8 year old arrested for battery for punching a teacher

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyWwp3woRe0

So basically a child who was uncooperative was asked to go to the principal's office, punched the teacher, and then was arrested for it. Cenk and Ana object to the latter on the ground that he's just a kid.

Even if handling children with the proverbial "kid gloves" is means to protect the vulnerable, in practice there's nothing to stop kids from taking it as an age-based loophole to commit all the crimes they want to. The story says they should've called the kids' parents; but what if the kids' parents sided with the kids? What could be done then?

If we don't teach kids that there are consequences for their actions, what's stopping that violent behaviour pattern from being rewarded well enough to last into their adult years? The story mentions that the US is too over-militarized, which is true, but why should kids be granted a special exemption to this? Doesn't that teach kids that in any altercation between a child and an adult, one side is above the law and the other will have a criminal record that will ruin their whole life if they don't just stand there and take it, rewarding said violent behaviour and therefore encouraging more where that came from?

I'm not even sure if this particular arrest was justified or not, but I'm just not sure what if anything the alternative is, and I certainly don't think the alternative is to send a message to every kid out there that they're immune from being arrested for their actions. For the most part, the people who advocate this "I was a kid then" loophole are the same people extend it to teenagers; who historically were considered adults; which frankly makes me doubt their judgment.

[Ghost Land]

This means I could have earned myself a criminal record as an 8-year-old. Punching teachers is wrong regardless of the age of the puncher or the age of the punchee, but I'd say this is a little excessive: most 8-year-olds, especially when under the influence of strong emotion, still don't have the necessary mental capacity to understand all the ramifications of their actions. This should have been dealt with by the school administration and the child's parents; no need to escalate everything to the point of getting the police involved.

Edit: This was my 1000th post under this nation. Nice. I was hoping it would be something a bit more grand than this.

[Prorescia]

Someone as young as 8 years old shouldn't have a criminal record for the rest of his life because of one mistake. This child obviously did something wrong and him getting suspended seems like fit punishment. If the kid was older, say 16, and he punched a defenseless classmate, maybe there could be some issue there, but he is too young to even have started the transition towards adulthood and shouldn't be trapped from now on. I mean, when I was 8, several times bullies were huge jerks and punched me or even hurt me worse, but now, some of those guys are nice people and would never think to hurt someone. Getting somebody in jail with a criminal record for the rest of their life seems much too excessive to me.

[-Astoria-]

That's quite excessive; we're talking about an 8-year-old here.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

8 year olds should not be arrested. I don't see anything else to discuss.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Someone as young as 8 years old shouldn't have a criminal record for the rest of his life because of one mistake. This child obviously did something wrong and him getting suspended seems like fit punishment. If the kid was older, say 16, and he punched a defenseless classmate, maybe there could be some issue there, but he is too young to even have started the transition towards adulthood and shouldn't be trapped from now on. I mean, when I was 8, several times bullies were huge jerks and punched me or even hurt me worse, but now, some of those guys are nice people and would never think to hurt someone. Getting somebody in jail with a criminal record for the rest of their life seems much too excessive to me.

Plenty of violent adults "could've been rehabilitated" if not for society's deterrence-centric approach. There is always a tradeoff. If society prioritizes deterrence against adults, and rehabilitation of children, does that not send the same "one side is immune from consequences, the other is not, so just stand there and don't do shit about it no matter how much this rewards their aggression unless you want your life to be over" message referred to in the OP?

You mention bullies who punched you. If other bullies got a criminal record, wouldn't the rest of them have been (relatively) more likely to think twice?

[Prorescia]

A criminal record is a serious thing. This kid could be denied a job even with good creds because of some stupid thing he did when he was 8. I have known people who got a criminal record for something small when they were younger who now are on the verge of homelessness because of something they wish they didn't do years ago.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

A criminal record is a serious thing. This kid could be denied a job even with good creds because of some stupid thing he did when he was 8. I have known people who got a criminal record for something small when they were younger who now are on the verge of homelessness because of something they wish they didn't do years ago.

Of course. This is the price of a deterrence-centric society.

And thanks to the handling of violent kids with the soft gloves, any adult who fights back against a child could be among those who are "on the verge of homelessness" even though they weren't the aggressors.

Why are parents who are okay with this happening to their sons and daughters when they are adults not okay with this happening to their sons and daughters when they are 8? Why are they only marginally more okay with it happening to them in their teen years, even though historically teen years had more in common with adulthood than with childhood?

I think a little bit of both; a greater emphasis on rehabilitation in adulthood AND deterrence in childhood; might be in order. But whatever solution we pick, the present gap between rehabilitation-centric handling of children and deterrence-centric handling of adults is just too vast.

[Andsed]

Well that is dumb. Just unhelpful and only serves to potentially ruin that kids life. Send them to anger management or dentition sure, but no need to fucking arrest them.

