:Excellent! (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619556)

Huh, what? You think just because he's a kid he's going to show up?

What, pray tell, makes you so sure? The parents? Well, they let their kid get into a situation in which he was charged with burglary, what makes you think they'll watch him enough to make sure he goes to court?

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619324)

What bias against the accused? He's probably not going to get any real sentence against him due to age.

Continental European law is more about keeping the peace rather than upholding The Law, and as such solutions, not punishment, is what is sought. They no doubt had plenty of evidence to suggest he was guilty, however what is important isn't to make him pay for his crimes through a trial... rather one seeks to change his behavior so he doesn't end up as a career criminal.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619274)

To the contrary. There's nothing stupider than when a judge tries to be cute and orders someone to, say, wear a sandwich board in public. The correct punishment would be to repay the victims for any theft and damages as well as actual punishment for the crime itself.

Re:Excellent! (2)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619428)

please RTFA, this was not a final judgement, it was to determine BAIL amount.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619508)

Doesn't mean it'll work any better.

I read a case in criminal law about a judge who sentenced a mail thief to an unorthodox sentence. He thought that his crime was a victimless crime, i mean, what in the mail couldn't be replaced? After all, HE never saw the victims. He was sentenced to (and held to perform on appeal) stand outside the post office on a certain number of times with a sandwichboard that said "I am a mail thief. This is my punishment." He was also to shadow the clerk at the lost letter office, in order to meet and understand the victims of lost mail and how it indeed could hurt someone.

He didn't learn his lesson, and was caught red-handed a second time. The same judge sentenced him to jail the 2nd time around.

Re:Excellent! (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619598)

That's not unexpected. If you already believe that you owe nothing to society, a public humiliation by an authority figure (who you can't touch) will only reinforce that idea. Public debasements only work as a forgiveness ritual, and even then only within your own social group. Which is where they came from in tribal law, since there were no prisons.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619606)

I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

Since he's 13, I'm pretty sure he's parents probably bought it for him anyways. Of course, he could be a hard worker and do odd jobs to afford one. But seeing as he's a thief, that probably isn't the case.

Ya, he could of stolen the Xbox, but I'm thinking he didn't, unless he's breaking into peoples houses, they aren't that easy to steal (reserve the right to be wrong).

Anyways, he's getting it back once the charges are all taken care of. lol, if i was the judge, i'd make it so he didn't get it back till probation was over, and i'd make it a 2-3 year probation.

Hahaha (0)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619084)

Awesome. I like this kind of punishment.

Re:Hahaha (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619602)

Punishment?

This was a bail condition. The accused has yet to be tried for his crime.

harsh, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619090)

Somehow, I'm okay with it.

Re:harsh, but... (5, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619152)

harsh? really? johnny jackoff is involved in a series of robberies and you consider taking his fucking video games away harsh

piss off, my mom would hide the power brick to my sega for weeks at a time for failing to keep my grades up and this stain gets the same treatment for robbery and you fucking find it harsh???

first it was the pepsi generation, now its the pussy generation ... fucking wonderful

Re:harsh, but... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619378)

harsh? really? johnny jackoff is involved in a series of robberies and you consider taking his fucking video games away harsh

To be fair, he is only accused of being involved in a series of robberies at this point. The article did not say how this accusation came to light. It could be that he was caught leaving a burglarized home with stolen items in his hands, it could be he was walking down the street, someone ran passed him and dropped an item, he picked it up right about the time the cops came around the corner and busted him.

and yes, I know people that has happened to. A club some of us were at was raided for employees supposedly dealing drugs out it. When the cops came barging in, everyone and their brother started dumping anything illegal they had on them and kicking it as far away from them as possible while trying to not be noticed. The cops simply associated everything on the ground with whoever was closest and arrested them for it. There was a big write up in the paper about it complete with everyone's names. My friend got hit for possession of paraphernalia used to process a drug and possession of a narcotic.

He fought the charges and had them all dropped and triggered a problem with the search warrant (it was set for the bar employees not patrons) which a lot of the others used to get the evidence against them tossed out.

He probably is a PS3 kid anyway. (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619112)

nt

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619114)

Now toss him in prison for a day, this isn't fucking kindergarten, by 13 you shouldn't be a mindless little twat getting you hand smacked, its time to start playing for reals

A few more years and this shit would be in there much longer with a permanent stain on his life

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619206)

Yes, turning the kids into professional criminals by sending them to jail (which often amounts for bragging rights AND ruins any future chance of the person getting a honest job), sounds like a good idea.

Re:Good (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619432)

This is pretty much what has happened. According to the article, (I know, slashdot RFTA) the kid has to surrender this as a condition of release until the charges against him are disposed of.

So he was being held in jail or detention anyways. Went in front of a judge and the judge basically said, gimme your X-Box for bail money.

