Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Irish Judge Orders 13-Year-Old To Surrender Xbox

Posted by samzenpus on from the put-down-the-controller dept.

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."

54 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent! by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Excellent! by Announcer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!

      --
      Willie...
    2. Re:Excellent! by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Excellent! by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Excellent! by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:Excellent! by lucm · · Score: 2

      > 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.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:Excellent! by Seumas · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>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.

    9. Re:Excellent! by Seumas · · Score: 2

      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.

    10. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:Excellent! by ZeRu · · Score: 2

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

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    12. Re:Excellent! by galaad2 · · Score: 2

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

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    13. Re:Excellent! by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      would of

      You should be punished for that.

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    14. Re:Excellent! by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Great Intellect...
    15. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:Excellent! by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Probably more to do with the fact that those 'resort' prison countries:

      A) Also take care of their non imprisoned citizens -- they have functioning social safety nets.

      B) Don't have America's shitty attitude towards ethnic minorities, or have very homogeneous culture.

      I mean don't get me wrong, America's brutal prison complex is horribly immoral, but if you transplanted it to Scandinavia magically without fucking up their social safety nets, I don't think it would really RAISE crime at all.

    18. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      First, name for me a country with an "all-expense-paid resort". Whoops, there isn't one! Because it doesn't work. Every single society throughout all of human history punishes criminals. To varying extents, yes, but always with a punishment.

      So go ahead, name me a successful society that, in the original words, "is not punitive". I'm waiting.

    19. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      I have also decided, absent supporting evidence, that society is better off with a spoken language than without one.

      When you are suggesting we try a system which no society in the entire history of human civilization has attempted, much less succeeded with, then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. So please, give us your evidence that society could function with a justice system that, in your own words, "is not punitive".

      Or you could keep being smug that because your idea is fresh and radical, it must be good.

    20. Re:Excellent! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      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.

      I know this is a bit anecdotal, but spoiled brats everywhere? We've all seen parents that dote on their kids far too much and refuse to punish them appropriately. The kids grow up to the brats. It's just what happens.

      And pain can be one means of punishment, but it's by no means the only one. The OP was talking about the punishment fitting the crime, which is what's really important. Jail time is rarely a fitting punishment for the crimes that are committed. There are alternatives, such as what this judge did, which make a lot more sense.

    21. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 2

      And we all know that you scheme works perfectly with all humans, regardless of developmental stage.

      This is exactly my point - people are making judgements based on anecdotes and what they feel is right, not on any hard data as to the best outcomes for society.

    22. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 2

      Just because it's also animal nature doesn't mean it's not human nature.

    23. Re:Excellent! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've got no belief that throwing people in a hole will set them straight. On the other hand, I'd be pretty scared of a prison system that didn't discourage crime. A legal system where you get convicted but the punishment is a raised finger and "Please don't do that again" won't do much good. Yes, perhaps in some cases you can take away the reason for their crimes like making them kick the drug habit, but far from all criminals are junkies. A lot of them steal simply because they can and you can't cure that by giving them free things.

      We did try that with some of the roaming thieves for a while, the result was they acted like legal squatters. They kept stealing from all the neighbors, they trashed their own place and before they left they stole everything that wasn't nailed down. It was like pure consumption, not a care in the world for preserving anything. We just threw them a free party and when they were done they moved on to trash somewhere else. Fines are of course a joke because they have no income and anything they steal won't be used to pay fines.

      Largely the crime itself is risk free, because almost anything that can bring that burglar to harm is illegal unless your life is in immediate danger which is interpreted very strictly. As long as he turns and runs you'd better let him run or else you might end up on charges for injuring him. While he's likely to get a minimal penalty for any injury he causes you while trying to flee. My country is pretty much the direct opposite of Texas, they have all the rights even when in the middle of robbing me blind.

