Yesterday’s one was the third this week, and pretty much focused on ram raids and what to do with 12 and 13-year-old kids who get involved in them.
As the week’s gone on, I’ve thought Labour’s policy announcements have been pretty lame and yesterday’s was no exception.
Labour thinks treating 12 and 13-year-olds as criminals is going to stop them driving cars through shop windows and helping themselves to whatever they find inside. I think it's dreaming.
First of all, these kids are going to be allowed to do one ram raid before they face the type of consequences Labour is talking about. So what’s that? Two strikes and you’re out?
Secondly, it’s all very well these kids going to the Youth Court and getting bail or limping around the place with an ankle bracelet on, but how does that change the environment they’re living in? It makes no difference at all.
And as for this dream politicians seem to have, that one-size-fits-all law and order policies are a deterrent. Do you really think that’s going to be the case when it comes to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds?
Of course it isn’t. Especially when they know they can do it once and get away with it before things get really heavy and they’re off to the Youth Court.
About a month ago, I said I didn’t support what the Dairy and Business Owners Group was calling for, when they were saying that it was hopeless targeting young offenders and that it’s their parents who should carry the can.
As we know, their members - the people who own and run dairies and other retail outlets - had a complete gutsful of ratbags getting away with ram raiding and nicking stuff from their shops.
They were focussed on kids aged around 14, and were saying that they wanted the parents of these kids made legally responsible for what their kids are getting up to.
I said at the time that I didn’t support that because I thought it would do nothing to teach these 14-year-olds about consequences for their actions. They’d just keep playing up because they’d know that it’d be Mum or Dad carrying the can.
But I reckon 12 and 13-year-olds are different. I reckon 12 and 13-year-olds are probably more likely to be saved from a life of crime than someone just that little bit older.
I am a realist and I know that some kids - tragically - are on a path that it’s very difficult to get them off.
Nevertheless, instead of treating these kids as criminals, as Labour says it wants to, I reckon they should be taking a leaf out of the dairy owners' book and, instead of sending these kids to court, they should be sending their parents to court.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
First of all, these kids are going to be allowed to do one ram raid before they face the type of consequences Labour is talking about. So what’s that? Two strikes and you’re out?
Secondly, it’s all very well these kids going to the Youth Court and getting bail or limping around the place with an ankle bracelet on, but how does that change the environment they’re living in? It makes no difference at all.
And as for this dream politicians seem to have, that one-size-fits-all law and order policies are a deterrent. Do you really think that’s going to be the case when it comes to 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds?
Of course it isn’t. Especially when they know they can do it once and get away with it before things get really heavy and they’re off to the Youth Court.
About a month ago, I said I didn’t support what the Dairy and Business Owners Group was calling for, when they were saying that it was hopeless targeting young offenders and that it’s their parents who should carry the can.
As we know, their members - the people who own and run dairies and other retail outlets - had a complete gutsful of ratbags getting away with ram raiding and nicking stuff from their shops.
They were focussed on kids aged around 14, and were saying that they wanted the parents of these kids made legally responsible for what their kids are getting up to.
I said at the time that I didn’t support that because I thought it would do nothing to teach these 14-year-olds about consequences for their actions. They’d just keep playing up because they’d know that it’d be Mum or Dad carrying the can.
But I reckon 12 and 13-year-olds are different. I reckon 12 and 13-year-olds are probably more likely to be saved from a life of crime than someone just that little bit older.
I am a realist and I know that some kids - tragically - are on a path that it’s very difficult to get them off.
Nevertheless, instead of treating these kids as criminals, as Labour says it wants to, I reckon they should be taking a leaf out of the dairy owners' book and, instead of sending these kids to court, they should be sending their parents to court.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
Never work as the majority of the parents don't care, those that do just need help. Perhaps a couple of months in a boarding school environment with behavioral help. At the same time the parents lose any government payments based on the child. This would help pay for the school and focus the parents mind a little.
As an educationalist I would like to have these kid's reading and maths standards checked out. The relationship between the two- crime and poor reading is well established. If they have not reached proficiency in these basics then put them into remedial courses.
I have taught remedial maths and reading privately for decades and failing children develop many mental and behaviour problems. One of my students a very sweet natured Maori child with severe dyslexia and hyperactivity who was four years behind in the basics told me how to do shop lifting at Pak'n Save.
His parents tried very hard to have him walk the straight and narrow and in this case, which is admittedly, only anecdotal remedial work was the answer. Please check out articles on NZ failure rate in the basics. They are appalling.
Firstly, punishing parents for children's behaviour will be unjust under our regime that has discouraged parental authority, demonized 'power and control', emphasized children's rights and has placed parents at risk of prosecution for using any force in punishment (e.g. forcing a child to their room for time out). What are parents of young teenagers to do when told to "f-off" or when the teenagers use violence against the parents?
Secondly, a better answer to youth crime (there is no method to eliminate it completely but this will make a huge difference) is to incentivize and support family cohesion, that is, families with biological fathers still there. Instead, we encourage and incentivize family separation, make it financially better for many families to separate into a sole parent living on welfare rather than remaining together on one parent's minimal wage, and allow unbridled and often dishonest support by man-hating feminists, police and courts alike for unhappy mothers to kick fathers out of the fathers' own homes. More draconian treatment of the child victims of this ridiculous situation won't reduce youth crime much but will generate more hardened adult criminals.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.