SXMElections.com

PHILIPSBURG--A sixteen-year-old boy showed some responsibility as he made a full admission to the five burglaries he stood trial for. The burglaries had been committed in the presence of, depending on which burglary, one or two older boys, who were already sentenced a few months ago and who had emphasised during their trial that it was the juvenile who was to blame and who had taken the lead.

That picture did not match the remorseful young man who came to court respectably dressed and who had already made clear steps to improve his behaviour, judging by a report of the Court of Guardianship.

The boy had committed burglaries in Diamond Estate Drive in July 2013, Venus Drive in August 2013, Sarsapilla Road in April 2014, Puma Road and Hamster Drive in June 2014. During the last burglary, a local witness had spotted the boy and his co-accused carrying a bag out of the property. The police were called and the burglars were caught red-handed.

DNA and fingerprint evidence, as well as admissions, then linked the boy back to the earlier burglaries, in which laptops, tablets, IPads, telephones and jewellery were stolen. In one burglary, nothing was taken because the boy "hadn't seen anything he liked."

A firm hand had already been taken in turning the boy away from crime, with significant input from the Court of Guardianship, but also by the boy's father who, it was remarked upon in court, was better at setting rules than the boy's mother. The boy had moved in with his father, was now attending school on a daily basis, and his father had organised a summer job for him, which may become permanent if the boy works hard.

It was stated in the report by the Court of Guardianship that the boy was very shaken during his period in pre-trial detention, and had stated that he wished to avoid going back. It also stated that the burglaries had taken place under the influence and in the presence of older so-called friends.

The boy appeared well spoken and intelligent and gave appropriate answers when the judge addressed him and pointed out how he had damaged the feeling of safety of the people's homes he invaded. Her stern address hit home, and the boy confirmed that he now felt stronger in saying no when older friends asked him to do something he felt was not right.

The prosecutor pointed out that despite the boy's progress, he had committed five serious offences, and asked for him to be tried as an adult. She felt the boy should not return to incarceration because of his progress, but rather should be sentenced in a way that taught him a lesson. She demanded a sentence equal to the 27 days he had already spent in prison, plus a suspended sentence of two years.

The judge, agreeing with the seriousness of the case, nevertheless pointed out that the boy had been just fifteen at the time of the offences, and should therefore be tried as a juvenile. She sentenced him to a suspended sentence which consisted placing him under state observation, a sentence of an indefinite time until the child's 21st birthday, allowing the state to place the child in an institute, and a 100 hour work requirement.

As the sentence was suspended with a probation period of three years with conditions to abide by the guidance and regulations of the Court of Guardianship and participation in the Force of the Youth (FOTY) programme of group sessions, counselling and mentoring, the boy will be forced to toe the line during the next three years, or risk incarceration.