      The "catch-and-release" here in Norway means that we have people who are convicted of 25+ crimes a year (not 25+ trials, we gather them up) and that's just what they're caught for. The overall solve rate is 43% so probably well over 50 crimes a year. I don't know what is working, but the all too lenient system here also isn't working very well. Each of those crimes have victims, but it doesn't seem stopping more people from becoming victims is a priority at all. Why should I risk being assaulted to give you another chance?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    24. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      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.

      These are your words. There's a pretty strong implication that you are suggesting a non-punitive system should be considered. Such a system is farcical, and yet you criticize people for dismissing it out of hand.

      Despite what you were told in kindergarten, some ideas really are bad. There aren't enough hours in the day to consider them all. If you have some evidence that a non-punitive system might work and should thus be considered, present it. If not, don't be offended when people laugh off the notion as absurd on the face of it.

    25. Re:Excellent! by Sabriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chance+opportunity-risk-empathy = criminal action

      Further refinement?

    26. Re:Excellent! by c0mpliant · · Score: 3, Informative

      And also to be fair to the OP, he wasn't necesserily saying it in connection with the article. And also to be fair to the OP, Ireland does indeed rock.

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    27. Re:Excellent! by simmonsjeffreya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While you do make a few good points here, I would add one point to this:

      C) Drug use. For example, just in tenth graders, 41% of American students have tried pot, compared to 17% in Europe. Also included in this same study* is the fact that 23% of American students have used illicit drugs other than cannabis (not counting alcohol), while only 6% in Europe have.

      I hate to be the one to bring up drugs, but from what I see on a daily basis, it does play a major role. I'm not saying every drug user is going to become a criminal, but it seems from recent data collected by SAMHSA, the balance of drug abuse is changing in the US. Marijuana and alcohol are decreasing, while other more serious, dangerous drugs are increasing in use. This varies from Europe, where Alcohol and Marijuana, in that order, are the most abused, with much, much lower percentages of the population using more dangerous, serious drugs.

      I attribute this change in the US being due to the availability. Alcohol, as a teenager is actually much harder to come by than say marijuana, or surprisingly prescription pain killers, for example. Teens these days have broad access to marijuana, and seem to always have a friend who can get pain killers or tranquilizers (I do not have a source for this statement, it is based on personal observation.) This leads to them just avoiding the trouble of acquiring alcohol and instead, smoking marijuana, while not really a problem in my eyes, or taking prescription pain killers, which is a much bigger issue. Marijuana isn't truly a gateway drug, many users can go their whole life without moving to something "harder", but things like prescription pain killers, tranquilizers, etc are more likely to create the need to get higher and higher, and are rising in use at an alarming rate.

      I've not known many marijuana users, or alcoholics for that matter who will harm someone to get money to acquire their drugs. Crack, Cocain, Meth, Pain Killers, Tranquilizer, etc users on the other hand, will go to great lengths to get their next high. I've seen many, many friends go down this path, and it's truly sad to see.

      Study Cited: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/21/us/study-finds-teenage-drug-use-higher-in-us-than-in-europe.html
      Older, but still accurate information with the same testing methodology used in both regions.

    28. Re:Excellent! by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because our system does not punish people for committing crimes. It punishes people for being an annoyance to the wrong person, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, having a penis, or not having enough money. This is one of the reasons the "unenforceable laws" are so bad. They whip them out when someone with influence wants to screw over someone without. The person the law is used against isn't being punished for breaking the law. They are being punished for annoying the wrong person.

      It isn't the harsh sentences that are the problem. It is the inconsistent punishment. And a system that is designed to make sure that everyone is always in violation of some law.

    29. Re:Excellent! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Bear in mind, the kid has been charged, not convicted.

