We'll pay damages... just drop charges !!

This is the second in a series of thoughts for talk on the issue of using the police in professional child and youth care.

Part of the issue around the involvement of the police and the criminal justice system in some agencies appears to centre on the publicity that could arise if the press pick up and publicise an incident or a court case. The problem is that we work with young people where the probability of incidents that bring them into conflict with the law is frequently high. Boards of management and  also middle management of agencies often want to protect the name of the agency from connections with acts of law violation by the  children and young people in its care. It doesn't reflect well on the agency. Headlines in newspapers, and in the  'six o'clock news' are visualised.

In these agencies it becomes then 'policy' to avoid police involvement and the criminal justice system and the Director has to do what can be done to maintain the policy.

In these instances, The middle Management team then works to build up working relationships with public prosecutors and with editors of newspapers.... which is a good idea, but possibly for the wrong reasons. Maintaining a policy of "image" more than ensuring the best interests of the child and young person and the concept of restorative justice.

The local corner cafe called 'Sam's place' was owned by a man everyone called.... guess what? .... Sam .

A small and not that heavily guarded window was on the quieter side of the corner shop on the roadside leading down to the residential facility for boys. The boys formed a fair proportion of Sam's trade.

The little fellow was chosen because he was just that.... little. and being small, could be assisted through the stockroom window.The bigger one planned the break-in for the early hours of the morning. It was easy to break the glass and prize off the guard to let the little fellow through. The idea was, once in the stockroom he would pass bottles of fizzy drinks through the window to the big guy outside.

Getting in proved as easily as they had thought, but there was a surprise that they hadn't foreseen. The floor level of the stockroom was considerably lower than street level. Once in, the little fellow couldn't get out. !!

Once in, he was trapped....and panic set in.

What they did discover was that the storeroom was used to store paraffin as well as other stock. So they worked out a clever plan for the little fellow's escape.He would pour paraffin around the entire stockroom doorframe and set it alight with the matches he used to see his way round in the dark. Then he could push the door open and escape through the shop's front door by opening it from the inside. He followed 'big guys, instructions communicated through the window.

Flames and smoke, smoke and flames and more black paraffin smoke filled the stockroom. Now there was a real emergency.  Real life threatening danger.

The police just happened to be on patrol in a van, saw the bigger boy and the window . They got the story very quickly, called Sam, who lived above the shop . Sam opened the shop and the storeroom and saved the little fellow.

 The charge was breaking and entry with the intent of theft and malicious damage to property. The thinking was that the boys had something against Sam as a person

"We'll pay for the damages - just get Sam to drop the charges. Get decent quotes and we'll pay, but get him to drop the charges." ..... which for the sake of his business interests in the boys as his clients, Sam did fairly easily.

The motives behind both decisions had little to do with the two boys concerned One was to keep the incident  quiet for the sake of the Agencies reputation, The other to keep good relations with a customer base. but as it turned out , acted in the best interests of the little fellow especially. It gave us another chance with him. .. The bigger guy was transferred to a facility that had tighter security because of his influence over younger ones. But, given time over again, even that top management decision should have been reviewed.

But the principle needs to be discussed   "Pay the damages, drop the charges......What do you think?