American Alternative (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619120)

I'm interested and scared to think what the result would have been if this happened in America today and the response had been, "My constitutional right to avoid being a witness against myself in a criminal case".

Re:American Alternative (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619140)

When it hit slashdot, half the comments would be "and nothing existent was lost?"

Re:American Alternative (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619266)

Judge: "What's something of value to you?"
Defendant: "I plead the fifth!"
Judge: "What are you talking about? This is a bail hearing!"
Defendant: "I refuse to answer!"
Judge: "Fine. Bail is set at $1000. Next case."

Re:American Alternative (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619302)

Depends what state it occurred in. If it was in Texas, they'd execute him.

I wonder. . . (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619122)

. . .how many new X-Boxes he will buy with the money he stole.

Punished before found guilty? (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619124)

Let me get this straight? He was accused of stealing and when asked for bail he had his xbox taken away? While I agree if he was found guilty that would be an excellent punishment, but that should not be the cost of his bail.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619166)

Why not?

It's reasonable bail if you factor in the cost of the Xbox. It's not like that there aren't any Xboxes that can be bought to replace it. And it's not like it's gone forever, he will get it back if he shows up to court.

Show me your work in how you figured that this was unreasonable bail.

--
BMO

Re:Punished before found guilty? (1, Insightful)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619180)

While it may or may not be "unreasonable bail". It still seems to me like he is being punished before he is even found guilty. He should have been told to pay a normal bail like any other person and if he couldn't afford to pay bail then the xbox would have been a reasonable means for him to secure his bail. The Judge out right gave punishment before a trial. Forcing the child who was yet to be found guilty to be punished. It was IMO unreasonable.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619250)

In your logic, being "arrested" is "punishment" before being found guilty. Do you really think that we should not arrest people, set bail, for people accused of crimes? What kind of liberal utopia do you live in?

Re:Punished before found guilty? (3, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619296)

Maybe a liberal* utopia where the punishment follows, rather than precedes, the guilty verdict? But some people are just old fashioned that way I guess. Pre 9/11 mentality. (That being said, if it was done after he was found guilty, a punishment like this seems far more just than having a child serve a sentence or have his parents burdened with a hefty fine. Even better, have the kid meet the people he stole from. Nothing changes perspective like removing the "otherness".)

*Sadly, maybe that is a liberal utopia. Conservatives and Liberals really should be united on stuff like that.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619306)

The judge specifically said that it would teach the child a lesson. The child does not need to be taught a lesson until he's found guilty.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619322)

No in my logic, a person should be allowed to pay bail by the same means as every one else that walks into a court. If I were to steal a car in the US and was brought before a judge he wouldn't ask me what my most prized possession was. He'd set a monitory bail, if I couldn't pay it I then have the option to put my most prized possession up as collateral with a bail agent, or remain in jail. If the child is found innocent, he loses out on his most prized possession for X amount of time that the trial goes on, when his parents probably could have afforded the nominal bail that would have been set under any other circumstance. The judge is giving the child a punishment by taking his most prize possession before the trial has even started. It's WRONG.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619300)

Bail is applied to people as monetary value means something to people. Monetary value forced to be paid for by parents (when I was 13 I got a whole $10 weekly allowance) has no intrinsic value to the accused.

Bail is set on value, the kid gave up something that was valued. While I don't agree with this I don't see this as being any better or worse than any other bail system.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619310)

>He should have been told to pay a normal bail like any other person and if he couldn't afford to pay bail then the xbox would have been a reasonable means for him to secure his bail. The Judge out right gave punishment before a trial. Forcing the child who was yet to be found guilty to be punished. It was IMO unreasonable.

Bullshit.

The judge did not punish the boy. Taking your argument and applying it to adults in similar situations means that any bail at all is punishment because the adult is out of money until the charges are disposed of one way or another. The kid has no money, for either bail or to buy a bond. Thus, the xbox.

Or would you prefer housing the child in a correctional facility at your expense (as a taxpayer) until his hearing? That's what happens to people cannot afford bail.

Maybe that's what should have happened.

--
BMO

Re:Punished before found guilty? (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619342)

How do you know the child has no money? No where in the article did it say he had no money. No where in the article did it say he was give the option to pay a normal bail. For all you know he could have hundreds of dollars bank (or country of origin equivilent). I know when I was a kid we had some pretty well off kids who stole for the thrill of it. I myself made $15 a week on a paper route in one year I earned over $100, today it'd probably be closer to $250 with inflation.

Re:Punished before found guilty? (1, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619532)

. And it's not like it's gone forever, he will get it back if he shows up to court.

You know what would be 'gone forever'?

His save game files. And any artistic or other creative work or game progress saved to the console's memory. (He he....<eg>)

do unto others.... (2)

tloh (451585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619144)

It amuses me what this judge would have ordered for the following if such should ever appear before him.

Kenneth Lay
Lindsey Lohan
Lori Drew
The intruder who victimized the "hide your kids, hide your wife" guy.