      But if you RTFA, you'll see that giving up his Xbox is part of his bail conditions. Over here we tend not to operate bail the way it does in the US (I can't speak for NI, I live in Scotland - but the principle is similar), presumably because of the ease with which a suspect could travel outside the jurisdiction of the police force they were arrested by. So, people tend not to be asked to put up large sums of money for bail, but it is possible to impose certain bail conditions. For example, if you start a fight in a pub and commit assault, your bail conditions may include barring you from that pub (or indeed any pubs at all), or possibly a curfew order.

    30. Re:Excellent! by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If fear of punishment is your only reason not to transgress, you've got some pretty shady morals.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    31. Re:Excellent! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      Taking a way his XBox isn't going to hurt him. The judge should have ordered they cut his ears off or something. Or made him use a PS3.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    32. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 2

      Punishments don't need to be physically painful or discomforting. The prospect of having to spend a few years in jail, only seeing your family once a week, losing your job, etc, is quite enough to deter most people from most crimes.

    33. Re:Excellent! by NNKK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bail conditions are pretty routine in the US these days, though rarely very creative (surrender passport, stay away from victim, blah blah blah). A condition like this would definitely raise constitutional questions, though. Pre-trial confinement and bail are supposed to be preventative measures to ensure appearance in court and, in extreme cases, protect society. Taking away the kid's xbox is clearly punitive.

    34. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I don't think the GP was seriously suggesting a resort, just a much softer punishment than what the typical US prison provides. In the UK we have "open" prisons. No walls or fences, prisoners are tagged but can leave to do voluntary work or even a paid job during the day. They work quite well for reforming low level criminals and have lower re-offending rates than normal prisons. There is some debate as to how much that is due to taking in less hardened criminals, but even when the crime is more serious and the person is only moved there after serving the bulk of their sentence in a normal prison it works.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      And criminology is still in the dark ages, and we use leeches and blood letting as the main sources of medical treatment today.

      Don't sell them short. The FDA cleared them for medical use seven years ago...
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5319129/ns/health-health_care/t/fda-approves-leeches-medical-devices/
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/leeches.html
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm
      http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/videos/leeches-regain-hold-in-medicine

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    36. Re:Excellent! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

      As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it

      Come on, our society isn't 40% bankers.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. do unto others.... by tloh · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  3. Re:harsh, but... by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  4. Re:Punished before found guilty? by bmo · · Score: 2

    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

  5. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  6. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by c0lo · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  8. Re:Punished before found guilty? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Punished before found guilty? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Re:Punished before found guilty? by bmo · · Score: 2

    >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

  11. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Seumas · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. The Scene by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Locutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  14. Re:Nothing works by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 2

    For instance, it is often said the US has high crime rates. WRONG, the murder rate in the US vs Holland is pretty much the same.

    What a load of bull - check the statistics, and you'll find the murder rate in the USA is approximately 5 times higher per capita than in the Netherlands.

    I suggest you do some research and adjust your world view.

    -- Pete.

    --
    Monochrome - Probably the UK's largest internet BBS
  15. You don't understand by Weezul · · Score: 3, Informative

    The judge accepted his Xbox as part of his bail, not a punishment.

    Europeans are much less accepting of the discriminatory & uncivilized practice of bail bondsmen, outlawing their activities in many jurisdictions. Instead, courts try harder to make the bail fit the accused means while still forcing their appearance at trial.

    We should ideally outlaw bail bondsmen in the U.S. too, but they know their activities are morally bankrupt, and so hire lobbyists.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  16. Re:Excellent! said the kid by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    Just put it on craigslist and someone will come and take it for free.

    Though.... a 21" crt? Those aren't too heavy. If lifting those is hard, then I suggest keeping it and lifting it every day until its not so heavy. Its cheaper than the gym.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  17. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by metacell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    *sigh* No, people here are not misunderstanding what bail is. They're misunderstanding what the issue is. From the fine article:

    The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.

    That's clearly using bail as a form of punishment, not as a way to ensure the person returns to face trial. It's a misuse of the bail system.

  18. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

    If he was really thinking, he'd have said he valued his homework.

    --
    I8-D