Appropriate Consequences (advice & examples)

[Beavah]

I may take on the SM position. In the meantime, I need to learn how to deal with various issue, eh? By the book, by logics, by passion, or by anything else.

 

Yah, I spun this off from OneHour's specific thread so that it becomes a general discussion rather than one specifically associated with OneHour's case.

 

If a SM or CC came to one of us with a tale of an older boy Eagle Scout on a troop campout who is caught smoking pot, what advice would we give him/her on how to proceed? Assume this is da boy's first "serious" offense, but he's had a few less serious incidents over recent years that amounted to "behavioral issues."

 

What sort of additional information would yeh look for?

What sort of process would yeh use to address da matter?

What would be the range of likely outcomes?

etc.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

The boy is under 18 and this is what pre-trial intervention is for. He is not merely doing mischief. He is breaking a serious law and if he gets a wrist slap at age 17, the penalty for the same thing at 18 will be devastating.

We take the approach that he should get the handcuffs and fingerprinting treatment all the way to the judge who can review his history, address his parents in court, and make a decision as to whether he qualifies for PTI. End of story.

 

If he does it on his own time, outside of the troop environment, and gets caught...he has our support at the PTI hearing.

[Beavah]

I think it's absolutely correct to take such behavior seriously, but it's very difficult to give a concrete response without knowin' da players and relationships and such. Me personally, I'm not at all fond of "zero tolerance" only-one-response policies of any kind, eh? And, too, I know enough about da vagaries of da legal system. I'd never recommend a unit involve law enforcement as a standard, universal response. What next? Call da cops when one boy steals an iPod out of another's tent without askin'?

 

I see da criminalization of youth behaviors as an awfully bad trend. If we can't deal with ordinary youth behaviors (or typical parent behaviors) without recourse to da boys in blue, we shouldn't be in da youth volunteer business.

 

A good troop has to recognize that any kid brazen enough to bring weed on a scout trip has been experimentin' with drugs for a while, eh? And every other kid knows it. The response has to be serious, and tailored to da kid and his family, but also to supportin' the good kids who have resisted that temptation and pressure. Those kids need to see that there are real consequences, and that their decision to "stay clean" was justified.

 

At the same time, a good troop also recognizes that teen drug use often goes hand in hand with depression, stress, and a lot of other things, eh? In a lot of ways, at that age it's just an immature response to da ordinary pressures of life bein' experienced for the first time.

 

So I reckon da range of responses goes from what One Hour's troop did (loss of POR, suspension for a considerable time, return based on meetin' conditions designed to help the lad, probation, etc.) up to expulsion. In all cases, we should try to help the parents and the boy with pointers to other resources - counseling, programs, etc.

 

And yah, in some (few!) cases referral to law enforcement might be da only or best route available. But I'd try to "set it up", eh? We don't want the lad to learn that he can get away with drug use for a fine less than a speeding ticket, nor do we necessarily want him incarcerated for an extended period - and both are possible in different jurisdictions, eh? Da legal system is terrible at education.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

I'm not for zero tolerance either but if a Scout is bringing a controlled substance with him on unit camping trips, this must be dealt with. And just confiscating the substance isn't enough. Maybe the authorities don't need to be involved if this is a 1st time offense, but mom & dad do need to be involved & there must be some consequences doled out by the unit.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Beavah, man I truly do share your feelings on zero tolerance. I remember very well the way my youthful transgressions were handled (with all the consideration that you advocate) and I agree up to a point. However, in many ways the PTI process does accomplish the end that you would desire - at least around these parts. I've been involved with boys who have stumped their toes on some really, really serious mistakes (far worse than a little pot smoking) and I have been very impressed with the measured advocacy approach that was applied in each individual case. I concede that PTI may not work as well other places but I am a strong advocate for it here - precisely for the reasons you mention.

Once the boy has his 18th birthday, little if any of that measured response is available. Therefore I would rather wake him up with a non-fatal '2x4-to-the-face' prior to age 18 than risk a truly life-changing situation after.

[OneHour]

Thanks, B. This is exactly what I was looking for and not so much as the spotlight. More than likely we, as Scouters, will run into this situation. Kids will try "it" out, out of curiosity or out of peer pressure.

 

Ed, you indicated that "there must be some consequences doled out by the unit." What would they be?

[evmori]

Ed, you indicated that "there must be some consequences doled out by the unit." What would they be?

 

That would depend on what the Scout did, OneHour. I have always been a fan of "the punishment fitting the crime." If he stole something from another Scout, suspension for three (3) months would be appropriate. If a Scout made a deliberate mess of the latrine on a camp out, he would be responsible for keeping the latrine clean for the remainder of the campout.

 

Caught smoking pot, maybe, six (6) month suspension, removal from POR & any time in POR to that point removed (if applicable). Upon return, a sit down with the Scout & mom & dad to discuss this Scout's future in the unit with the understanding that if this or other serious infraction happens again, the Scout will be removed from the units charter.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah I have a question that may relate to one of your favorite topics, Liability. Work with me here.

