Some children in the Year 6 'Bubble 1' chose to write a discussion piece on whether Peter should have been found guilty for stealing coal. They are reading the Railway Children as their core text.
Should Peter be found guilty
for taking coal?
Most people
understand that taking something that does not belong to them is considered
stealing. In a book called The Railway Children, Peter (who is ten-years-old)
is put in a situation where he takes something without asking anyone. However,
he just wanted to help out his family. Was it a right choice to make?
Guilty:
The first reason why Peter should be guilty is that the train master
bought the coal with his own money and if you take something from the shops
without paying for it that is considered stealing, just like what Peter has
done. Surely he should know by now, as he is 10 years old.
Surely you should know that Peter has been warned when he was first at
the railway station as he was talking to a porter about it. The porter has told
Peter that they mark the coal so if someone would take it they would notice,
but Peter being Peter did not listen and took the coal.
As you may know Peter has been at school and should have been told that
stealing is wrong. Peter comes from a very educated family and was probably
warned so he should have known not to steal. Even though he has not been at
school for a long time because all of the moving the family went through, he
should still remember that stealing is bad.
Not Guilty:
On the other hand, all Peter wanted to do was to provide his family
with a warm house as they are poor now and did not have much money. Surely you
would not want them to be cold and get ill. All he wanted to do was help. Peter
did not know that taking a bit of coal was considered stealing.
In addition, if the train master did not catch Peter taking some coal,
he wouldn’t have noticed as there was plenty of coal and it would not make a
difference if Peter have taken a bit of it. It would take so long to use the
coal so if he took some of it, it would be fine.
You probably don’t know, but Peter loves to role play so how do you
know that Peter was going to take it home? He might have been role playing
because his sisters were there and he also said that he was coal mining. Peter
wouldn’t have done it if he had known it was wrong.
In conclusion I believe that he isn’t guilty because Peter didn’t
actually leave the building with the coal so that means he didn’t take any of
the coal home. What do you think? Do you
think Peter is guilty?
Thursday 25th June 2020
By: Roberta (Year 6)
The first reason why
Peter is guilty is because the station master had already bought the
coal so Peter did not have the right to take any. Furthermore, in their first
interaction, the station master had told Peter not to try and take any coal but
Peter did not listen and took it regardless. Surely a ten year old boy could
understand what the station master meant.
Moving on, Peter had
received a good education at school. Surely he was told that stealing is wrong.
Also they should have spoken to Peter about the consequences of taking someone
else’s belongings. As a ten-year-old boy, he is able to understand that it was
not the right choice to make.
In addition Peter’s
older sister, Roberta, just watched and giggled behind the bush with his other
sister, Phyllis. Roberta should have been a role model and told Peter what is
right and what is wrong. No one can deny this is what Roberta should have done.
On the flipside,
Peter was really trying to do a good deed for his family. Peter’s family has
become a lot poorer and couldn’t afford fires like they used to be able to. Peter only intended to provide his family
with a warm house. Also it was all a game in his eyes since he had a massive
imagination and often made up his own fantasy worlds.
Furthermore, Peter
didn’t really take the coal as he didn’t leave the building with it Peter’s
family should be able to have a warm house. You do understand that Peter was
really just trying to do a good thing, right?
Finally, the train
station has thousands of coal and a little kid like Peter wouldn’t be able to
take a lot of coal. Also it would take years for the train station to run out
of coal.
Having viewed both
sides, I believe Peter is not guilty and should be let off just this once. A
fair punishment would be not be allowed to go back to the train station for a
week. His siblings, however, will be allowed because they didn’t really take
part in the situation.
25.06.20 Writer: Faris
Guilty:
First of all, days
before Peter’s ‘crime’, a Porter warned him that if he tried to steal the coal
he would be caught. Peter being 10 years old should have known to take that
warning seriously. As witnesses can agree, the Station Master said ‘Stealing is
stealing and what’s mine isn’t yours even if you say it isn’t ’.
Moreover, most people
would agree that at school they are taught at least once that stealing is a
crime and if you do it and get caught, there would be consequences. Peter,
coming from a wealthy family, surely has
learnt that taking something that doesn’t belong to you is considered breaking
the law. Peter is constantly ignoring his warnings and for that reason he
should be punished.
Lastly, Peter has 2
sisters- Roberta and Phyllis. Roberta is the oldest- and as the oldest she
should have been a better influence and told him not to commit a crime.
Instead, Roberta and her younger sister, Phyllis hid in a bush giggling at him.
It wasn’t until later when they decided that they should help Peter carry the
coal to come forward. This means they were involved in the crime and should
also be punished.
Not guilty:
On the flipside,
Peter never said that he was going to steal the coal. His sisters and mother
would agree that Peter had a great passion for roleplaying as a bandit. So
maybe Peter ‘taking the coal’ was just that, a role-play. You cannot punish him
unless you have solid proof that he left the building with the coal. Which
leads me to my next point.
Furthermore, Peter
never left the building with the coal. So no one can agree or deny that he was
there just to play. This means you cannot punish him just yet. If Peter left
the building with the coal, that would be a different story. I can understand
that he’s supposed to know better. However, what if he did not know? I strongly
believe that if he knew it was wrong he would not have done this.
Lastly, Peter’s
family did admit that they are now poor. Peter, being the only boy in the
house, wanted to step up and try to do a good deed. He said ‘I was only trying
to help my family’. Surely you wouldn’t want his family to be cold, would you?
In conclusion, after
considering both sides, I think Peter is innocent because he only meant good
intentions. However, he should be punished by working at the station so that he
understands that what he did was wrong. I also think he should keep the coal to
help his family so that they can keep warm on rainy days.
25.06.20 Writer: Delia (Year 6)
No comments:
Post a Comment