[Prorescia]

I think that we need more rehabilitation in both. As I previously stated, some of the people I know are on the verge of homelessness for one mistake made long ago (with illegal drugs). While they shouldn't have done that, prison changed them. It made them sadder and detached about life. Looking at countries with more rehabilitation, 90% or more of inmates there come out as better people and almost none commit crimes ever again. Because of this, corporations are more willing to hire them and many of them feel happier after their time in prison because prisons have psychologists who get to the root of why they did crimes and attempt to fix that root. Because of our "deterrence-centric" prisons, this mere child will most likely live a worse life because they punched someone when they were only 8 years old and they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.

[Nuroblav]

Sure punching isn't really a good idea at any age - considering the impact it could have (not a massive nationwide impact as such, just on people's lives). Still, arresting an 8-year-old seems a bit harsh of a way to deal with the problem. Also this:

I think that we need more rehabilitation in both. As I previously stated, some of the people I know are on the verge of homelessness for one mistake made long ago (with illegal drugs). While they shouldn't have done that, prison changed them. It made them sadder and detached about life. Looking at countries with more rehabilitation, 90% or more of inmates there come out as better people and almost none commit crimes ever again. Because of this, corporations are more willing to hire them and many of them feel happier after their time in prison because prisons have psychologists who get to the root of why they did crimes and attempt to fix that root. Because of our "deterrence-centric" prisons, this mere child will most likely live a worse life because they punched someone when they were only 8 years old and they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Ah Lima. Supporting an 8 year old being arrested for baby slapping a teacher and causing no injury whatsoever.

This is probably gonna traumatize this kid for life. I'm just saying.

[Ghost Land]

A criminal record is a serious thing. This kid could be denied a job even with good creds because of some stupid thing he did when he was 8. I have known people who got a criminal record for something small when they were younger who now are on the verge of homelessness because of something they wish they didn't do years ago.

Of course. This is the price of a deterrence-centric society.

And thanks to the handling of violent kids with the soft gloves, any adult who fights back against a child could be among those who are "on the verge of homelessness" even though they weren't the aggressors.

Why are parents who are okay with this happening to their sons and daughters when they are adults not okay with this happening to their sons and daughters when they are 8? Why are they only marginally more okay with it happening to them in their teen years, even though historically teen years had more in common with adulthood than with childhood?

I think a little bit of both; a greater emphasis on rehabilitation in adulthood AND deterrence in childhood; might be in order. But whatever solution we pick, the present gap between rehabilitation-centric handling of children and deterrence-centric handling of adults is just too vast.

Have you ever given thought to the idea that children's brains aren't as developed as those of adults, and children make stupid mistakes without being able to comprehend the ramifications of their actions? Why should the police have had to get involved, as opposed to this being resolved with a stern lecture from the principal?

[The Free Joy State]

An eight year old should not be arrested. The brain does not finish developing until 25. Neuroscientists believe the age of criminal responsibility is already too low. Children's brain connections mean they are more impulsive. And, due to their changing brain and hormones, adolescents are still natural risk takers and rebels.

So... no... children shouldn't be arrested if they lash out. If anything, we should look at making it harder to criminalise youngsters.

Let's, instead, look at the causes of youngsters lashing out and try and work out practical solutions for the causes, which may include: trauma, ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, family dysfunction, certain harsh parenting styles and childhood physical abuse.

[Vistulange]

Does the US not have the concept of "criminal capacity", or is that set down to something ludicrous like 6 years old or something? The hell, who on Earth arrests a child?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Ah Lima. Supporting an 8 year old being arrested for baby slapping a teacher and causing no injury whatsoever.

Did you read the part of the OP where I said I wasn't sure if this particular arrest was justified?

This is probably gonna traumatize this kid for life. I'm just saying.

Bullying also traumatizes kids for life. The tradeoff then becomes how much more of it would we have if we didn't send a message that children aren't immune from arrest.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

A criminal record is a serious thing. This kid could be denied a job even with good creds because of some stupid thing he did when he was 8. I have known people who got a criminal record for something small when they were younger who now are on the verge of homelessness because of something they wish they didn't do years ago.

Juvenile crimes are wiped from your record when you turn 18. So there's that at least, but this kid is probably gonna have traumatic memories for the rest of his life of being taken away in handcuffs at eight years old.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Ah Lima. Supporting an 8 year old being arrested for baby slapping a teacher and causing no injury whatsoever.

Did you read the part of the OP where I said I wasn't sure if this particular arrest was justified?

This is probably gonna traumatize this kid for life. I'm just saying.

Bullying also traumatizes kids for life. The tradeoff then becomes how much more of it would we have if we didn't send a message that children aren't immune from arrest.