 

You have a 17 1/2 year old Eagle Scout, on a rather innocous campout you find him smoking pot. You question him and the scouts found with him and you find he only uses pot occasionally. You call his parents to come and get him. The Troop Committee holds a special meeting and decides he will not be able to attend any more campouts as a scout and he may apply to be an asst scoutmaster when he is 19. This amounts to a 20 month suspension. Feeling all is well and the matter resolved, the troop moves on.

 

Three weeks later the boy has a major vehicle accident. He was driving stoned and hit another car killing three people. He himself becomes a paraplegic. In the course of the accident investigation it is learned he was driving "under the influence". The incident on the campout is also discovered. To the police and associated insurance companies, it appears the incident was swept under the rug. Now there are three deaths and a paraplegic patient.

 

What could happen?

 

Yes, I am going after the worst possible scenario, but even then, what happens?

[John-in-KC]

Beavah said what I've been struggling to say, far more eloquently.

 

I refer folks to his post. That's my take.

[raisinemright]

I spent about 30 years as a chaperone for a Junior High municipal ski club. If a kid got caught with pot or alcohol, they were instantly a former member of the club and got the opportunity to call their parents and tell them why. Most of our trips were just night skiing locally, but we would also take an annual 7 day trip, usually to Canada. Over time, we developed a system of unannounced room searches and developed a portion of the permission slip that specifically noted our policy regarding drugs and alcohol. Both the student and the parent had to sign it. The parents also had to agree to make the 6 hour each way trip to pick up the student in the event they were caught.

 

Sadly, almost every year, we caught one or two kids. Since we went to the same hotel every year and one of our other leaders was a cop, it was amazing that these kids thought they could find hiding places that we didnt know about.

 

Scouting is a lot different than a ski club. Since involvement in scouting is a lifetime rather than a short term activity, there should be more mercy, but justice still requires a response.

 

A proper punishment should be decided by the SM, CC, parents and the Scout himself. His response and remorse or lack thereof would go far toward determining his punishment. Loss of POR would be a given. Suspension or extra duties on campouts or other activities might also be recommended.

 

If hes a good kid with a problem, this may be an opportunity for good rather than just tossing him out.

 

[Beavah]

Yes, I am going after the worst possible scenario, but even then, what happens?

 

What happens is everybody prays for da boy and his family. Maybe even does some fundraisin' to help out. And, perhaps, down the road a bit, a more mature, successful paraplegic young man makes it part of his mission in life to visit scout troops and talk about da real dangers of substance abuse.

 

At least, that's what I would hope for.

 

There is zero liability exposure for da unit or its leaders as described. The adults in da unit met their duty of care. Even if they had not, their action was not the proximate cause of the injury - indeed there is no causation in fact at all. The lad assumed the risk of driving under the influence on his own. Though I always love to hear novel theories of liability, there's just nuthin' here.

 

I think all of us who really care about kids want to do what we can for 'em, eh? We want to be responsible for helpin' 'em. That's a good, sound, ethical position, consistent with doin' our best to help other people at all times. I think all good SM's feel responsible for each of their boys.

 

Just because we want to be or feel responsible doesn't mean that we really are, though. Kids will make bad choices even when we do our best. Parents will send mixed signals, school counselors will blow it, or peers will be poor examples and override our best efforts. There's lots of other people in a scout's life. In most things, we aren't even morally responsible for da choices kids make. And da standards for legal responsibility are much, much narrower than moral responsibility.

 

Beavah

 

[Karen_216]

Maybe a litle diff than scout but still a youth camp. My daughter attended a "camp Cadet" last summer. free 1 week resident camp run by model of police academy that shows kids the hows and whys of police work by actaully being treated like real police cadets. Puts them through their paces too. Kids ages 11-14 (male and female). Separate barracks.

Very upfront rules. Also if kids calls home and cries to Mom and Mom comes out to check on Jr. Mom can take kid back with her!!

Anyway if there was fighting ANY types of illegal or inappropriate behavior kid was sent home with a date to appear in court.Behavior contract given and signed by paretns up front. You think that being run by POLICE OFFICERS would dis-incline anyone from getting in trouble but we were told any number of stories from the past. This was not a juvie camp- it was one to get the kids involved in a positive manner during their formative years. I think it had a VERY positive influenc on my daughter and I encourage anyone to send their child to such a camp.

i'm one that goes by the book. I've had incidnets of catching shopliftrs of all ages- called police on every single one- let Police and Mom and Dad sort it out.

Don't know what I wold have done but based on history of the kid alone- prob would have reported that too.

If kid did this at school what would have happened? Police reported- certainly- suspened- at least- kicked out of school- very possible. Get polcy upfrotn and clear in all outing lit- this will happen if XYZ- and follow through. Parents and kids can;t be surprised.