He Made a Mistake - Will You Turn Your Back on Him?

[LongHaul]

         I am not advocating not punishing him but when two people do the same thing the consequences should be the same for both. The law was informed and chose not to act, why, could it have been that there was not enough evidence, was the admission of quilt valid in the eyes of the law? We really know very little about this, my position is that if Rikki's statement that the second boy, the one who brought the drugs and provided the drugs was not sent an expulsion letter then the boy in question should not have been expelled.

 LongHaul

[nldscout]

Longhaul,

In answer to your question have I or would I incarcerate a young person for first time alcohol use? The answer is no, only beacuse the law doesn't allow it. However Dope is another thing. A first time user can go to Jail for a year. Underage drinking alone doesn't qualify, unless you break some other law along with it.

 

There is nothing like having a pair of handirons slapped on you the first time to open your eyes that what you did was maybe not the right choice.

[Hunt]

I agree that if two boys committed the same offense, they should be punished the same.

 

However, if the authorities failed to punish one of them, that doesn't necessarily mean that the punishment of the other one was inappropriate or excessive.

[nldscout]

The thing is we don't know what happened to the other boy. He may have been expelled also and just is not talking about it.

[skeptic]

My take on this is that council may have felt that the unit's response was inadequate for some reason. We had a similar, but not drug related, episode a number of years ago. Our SPL and ASPL were sent home from an OA event due to theft of a large amount of cds. Calling the police was considered, but since one of the staffers was off duty police, they decided to hold off and simply contact the troop and see how we approached it.

 

I received a call from the camp personally to let me know the situation. One of the boy's father came to get them in the middle of the night, but when they got home, that boy called me very early that morning to let me know his side, and apologize. My response was to contact the committee for an immediate BOR the next night. I spoke to both boys and told them they were to be there, in complete uniform. When they both were there the next evening, I took them aside and let them know how I felt, and my opinion on how they had let down themselves, families, the troop, and me. I then unceremoniously cut the leadership patches off their shirts before they went before the board. They met with the board briefly together, then they interviewed each separately. While I had to meet with the committee first to clarify details, I was not in the room for the review. Their decision was NOT to expell the boys; but it was a minimum six month freeze of all advancement, very specific strictures on activities (basically nothing fun, only service related), a magnifying glass on their actions, specific approved personal community service of 50 hours, and letters of apology to the youth from whom they stole, the OA leadership, and their parents. They had to bring me the letters for review. Once I read them, discussed their content, asked for emphasis on certain things, they rewrote them on the computer or type writer and submitted them for final approval. They finally signed them, and they were sent. They knew that I would be checking to make sure they actually were mailed. They also each had to give a short presentation to the troop about the importance and meaning of the Oath and Law. These decisions were relayed to the boys and their parents in separate meetings that night.

 

Frankly, the council seemed pleased, but surprised at the troop's response. I think that if they had not felt the troop was dealing properly, they very well would have expelled them from the program. They did withdraw their OA membership for a year, and would consider reinstatement only if all the troop committee requirements were met.

 

One set of parents immediately started making excuses, and was luke warm at best in helping their son with the follow through. Ironically, he was obviously the ringleader of the episode. His letters took him weeks to complete, and they were barely acceptable even then. He never did the service, was contentious when challenged at the troop level, and never did the troop presentation. He ended up dropping out, dropping out of high school, doing serious drugs and alcohol, got arrested, and spent time in jail just past his 18th birthday. The other boy had his letters done within a week with obvious contrition showing, finished his service within two months, and fulfilled all the other requirements beyond expectation. When this all began, he was just coming up for Life. At the end of the six months, the BOR met with him, and discussed the entire episode and what he might have learned. They felt unanimously that he had surpassed the intent of the probation, and approved his rank. He ended up making Eagle, just short of his 18th birthday. As an aside, his school work also improved during this period, and he found a part time job. He personally brought up the situation at his Eagle BOR, and they were impressed by his sincerity and response to the whole thing.

 

Sorry this is so long, but it seems that much depends on how the unit responds to things, and how serious they take it. If the council people feel they are only giving a slap on the hand for something obviously so serious, then they may feel they need to respond more draconically.

 

 

[skeptic]

Oh, the boy who followed through was also reinstated in the OA a year and a half later.

[Beavah]

Yah, great example skeptic... both of a well-measured response by adults and of the two possible outcomes for kids even when we do all that we can do.

 

Beavah

[Lisabob]

Expulsion does seem rather harsh to me, unless there are additional issues/circumstances that maybe aren't known to the original poster. However, as a parent of a younger scout, I'd be extremely upset to hear it if he were NOT removed from the camp and suspended from the troop. These sorts of things get around among the boys, and regardless of what might be said privately, if there is no clear signal then the message the other kids get is that it is "ok" because, well, "Jimmy" did it and "nothing" happened to him. That's not what I want my child to learn from his camp/troop experience.

 

I also don't feel ADHD is an acceptable excuse for breaking the law. Yes, it makes matters more difficult for the boy, but let's be honest - if somewhere down the road this young man fails to control his impulses and engages in felonious behavior as an adult, the fact that he has ADHD is not going to excuse him. Better he learn that now, hard as it may be. And perhaps, better his family realizes that his condition maybe is not sufficiently under control and that he needs additional help in managing it so as to have a stronger chance at leading a happy life.

 

As someone who has worked on staff in various capacities at other camps too - at the very least, I'd have fired any person, youth or adult, who was working for me and who was found to have (or admitted to having) drugs at camp. And as anyone who has ever worked at camp knows, there isn't really much "personal time" at camp. You want free time? That's what your day off is for. Most camp contracts include language specifying that you are at least on call, if not on duty, at all hours.