Three year old investigated by police!

Remove all ads!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214816/Boy-3-investigated-vandalism-UKs-youngest-crime-suspect.html?ITO=1490

This is just stupid! Three year olds draw on walls, chuck stuff everywhere and just do what they think is fun. Why waste police time on investigating them??!?!

Here's a few quotes from some normal people about this:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2344462/posts

 

The article hints the problems are more serious than simple vandalism. I assume the police would have a good reason to intervene, though it should probably be the responsibility of the parents.

 

Silvery,
the Freepers aren't normal people.

That said, it is somewhat silly. I've done far worse when I was a child, uhm, well ... luckily all that is by now time-barred

On the other hand, if someone files a complaint with the police for vandalism, and there is evidence of that crime, they have to investigate, even if it leads them to three year old kids.

 

If these children are commiting vandalism (in public, which is where the only legal compaints can arise from) as well as sexual offenses and criminal damage I should damn well hope the police are investigating them just to see what the hell the parents are doing to their children to make them behave in such a way!

 

I lived in an impoverished neighbourhood in Scotland myself, for five years (4-9yo). A lot of the parents of kids I played with, were on drugs, involved in crime, etc. They didn't spend much time looking after their kids. There were gangs of underaged hooligans, which doesn't sound so funny after they beat the crap out of you, believe me. Kids were getting involved with the gangs about as soon as they could talk and play outside. When they heard I was moving away to Holland, I got beat up almost every day. Years later I returned to the area on a family holiday, and I met one of those kids again. He said: "Hey, I remember you, I used to batter you." The kid was a malnourished junkie, and I had become much larger than him. He must've been packing a weapon, to have that kind of attitude.
Anyway, kids like this get involved in crime from a very young age, and I think it's a good idea that police are made aware of these future criminals. If they're going to have a wrapsheet anyway, why not start at 3?

 

I agree with 8people, if its in public its a crime, its the parents responsibility to prevent this behaviour, it should be investigated.
Also, this is how many cases of abuse/diminished responsibility reach social services, the police refer them from a case which they are investigating.

 

I would like to know what exactly they did. If "vandalism" is throwing whitewash on a wall (that wasn't intended to be whitewashed) or the like, then parents should pay a little clean-up and have a talking-to with the children, but the only way police should be involved is if:
1.) The victim doesn't know who did it.
2.) The parents refuse to pay damages.

Likewise, if the 'lewd behavior' is running around naked, I don't think it raises any more questions than, "Where were the parents at the time?" As Silvery pointed out, children do this stuff no matter what upbringing they have.

Now, if the 'lewd behavior' were somewhat more suggestion-oriented, then serious questions may be raised (like where did a 3-year-old learn this stuff). Similarly if the vandalism is more serious.

Does anyone have any details on the case? The articles were awefully sparse.

 

This thread is a series of 'if's' we dont know enough about these instances, but if you notice, the article says

thats a very low number, so I would assume that this is more then simple child with a crayon.

 

Sounds really weird to me -- if a 3 year old is doing anything that can be considered (by a normal person who isn't a wing-ding himself) a sexual offense, then obviously there are 1 of 2 things happening:

1: The parents are engaging in seriously inappropriate behaviour aroudn the kid and they should lose custody.

or

2: The kid has some serious problems with his mental wiring, and the parents need some serious support in terms of MRIs, psychiatric testing, and the like.

I can't think of another reason, can you?

 

give it a few days, Im sure someone will think of some

 

I think this is yet another example of a disgusting double standard in modern society.

If a 2-year-old vandalizes property, he's "just a kid."
If I do it, it's a crime.

If a 2-year-old announces to a room full adults that he pooped all by himself, he's met with applause and encouragement.
If I do it, the party, as they say, is over.

If a 2-year-old walks around the office with no pants on, he's adorable.
If I do it (again), that's three strikes for me and I'll be fired.

We live in an unjust world! Where's my march?

 

Either that, or only that many idiots decided to call the police on minor things.

*Marches on DR*
Surrender!

 

I'll have the DR Poopy Pants fund up and running in a few days.

Oh, and to addres the topic, I read about a study once a long time ago that said that Grade 2 teachers' predictions about some general life outcomes were around 80% correct. In other words, they knew by grade 2 who would be successful in life, who wouldn't, and who would end up having serious troubles with the law.

It's easy to tell, really. The shrinks tell us that personality is pretty well formed before 4 years of age (I'm not sure of the actual age, but IIRC it's insanely early.)

 

Kids can do plenty of damage

 

Yeah but at 3 years old the chances are that they aren't really aware of what they're doing. It's the parents that need investigating, not the kids!

 

If for no other reason, the parents should be looked into. If their 3 yr old is rampaging around unsupervised, causing damage, that is not the situation the child needs to be in. Whatever department acts on behalf of children safety in that area needs to step in, before the child starts down the wrong path.

 

Allos me to postulate a hypothetical:

Little Jimmy was born a terror. He's always had a contrary temprament from the day he was born. He never slept through the night. He's always been fussy and violent. His parents have been paragons of virtue. They have never shaken Jimmy or abused him in any way, shape or form. yet he is the quintessential child of hell.

Little Jimmy (3) gets out one day and breaks a neighbors window. His parents:

A: Run out and yell at him to stop, and grasp his arm firmly to bring him inside. Some freaking loser with no kids and nothing better to do than be a sanctimonious pain in the effing butt calls the cops and starts yapping about "child abuse" because she is an idiot who read an article once in college and has no bloody !&*? about how to raise kids but thinks she's an expert. The cops come and make life miserable for the parents.

B: Having dealt with this aforementioned sanctimonious idiot before, the parents do very little. Someone else calls the cops because they aren't doing anything to discipline their kid.

See what I mean? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As long as you've got these idiots going around undermining the attempts of decent parents to properly discipline their kids, you're going to have trouble. God knows there's lots of lousy parents around, but someone needs to put a leash on these idiots who seem to find a way to insert their noses far too much into the business of good parents. Just because you don't use some form of physical correction on a kid (as in grab them by the arm and pull them away when they won't listen to you) doesn't mean that other people have to follow your child rearing techniques. Their actions minimize the plight of children who are being truly abused.

 

When psychologists say "personality is set", they don't mean everything about you, or even things like your attitude to law. They mean the theoretical psychological construct, the 'personality'. There is a whole class of disorders called 'personality disorders' which are set and unchanging at somewhere between 2 and 4 years old. You can't fix them, but you may be able to educate the individual about them and teach them coping techniques.

 

Silvery, theyre not locking up a child and investigating him for the purposes of passing on a case for criminal damage to the CPS. Theyre investigating what the child has been doing, for the purposes of dealing with the parents.

child psychology is a massive topic, nothing is textbook perfect parents can be the problem.

 

Or, the child could be the problem.