Idicy knows no bounds (part 2) (or is it)

[Oneeyedvic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8308946.stm

A man has been jailed for 18 months for allowing a three-year-old child to smoke.

Newcastle Crown Court heard that the girl asked Graeme Conroy, 31, for a cigarette and when she started smoking it was filmed on a mobile phone.

The court heard that the child had smoked three cigarettes before the filming took place.

Conroy, from Ashington, Northumberland, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering or injury to health.

Now at first view, this appears to be quite acceptable (the sentence, not the behaviour)

But I bet that most of the people on this site have had their first 'taste' of alcohol at around this age - a little bit of beer from dad's glass or similar. And most adults in a group would see it as a bit of fun.

Is there much difference between giving a child a 'tot' and giving a child a smoke?

[jake-the-peg]

I know what you mean - Very stupid behaviour but does it warrent a gaol term?

If the child were 10 or 11 would he have got prison?

Sounds like an emotional decision based on the age of the child as opposed to any real evidence of the damage caused.

But you can't really tell from the scant details in a news report like this

[LoftyLottie]

I think so Vic. Our doctor recommended a small amount of red wine for my son who wouldn't settle to sleep when he was younger than 3!! However, we didn't take up his suggestion.

On the continent children regularly drink wine diluted with water from a very young age and the kids grow up with a wiser understanding of alcohol.

I find that a child smoking three cigarettes and inhaling is absolutely dreadful. Yes, my son had a little sip of beer from our glasses - just a little sip. We drink in moderation and so does he now he is in his 20s.

This chap was using this child's naivity for his own amusement. The child, at 3, had no perception of why it was unwise to smoke - and surely 3 cigarettes on one occasion smoked and inhaled by a three year old could do damange.

[jno]

yes, I think so. I may be wrong but I think nicotine is more addictive than alcohol, and more deadly. And rather than a 'llittle bit of beer' (which most children wouldn't like, as the bitter taste buds on their tongues don't develop till puberty), this kid apparently got through more than three cigarettes.

More broadly, drinking is still basically a social activity and widely acceptable (though much abused). Cigarettes are essentially a private habit that gratifies the smoker and nobody else (indeed, they may even kill others) and so not one to receive public encouragement. That's not to say people don't smoke together, but it's not seen as a social lubricant in anything like the same way. So there's more tolerance for teaching kids to handle liquor, as Lottie suggests, than there is for getting three-year-olds hooked on nicotine.

[jno]

PS: and idiocy Part 3 would be filming it...

[daffy654]

Young children can get nicotine poisoning very easily from cigarettes (either smoking them or chewing them),even as few as 3 could cause them to be quite ill.

[fredpuli47]

It's illegal to give alcohol to a child under 5, except under medical supervision. Lofty, you'd have been off the hook I hope! ).

18 months seemed a bit on the high side, until the evidence of this not being one cigarette but one of several and the child inhaling and 'knowing what to do' , according to a witness quoted by the BBC. That makes 18 months wholly justified, in my book. News of it may act as a deterrent to others who might think this an amusing prank.

[LoftyLottie]

He he Fred! I must admit though that I don't remember how old he was when he first said 'Can I have a sip of your drink'? One sip was enough!!! He didn't ask for any more for a long time!! He probably was under 5!! As jno says children as a rule hate the taste of beer/wine, etc. I am sure that's what most very little kids do - just have a sip at their own request - not get poured some of their own!

[jake-the-peg]

I think Fred when you consider that many violent assaults on young adults receive considerably less gaol time than this (if at all) you'd have to agree that the gaol time is not in context with the harm done.

I't does seem that there was an idea of "acting as a deterrant" in the sentence but that seems a rather arbitary decision on the part of the trial judge. I'm not convinced a judge should take it on his own initiative that he should set a detterant sentence - after all legislation is set with guidance for sentences by legislators and the sentencing authorities.

However he did sit through all the details and have access to other information not reported in the few sentences we have here such as the defendant's past record, attitude and the detailed circumstances so we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions.

But I'd not be at all surprised to see this reduced on appeal