Posted on 08/28/2006 11:41:03 AM PDT by kenn5
The parents of 17-year-old Liam Ashley, who was beaten to death en route to prison, say they were the ones who charged him with theft.
Ashley was found badly beaten in the back of a Chubb Security van on Thursday night. Although he was revived by paramedics at the scene, he died on Friday.
Ashley's family say his parents wanted to teach him a lesson about the consequences of breaking the law. He had taken his mother's car without permission so they had him charged him with theft.
On Thursday Ashley appeared at the North Shore District Court. The judge offered him bail but his parents chose to send him to prison as a deterrent.
But on the trip to Auckland Central Remand prison, he was believed to have been strangled and assaulted by two others in the van.
Ashley's family have issued a statement listing 10 questions they want answered, such as why was a 17-year-old with no history of serious crime or violence was transported unattended with more serious offenders?
Head of Public Prisons Harry Hawthorne says that "best practice would be that young prisoners should be separated from older prisoners. That may not always be possible."
Chubb Security says it is investigating the incident but will not comment further.
Police, the Department of Corrections and Chubb Security are all running separate investigations but no arrests have yet been made.
I never did it.
That said, I agree their response was just a little over the top for someone who apparently wasn't a serious, chronic problem. Obviously, they couldn't know he was going to get killed but it's something they should have asked themselves before taking this action with their own *minor* son for *borrowing* a parents car without permission.
One no longer has a franchise, as an upstanding member of society.
A lesson these parents just learned, if they can absorb it.
I think your comments are the worst crud I've read on FR and you are the disgusting one.
Stuff like this only happens when parents have total faith in the state. You would have to be an absolute socialist to have this mentality. Faith in socialism always brings the same result, what a coincidence.
You're right and your tagline says it all. Self righteous creeps trying to teach tough love to their kid. Tough way for them to learn a life lesson.
No kidding. What kind of idiot would do this to a kid? Just to teach him a lesson!
I never did. In fact I had to buy my own vehicle before I could drive myself places.
but you don't send your child to prison over something like that. You ground them, tell them they can't go to the prom, etc. In other words, you deal with it yourself and don't use the "nanny state" by sending them to jail on our tax dollars.
We don't have the whole story. I doubt the parents got to this point without trying everything they could come up with. And this was not a child. you can't spank him unless he lets you (unlikely). Beat him? then You'll be the one in jail. Let him keep doing what ever he wants - with whomever he wants' belongings as you suggest? Now who's tax dollars are poorly spent.
If your 14 year old steals money from your wallet, are you going to throw him in a pond with alligators to "teach him a lesson"???
This was not a 14 year old, (You should read the articles first). A 14 year old you can still spank, and physically enforce a grounding if necessary. This was a 17 year old man. When I was 17, I was a private in the Marine Corps - you think my parents could have disciplined me if they tried?
In this day and age it is idiotic to send a young kid to jail for an offense as trivial as borrowing the car without asking.
That's true but there was no young kid involved in this story, and having been told you cant makes it stealing not "not asking".
The parents can now enjoy the silent years of the fruit of their regretful stupidity.
The young man's death is not the fault of the parents, who did the right thing.
It's you who plays the socialist game, by apparently approving of turning the kid over to the state to do the job of the parents. This is a perfect example of why government should not be involved in social programs. They are hardwired systems unable to adapt to any subtleties and only able to bungle through following their bureaucratic rules.
The age of adulthood is 18, not 17. A fine distinction but since you are hardnosed, it should be made for you.
I believe that the judge and the jury who heard the young man's case were in a position to accurately assess the man's culpability and maturity. I do not support the mentality that believes serious consequences must never be meted out until age 18, sorry - you'll have to try to sell that concept to someone who was never on the receiving end of violent juvenile offenders - which I personally was as a child.
Whatever your subjective view of these things, the law is the law. 17 is still a juvenile, no matter how big a criminal we are talking about. (And this little punk borrowed mom's car without asking). He was still a kid. He was 17. The law is the law.
Nope This punk was told the car was off limits to him - so he stole it. That was determined by a judge and jury. The Law is the Law, and it doesn't matter that this punk was willing to victimize anyone he felt like at any particular moment. His parents, his neighbors just whoever... Well he found out that the law is the law and it says jail is appropriate for grand theft auto regardless of age. He chose his path. I feel sorry for his poor parents not him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.