Scenario: Pulled over for doing 15 over the limit in a park zone. Groan... This ticket is going to be big. So embarrassing, kids in the car.
Result: Pay the fine, complain to friends about overzealous cops, move on.
Scenario: Kid get hauled into the principal's office over some playground scuffle. Not sure who started, it, both kids get detention and a note sent home.
Result: Parent reads the note, sends child to room to think about what he's done, goes online and asks if other parents think he should also lose access to all electronics for the evening.
The child in the scenario above was already metaphorically sent to the penalty box, twice, and now parents are discussing how high the fine should be.
The argument is that the kid needs to learn 'the real world' results of breaking the rules.
Does she need to 'learn the real world results'? (I'm not so sure about that... but I'm also not so sure she isn't going to, anyhow. Like, how do you stop her from learning about the world she's actually living in?)
Suppose the answer to that is yes, for a moment (I'm not conceding it, but I will entertain the though for a moment) --the next obvious question is:
Are these 'real world' results?The child has been punished (by the school.) The child has further been punished (jailtime for kids = go to your room.) Now the parents are talking about a third penalty for the same infraction.
In the 'real world' there are not many jurisdictions where you can be tried twice for the same crime, much less sentenced three times for it. Multiple murders don't result in multiple sentences per murder. Individual crimes need to be picked out, and convicted, before there can be more than one sentence. There is nothing 'real world' about this.
This is really just about taking out on kids whatever happened to parents as kids, isn't it?