Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir_Desir
well in my opinion it is generally wrong to impose punishment on a minor that affects him for life. Who does it hurt? Him obviously. As a first time offender, he should be given the chance to prove that he is willing to change. And there should be harder sanctions for mor major fraud, or for cheating at games at much higher stakes. If you hand out lifetime bans for every case of cheating, you take away any chance to differentiate.
If i were the judge, i'd salomonically ban him for life from junior events.
I think that's too arbitrary of a rule. I have no problem with the concept of juvenile courts and separating the punishments, but there's no need for lesser issues than crime to be tied directly to the same standards. There's nothing magical about 18 that means a person is suddenly fully responsible for their actions than they were before.
In my profession of journalism, the cardinal sin is fabrication of stories. In almost all the major incidents of fabrication, digging into the offender's past has shown that it wasn't a random incident in adulthood, but a pattern that began to show itself at a young age. The recidivism rate for offenses of dishonesty is generally huge. A person who will cheat at 16 is incredibly likely to still be a cheater at 26, 37, 57, etc.
In this case, chess's incentive to keep out dishonest players outweighs this kid's rights to a second chance when he enters adulthood, precisely because the punishment is not draconic at all. In a very large world of full of possibilities, he gets to have all of his options still available to him except play in rated chess tournaments. That is not draconic, but sensible.