What do you do with arsonists?

Actually I think the 5 or 6 yr old could be more likely to follow instructions… :slight_smile:

Teenagers have real biological brain development reasons for acting the way they do:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=88074

Reading articles about the actual event, it turns out the teens were 13 and 14 at the time they set a brush fire to a dry creek bed near a local quarry, which then took off. It was a total fire ban day, and very windy, and the whole region (or country?) was on fire alert. The boys came back hours later to watch it, but it was too intense at that point. They also made 55 harassing/sexual phone calls to “000” (the emergency number) operators, over a period of a couple months leading up the the fire, including one on the day of the fire and several 2 days after.

So, they were younger than I thought. It seems (at least to me) indisputable that the fire was indeed intended to cause widespread destruction. And they thought it was cool, even afterward. My answer of what to do with them is still the same, though. At their age, they are still potentially fixable (barring psychopathy) and meaningful restitution/community service/rehabilitation is the one of the best ways we know of so far. A great deal of therapy is also obviously called for. The restitution should definitely consist of working heavily with the consequences of their actions; again, working with burn victims, rebuilding destroyed property, etc. (in addition to serving their prison time).

The article cited in SmartAlecCat’s post is a very good one. It explains how stupid teens can be due to their undeveloped brains, and how well rehabilitation can work on teens.

An afternote:

!

Most jurisdictions (in the US, at least, but the US and Australia both derive from English common law) have a crime called felony murder. If you commit a felony, and a person dies as a result of that felony, you can be charged with murder, regardless of intent. The classic example is a couple of bank robbers, one of whom goes into the bank to demand money, while the other waits outside in the getaway car. If the guy inside shoots a teller, they can both be charged with murder, under the felony murder rule.

Arson is definitely a felony, and someone definitely died as a result of that felony, so the felony murder rule pretty clearly applies here, and the arsonists could be charged with murder. The only real question here is not what the crime is, but the age of the defendants.

Shave their bellies with a rusty razor.

We need to call on one of our Oz dopers. England has abolished felony murder by statute, and in Canada it’s been held to be contrary to our constitutional guarantee of fundamental justice. I’m curious to know if it’s still available in Oz, and if, whether it would apply here.

part of the reason why you don’t typically charge children with adult crimes is that they’re incapable of the same level of reason which would be ascribed to an adult. this has slowly given way in issues of straight murder (like a 16 year old can pretty much figure out what is or is not reckless indifference) but in something like this, felony murder, where the underlying crime is a non-personal, environmental action?

just because they “know” that total fire ban days are serious things doesn’t mean they have a good capacity to understand that their actions may have grave consequences.

shit, most adults would be like “wtf? how can one tiny little source of fire cause an entire forest to burn down”

Every time somebody deliberately starts a fire somewhere those poor arsonists always get the blame.

youre building a straw man. a really really dry one.

no one is not blaming the kids. rather, some are recognizing that children may not have the mental faculties to appreciate bad judgments, and that throwing kids in jail for murder may not be the most productive way to resolve the harm done.

I was just trying to be funny. :slight_smile:

A lot of kids go through a stage where they like to play with matches and start fires. I remember doing it myself out in the woods. We would steal a pack of matches and go out in the woods and try and make a little campfire out of twigs and old newspapers. I also learned to start one from a flint and dry tinder in Girl Scouts.

Perhaps we need to bring back the old “Smokie The Bear” commercials?

Is that the case? I thought pyromania is (or sometimes is) an immutable part of character, like hetero- or homosexuality. Am I misinformed?

Their age makes me less sympathetic to the “innocence” of their actions. Unless they were mentally deficient, they must have realised that setting bush fires was at least harmful to the wildlife in the area. Callous indifference to the plight of weaker animals, and a fascination with lighting fires are both indicative of someone whose actions could well escalate into even more destructive acts.

Maybe these teens aren’t that kind, but if I was the authorities in that area, I’d be interested to know what else they got up to in their spare time.

Without knowing these details, my temptation would be to take all the valued belongings of these youths, pile them on a bonfire, and have them set it alight. This wouldn’t be a punishment, it would just be for the hell of it!

Lighting fires is one of the potential serial killer Macdonald triad," along with torturing animals and bed wetting beyond a normal age.

Thos children definitely need some psychiatric testing and counselling.

Lighting fires is also a primal craving shared by most of humanity.

Lighting people on fire is a sign to be wary of.

Build a bridge out of them?

//nitpick// It’s “Smokey Bear”; drop the “the”. //nitpick//
And Smokey has been preventing forest fires for 65 years.

No he hasn’t; only you can prevent forest fires.

And I’ve always been suspicious of that “Macdonald triangle”. On the one hand, I don’t think I’ve known anyone who didn’t at least go through a phase of pyromania (though usually not to the point of arson, of course). And on the other hand, I’d be extremely worried about anyone who tortures animals, even if their bed is dry and their matches are wet. It seems to me you could make just as valid a “triangle” out of “Likes ice cream, dislikes doing homework, and tortures animals”.

Does using a magnifying glass on an anthill fit two legs of the Macdonald triangle at once?

Only if you can prove the ants are feeling pain and distress.

Best. Nit. Ever.