Flare Phoenix said:
Snip snip-
Check the law: ignorance of it is no excuse for breaking it. Assuming the kid didn't know what he was doing was wrong (which, as I should point out, has nothing to do with the fact the kid is austistic; any young kid probably wouldn't know what cheating is...), the mature thing to do would've been to say "Well I didn't know that was cheating but I do for next time".
Now assuming the kid was incapable of understanding what he did was cheating, it would be up to the mother to make that call for him. The article quite clearly stated the mother warned her kid against what he was doing, so your argument really holds no water.
Don't get me wrong, there are some rules I don't agree with. For example, I believe it is disgusting down here in Australia gays are not allowed to get married. However, I fully believe that breaking the law is grounds for just punishment for doing so.
I'm so tired of people like you trying to put people with disabilities on some kind of pedastal. I've seen plenty of cases where people, without any form of disability, have done something with their Xbox they weren't aware was considered cheating. Why should this austistic kid get his points back over those other people?
You cannot have one set of rules for one person, and another set of rules for everyone else. As I've said before, the fact this kid was autistic has less than nothing to do with this case; any young kid probably wouldn't understand what this kid did would be considered as cheating. It would be up to the mother to prevent her kid from doing it, and if the mother also didn't know then that sucks for the kid, but by no means does that mean he should get his points back.
*sigh* If a mentally retarded person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. If a normal person does something wrong, I expect them to get some form of punishment. Obviously, there would be differing circumstances in some cases (what pleading insanity is for, afterall). However, no one should be allowed to do something wrong and get off scott free.
But hey, it's good to see the mother's desperate attempt for sympathy has worked on you. Any young kid would probably look at this and say "Well I don't understand what I did was cheating", but just because the kid is austistic you feel he should be given a free ride.
Hell take it even further, you punish a little kid for anything and chances are they're going to have no idea what they did was wrong (until you punish them for it enough times, they get the picture).
My entire point was about agency. Ignorance of the law, and the incapability to understand the law are two different things. Do we punish a train for crashing and killing people? No, because it's a frigging train. If the autistic kid is capable of understanding the situation and just hasn't learned to, then yes, punishing him actually accomplishes something. But if he just isn't going to understand anyway, then there's no real point other than upholding some grand abstracted idea of 'Justice' or personal vengeance.
Why? Why do people cling to these ideas of objective morality? It's all just a construct. There's just no need to have stringent un-bendable codes. Each situation is different, the more adaptable the system the better off it is. Now I don't know if you have this in Australia, but in America we have a thing called 'jury nullification'. This happens when the entire jury finds the law to be lacking in the particular situation, they vote the defendant innocent, even though he or she is guilty under the law. To clarify, this isn't a term that just describes what sometimes happens in spite of the law, IT IS PART OF THE LAW. The law is bendable because it does not arise out of some sort of eternal metaphysical code of right and wrong, but out of the needs of society.
But you don't seem to understand that I'm making a more general point. In this situation, the mother did cheat, and the kid may very well know what he did was wrong, in which case he should have been punished because it means that he won't do it next time. But that being said, I feel more sympathy for the kid because of his situation. Really the mother is the one who is really morally culpable, and she's the one who will know better for next time.
One final thing. People with disabilities should get special treatment. The special treatment should just be proportional to the disability. You wouldn't say a paraplegic is a bad person for not pulling someone out of a burning car would you? They can't. A person with Tourette's should be excused for shouting obscenities. Etc. Etc. If the autistic person doesn't understand what they're doing, they should be excused as well. Notice I am saying "doesn't understand what they're doing" which is different from simply being ignorant of the law.