Accused but not yet convicted (1)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619158)

So we are supposed to cheer from seizing property from someone who has been accused but not yet convicted?

If this happened in America, would the 14th Amendment stop this?

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619188)

Uhmm if you READ, this was the boy's BAIL HEARING. So this was not at all simply 'siezing property', it was determining what of value the potential offender had that could be used to ensure he would make his trial.

Honestly this seems to me like a pretty well thought out decision on the judge's part. Most kids don't have a lot of financial assets that could be held for bail, but many have some posession that would be treated as such. Asking the KID what it was seems like it could backfire though...

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619312)

Exactly, because I'm sure a thirteen year old is likely to run away from his family and go start a new life in whatever their version of "south of the border" is, to avoid a hearing.

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619596)

Are you aware that each year there are between 1.3 and 1.5 million teenage runaways in the US?

I'd say a thirteen year old is much more likely to skip bail than an adult because he's has no job, no outstanding financial obligations, and next to no material possessions.

 

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619198)

It seems to be used in place of money for bail. The kid is free to stay in jail (or wherever they are keeping him), so it's not seizing of property any more than other bail is.

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619210)

ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.

It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.

--
BMO

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619586)

So, when you're accused of a crime which you didn't commit, you would find it reasonable for the Judge to seize your car and your home's electric meter as a guarantee that you'd show up for court?

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (3, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619228)

So we are supposed to cheer from seizing property from someone who has been accused but not yet convicted?

TFA:

and applied to be released on bail...
[...]
The judge then ordered him to give the XBOX to the authorities, saying it would be returned to him when the charges were disposed of.

Not a seizure, but a bail. As the kid wouldn't have had enough money, punishing the parents to pay the bail would be worse. Putting the kid in jail for not paying the bail... even worse.

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (0)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619394)

How do you know the kid wouldn't have had enough money. Bail for a first time offender here is $25US (well last time I had to pay it). Any kid with a paper route could get that.

Re:Accused but not yet convicted (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619412)

You forget that the kid is Irish [wikipedia.org] .

hmmm (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619214)

Well, what's he going to do while he's out on bail without his Xbox? Let me run it through a high tech AI simulator.....okay, the most likely candidates are:
1. nothing
2. steal an Xbox
and for some reason a distant third...
3. look for leprochauns

Re:hmmm (1, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619280)

leprochauns

*BZZZ*

"And the question is: What do you call leprechauns with leprosy?"

Boyos with toyos. (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619234)

This isn't really newsworthy... except to alert us there's one less swill-spitting high-pitched teenager playing Modern Warfare.
I bet those Irish boys know a few words.

For Great Justice (1)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619320)

This is a pretty swell example of fair justice and a fitting punishment. So much common sense this judge doth hath.

The Scene (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619332)

Judge: "Kid, I order you to hand over your... XBox!!!"

Kid: "Whatever" (makes mental note of which houses he had broke into that had xboxes)

Judge: "And... your Live account password. Your gamer tag is now mine".

Kid: "NOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo!".

Re:The Scene (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619522)

Win!

Actually, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619336)

this would just teach me to lie to judges.

Broccoli. Broccoli means a lot to me.

Huh...an American kid would have volunteered... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619370)

...his sister rather than his Xbox.

Re:Huh...an American kid would have volunteered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619570)

Well you mean to say their sister would have been their most prized possession? or they they would have lied? (and then been subject to penalty or perjury or some such).

Geography vs Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619382)

Title should read British, not Irish (unless they are talking geography).

http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-difference-between-the-united-kingdom-great-britain-england-and-a-whole-lot-more/

Xbox? (1)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619396)

Sure your honour! You can have my xbox and now im sad....

*goes back to his 360*

And this here on Slashdot because..? (1)

qrwe (625937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619430)

I do not mean to be the iTroll here, but I honestly wonder how this story made it to the front page. The point was finally that the judge ruled that boy to give up something valuable to him, it could have been anything. Now it just happened to be an X-Box and *BAM*, it's here on Slashdot. Moreover, justice has confiscated computers too many times before to make the news flash complete. This article had even so made much more impression if the machine happened to be the tool of the commited crime or likewise, as it implies that the X-Box itself had something to do with the final judgement. However, so was not the case.

One day I want a judge... (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619454)

...who is smart enough to let the kid keep Xbox, take the games and leave him with just Duke Nukem Forever.

The judge was likely outsmarted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36619470)

Most of the 13-year-old kids I've known wouldn't hesitate to tell the judge they treasure something which in actuality they'd never miss, in order to protect what was really important to them, such as their 3DS or Wii.

In America.. (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36619524)

In America, it would turn out that this somehow violates his human rights and thus the punishment would go back to the standard massive fine for his parents, who would proceed to not pay the fine or go out and rob a liquor store to pay off the fine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?