Small kids ought to be immune from arrest. They're kids, they're not developed mentally.

[VlaRiSsiA]

Why should anyone, let alone a child, be arrested for punching someone. That means we would all be in jail since nearly everyone has punched someone else in their lifetime. In fact, the cops were arguably more disciplinarian against the 8 year old than you average joe since I don’t see regular people going to prison for punching someone

[Prorescia]

Ah Lima. Supporting an 8 year old being arrested for baby slapping a teacher and causing no injury whatsoever.

Did you read the part of the OP where I said I wasn't sure if this particular arrest was justified?

This is probably gonna traumatize this kid for life. I'm just saying.

Bullying also traumatizes kids for life. The tradeoff then becomes how much more of it would we have if we didn't send a message that children aren't immune from arrest.

Children should be very close to being immune from real arrest. Until you turn into a legal adult, I see no reason that you should be punished for committing minor crimes. Until someone is an adult, their amygdala is more developed than the executive portion of their brain meaning they act out and don't think about the future. This child is 8 and as such, their executive brain is in no way even close to being fully developed. We aren't sending a message that children are immune, we are sending a message that we don't think that children should be arrested for minor crimes.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Why should anyone, let alone a child, be arrested for punching someone. That means we would all be in jail since nearly everyone has punched someone else in their lifetime. In fact, the cops were arguably more disciplinarian against the 8 year old than you average joe since I don’t see regular people going to prison for punching someone

Idk, technically punching is illegal but you could probably get away with murder in many US cities, so a fist fight isn't shit.

[Drongonia]

I don't necessarily disagree that the cops should be brought in on a situation like this, but I would rather that the cop takes the kid aside and has a chat about respecting elders/teachers etc etc. The handcuffs weren't necessary and neither was a criminal record.

[VlaRiSsiA]

Why should anyone, let alone a child, be arrested for punching someone. That means we would all be in jail since nearly everyone has punched someone else in their lifetime. In fact, the cops were arguably more disciplinarian against the 8 year old than you average joe since I don’t see regular people going to prison for punching someone

Idk, technically punching is illegal but you could probably get away with murder in many US cities, so a fist fight isn't shit.

True. If politicians can get away with war crimes, then it would be stupid for someone to be sent to prison for hitting another person. An 8yo going to jail for punching their teacher seems like something out of an Onion article. I guess their teacher is a Karen because there is no way that you would call the police on a child for losing their temper

[Nobel Hobos 2]

A criminal record is a serious thing. This kid could be denied a job even with good creds because of some stupid thing he did when he was 8. I have known people who got a criminal record for something small when they were younger who now are on the verge of homelessness because of something they wish they didn't do years ago.

A small pivot early in life, makes a huge difference. Early enough in life, it's the difference between being smart or dumb. Or being introverted or extroverted. It's an almost incalculable problem for public policy, since the most formative years of a person's life are under the command of parents (or siblings, extended family, media curated by parents, perhaps even pets) and the state cannot manufacture perfect families, nor simulate them. Really the state only takes a role in the child's life when the child begins school.

I support the idea of free child-care from any age. The worst parents are very likely also lazy, they would take the opportunity to spend minimal time with their child, and at extreme this would lead to their child being painlessly separated from them. Infants should be allowed to spend 24 hours of the day in "childcare", sleeping there, and it it suits everybody thus removed from their parents. The government may need to employ wet nurses, I'm OK with that. They do it in Sweden.

On a more practical note, I support free kindergarten for all children, and pre-kinder (we're talking about 2 or 3 years old). It's not ideal (taking children away from bad parents, at birth, is ideal) but the sooner the children are given an alternative to their home life the better. Parents should still be allowed to opt out, we should always allow for the home situation being better than the public option, but the public option should be very very good and any parent who isn't fully enthusiastic in playing their role should feel no hesitation in turning their parenting duties over to professionals.

Of course it will cost money. But raising children is THE core social duty of any social species. Leaving it to volunteers (parents) has worked fine in the past, or has it? Parental abuse, parental neglect, and parental mis-education are a blight on human society: they cause disadvantage, ignorance, mental health problems, and the perpetuation of all kinds of bigotry. Even a small percentage of bad parents cause all of us ambient grief, and cause social division.

Also, it's a measure of how badly parenting has failed, and social services have failed, and schooling has failed, if you have to call a cop on an eight year old. That's just the tip of the fail iceberg.

[Galloism]

Even if handling children with the proverbial "kid gloves" is means to protect the vulnerable, in practice there's nothing to stop kids from taking it as an age-based loophole to commit all the crimes they want to.

I am personally entertained at the notion of an 8 year old taking advantage of our system to commit crimes with impunity and build a criminal enterprise. Too bad “el chapo” (which means “shorty”) was already taken, or this could be a great tv series.