The nine-year-old stole a 14-stick pack of Trident “Layers” chewing gum…worth $1.48. He’d lingered by the beverage isle…for a while before bailing out the front door. The theft led to a missed court appearance, which led to an arrest and a night spent in a juvenile jail. The next day, the third-grader appeared in court, chained and shackled.

I understand the general point this story is making. And I generally agree with the obvious notion of detrimental psychological effects of cuffing kids - especially kids under the age of 13 - for “non-violent” offenses.

However, when examining this story more closely, is it reasonable to assume that stealing a pack of gum was not the nine-year-old subject’s first offense? After all, he missed his court appearance for that gum theft! How and why did he miss his court appearance?

Unfortunately, the only other context given about the nine-year-old gum thief, is a quote from his mother:

“He feels already like he’s the outcast of the family, like he’s not as good as everybody else,” she said, adding that he fears becoming like his father, who has served time in jail.

Furthermore, article author, Bryan Schatz’, comment about the American Bar Association’s stance is humorously confusing:

The ABA argues that these anti-shackling principles observed in adult court should apply with equal, if not greater, force for children.

I am not a lawyer, but how could anti-shackling principles be applied with greater force for children?