A 10 year old boy started the CA wildfires while playing with matches. What do you think should be done?

Question

He will be going to court and things will be decided. This 10 year old boy will have to live with the fact that he burned down 38000 acres and killed 14 people. He admits he was playing with matches and started the fire. What do you think an adequate response by the courts would be?

My thoughts go out to those affected.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/fire.california/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

This is just one of the articles; you will find many more on a Google search. This article does not say he is 10, but I was inspired to ask this while watching CNN News, on which they did repeatedly say the age.

Answer 1

DEATH PENALTY.

Answer 2

The fires and the loss of life and property were tragic. The boy is only ten years old though and he was "playing" with matches. It wasn't a deliberate act. It wasn't planned or premeditated. It was simply a child involved in an accident. Nothing more.

It is an absurdity to think about charging or trying this child through the court system. And I don't think those of you that are hopping on the band wagon of filing charges against the parents for some kind of parental negligence are really thinking this through either.

But let's say I go along with you about arresting the boy and his parents. Let's try them, convict them, then you go find a tree while I round up three heavy duty ropes.

Let's do something else before we arrest THEM. Let's arrest the CEO's of pharmaceutical companies and charge them with homocide. The drugs their companies produce cause more ailments than they promote cures, and people die by the thousands every year as a result of over or under medication. These companies certainly aren't looking for any cures and they aren't PLAYING at what they do. But aren't THEY responsible for any deaths? Don't stop there. Let's arrest their stock shareholders too. They reap huge monetary rewards every day at the expense of the ill health of men and woman and YOUR children. That doesn't make headline news thought does it? So you don't care about THAT do you? They're all adults and they KNOW what they're doing, don't they. So there can't be any negligence there.

That's just one example of how little people think for them selves about what goes on around them. But whatever, let's go find that kid and his parents now.

Answer 3

Generally at the young age of 10 the court will have to decide if he really understood the possible consequences of his behavior. He will probably be held partially responsible for his behavior and his parents will also be held partially responsible for the outcome of his behavior.

He will need counseling for many, many years to come. Can you remember some of the things you did as a 10 yr old that you really had no concept of the possible outcomes? Most 10 year old's play with matches without consequences of this magnitude.

My heart, too, goes out to every one suffering any loss or inconveinence due to the fires and the Santa Ana winds.

Answer 4

A 10 year old boy being a normal boy and exploring with matches is very normal. I don't know the full situation. Whether this has happened in the past or not.

If he was just playing with matches, I don't feel that it was a crime or that he should be punished by the law. How scared he must be and what gutts it took to confess! I have to give him a lot of credit.

If he intintially went out and set these fires then YES he will need to be held accountable (or his parents).

Answer 5

Nothing.

Juveniles play with matches. They are not supposed to, but everyone did exactly the same thing as a child. It just so happened that he did it when conditions were just right for a mass fire.

Developers and the local Land Zoning Board should have had more sense than to build houses in an area prone to drought and high winds (the Santa Anna winds).

Why make some little 10 year old branded for life because of an accident just because it snowballed beyond anyone's control.

Answer 6

I think parents should e responsible, of course youngsters play with things that are not suppose to with but this is Way parents are, to watch them and guide them, my son tryed to play with matches and i told him no to do it or else... and i was serious and he didn't play any more.
How will you fill that as a result your house was burned and maybe you dead?
Police came to my house telling us all that we had to evacuate, we did, and we were lost, were to go? what to do?
we left and we were so depressed that decide to come back
to the house, the house was o.k. and we were so happy, so I dont think this was a joke. a 10 yrs old should know better, a 5 is different, he & his parents, totally responsible

Answer 7

You raise a very, very interesting question. Here's my opinion. 10 years of age is not old enough to forsee what happened. However, I believe that 10 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. So, I believe that he should have known it was wrong to play with matches, but I think it was possible that he didn't know why it was wrong or what devistation could have taken place. I feel that he has to be punished, someway somehow, but I don't believe jail is the answer, our jails do not rehabilitate. I don't have the answer as to what should be done with him, but the scope of his actions must be impressed upon him.

Answer 8

I didn't know that.
It was a terrible accident,I don't think a child should be held
criminally responsible. I freely admit I would probably feel
differently if I lost a friend or family member,though.
No doubt everyone who personally knows him knows what he
did and that will follow him for years. Whether that's enough
is debatable,but I bet he never plays with fire again.

Answer 9

Giving you an extreme answer, based in historical evidence and ethics classes.
The typical age at which societies throughout history have upheld people as "knowing better", called
The Age of Reason,
is seven. (It ranges from five to thirteen.)
Therefore, in Roman times, in England's days of rule by Oliver Cromwell when there was abject poverty, thieving was necessary.
A five year old child would not be punished for stealing bread for his family to eat.
But a seven-year old would have his hand cut off, or be hanged!
I think a seven year old is able to know better than to play with matches.
I think a seven-year-old deserves the maximum punishment we can give in our society.
I do not say hanging!
I do not agree with capital punishment for anyone.
But if our society needs group homes that serve as juvenile detention centers for the young, then maybe we should think about it.
We've spent far too long as a society acting as though children can't possibly know better,
and then when they do these horrible things, we're surprised!
It is the fault of society, and the parents.
But adequately punishing children may be the only message that we can send to our society that children will be held accountable.
Maybe we can stop bankrupting ourselves to give them video games and Heely skate-sneakers and everything else they want.
Maybe we can lower our standards for opulence.
Maybe we can start to afford housing again,
and our kids will actually be responsible adults who do not live at home when they're thirty-five.
Really, the way we treat children, and do not raise them into adults, is sickening.
By seven, they DO know better. And if they don't they certainly can.

Answer 10

Who was responsible for the child? That is an adequate question.

At 10 years old you can't really hold him responsible for the entire event. Maybe if he was 16 but certainly not 10.

Answer 11

The judge should tell the parents off for letting a 10 yo boy play with them and also to give him a warning never play with matches again. Never let children near matches or lighters. Both can kill and regretfully this time it did.