Is juvenile restitution fair? Should a poor child have to pay back a wealthy victim such as a retail corporate

Answer 1

The child is literally paying for a bad decision he/she made. I personally don't see anything wrong with it. Some lessons are harder to learn than others. Having to literally "pay" for something may make a big impression.

Answer 2

You can avoid this kind of restitution by opting to have the poor child serve a longer incarceration time. This may very well be a long term benefit, in that it removes him from environments where temptations to steal things are great. And that which he doesn't steal, he cannot be charged. And maybe learn some discipline there, values, things like that. Who knows?

Answer 3

If I were a juvenile who lives in poverty and you were a victim of a crime that I committed, would my social status or financial well-being make any difference to the damage or loss I caused you? Why should I be given a break for a crime which I committed due to my age. I would be responsible for my actions and lets look at statistics, how many juveniles who are merely slapped on the wrist are repeat offenders. Look it up, you may be surprised, and afterwards ask your question again.

Answer 4

poor, not poor, that's neither here nor there. the child knew that stealing was wrong before they did it. and because of that negative behavior they have a consequence. and paying back or providing restitution would be that. it may be a corporation but it still affects their bottom line profits. think of the hundreds of thousands of others who are thinking the same thing-why pay back or feel bad about taking it, they have plenty of money. sorry, that dont fly.

Answer 5

So just how many systems of justice should we have? And how is basing restitution on one's ability to pay even-handed? Of course the child should have to pay. If you're talking about shop lifting, it's the customers who end up paying for it, anyway, not the retailer. They just put "shrink" into the cost of doing business.

Answer 6

If a child committed a crime, restitution is fair. The fact that the child is poor and the victim is wealthy has no bearing. A crime is a crime.

Answer 7

Yes! If the little crap-weasel can keep their sticky fingers to themselves they should be held accountable. I work hard for the things I own and would not want some kid coming in a taking my things without some kind of payback. Retailers are the same. That is their livelihoods.

Answer 8

If a juvenile commits a crime they must then pay for it. It doesn't matter whether the victim is rich or poor or anywhere in between. Otherwise you'd be teaching kids that as long as they commit a crime against someone wealthier then themselves its okay. Its never okay and I can't believe you even asked that question!!!!!

Answer 9

Well first off....the child should not be out stealing, then they wouldn't have to worry about paying ANYONE restitution. A crime is a crime!

Answer 10

look on the data. at the start, Obama won't herald common healthcare. He desires to make coverage greater obtainable to all. 2nd, of direction common well being-hide sucks. for this reason we in Western Europe have it. we predict of, hmm, our healthcare equipment sucks. i know, shall we keep it. i assume that's a similar with Japan and Canada besides. actuality - america of a spends greater on healthcare according to individual than the different usa interior the international. actuality - the US has bigger loss of life expenditures for little ones elderly under 5 than western eu countries with common well being coverage. meaning that a lifeless American 4 365 days old might have had a greater clever danger of existence in the event that they have been born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of that have common well being coverage. Is that honest?