Friday's editorial incorrectly stated the three boys who started the Harrington Sound Primary School fire did so after a Boy Scout meeting. The fire was in fact started during the meeting.

The Juvenile Court's decision to send the three schoolboys who started the Harrington Sound Primary School fire to an approved society for a maximum of two years was the correct one.

The judgment, presented by Magistrate Carlisle Greaves on Wednesday and published in full in today's Royal Gazette , is logical and sensible.

While the decision is not set in stone because the boys' lawyers have indicated that they intend to appeal the sentence, it is hard to disagree with the basic logic of Mr. Greaves' decision.

Mr. Greaves' dilemma goes to the heart of justice. It is relatively easy to pass sentence on a person who is clearly evil. It is much harder to decide what is just for people who appear to be basically good, but who have committed a serious offence.

Clearly, the Harrington Sound fire was just that, both in terms of the physical damage -- $1.3 million worth -- and in the emotional damage done to the students, teachers and parents at the school.

And according to the judgment, the schoolboys are good too. They are good students, involved in the community and in extra-curricular activities and they are from solid families. They are even Boy Scouts. Indeed the fires were set after a Scout meeting.

But Mr. Greaves is right when he says: ".. .To every boy who comes from a good home, a good family, a good school, who is bright, learns well...would we be sending him the message that he can set fire in public buildings...causing million dollar damage, dislocation to users and walks away with mere probation if he has all the above qualifications...? "And what message would this court be sending to persons of lesser character, ability and understanding if they were to commit the same act or lesser acts?'' Had these youths been adults, they could have been imprisoned for seven years.

But given that the only options available to the court ranged from a maximum fine of $168, maximum compensation of $240, probation or committal to an approved society, it is difficult to see how the court could have come to any other decision.

It could, as the defence lawyers argued, have put them on probation. But probation would have been nothing less than a slap on the wrist given the gravity of the offence. It would have said to the community that youths were free to set fire to schools and do millions of dollars worth of damage and virtually walk away.

To do that, as Mr. Greaves notes, "may result in the spoilage of our youth and the hostaging of our community''.

Justice must be blind to be effective. It has to be blind to be fair. And it has to be blind to be trusted. Justice has to balance all mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence. For these boys the shock of staying in an approved society may be exactly what is needed to set them straight; and it will be a deterrent for those who may have considered committing a similar act.

Those who feel the sentence was too harsh should consider that the approved societies and the Minister of Health have the right to release a person in an approved society; if these boys show remorse and rehabilitation, they may still get home sooner than they would if they were serving a prison sentence.