PDA

View Full Version : Parental Responsability


Living For Love
January 10th, 2017, 07:46 AM
The term "parental responsibility" (criminally speaking) refers to the potential or actual liability that may be incurred by parents for the behaviour of their children. This means that, since in some countries children can't be jailed for their actions, or can't be held responsible, the parents of those children (or any individual who has lawful custody of, or a lawful right of access to, the child) are the ones who should go to jail and be held responsible.

In the US, some states have laws that automatically hold parents financially responsible for all expenses associated with false 911 calls and impose prison terms to the parents if the child commits a serious crime or if the child uses a gun owned by the parents to commit a crime.

Generally, a person has no legal “duty to act” and is not responsible for the actions of others. Under common law, parents are not responsible for the torts or criminal actions of their children. The exception to this rule is the "negligent supervision" concept when parents are negligent in some way and therefore become liable. Generally, the tort of negligent supervision creates liability if the parents entrust their child with a dangerous instrument or if the parents are aware of their child’s vicious propensities (Hanson, 1989a, 1989b; Levine, 1984).

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1551&context=psychfacpub


Parental delinquency is usually the cause of the juvenile delinquency (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2708328/), although that there are many other social, cultural and economic causes that should be addressed.

So, my questions are:
- do you think it's fair that the parents of the child are jailed for a crime committed by the child?
- what are the causes, in your opinion, of juvenile delinquency?
- how should the government tackle juvenile delinquency?

Just JT
January 10th, 2017, 08:28 AM
I think that depends on the crime or offense. As in your example, a young child getba hold of a parents loaded unsecured gun, saybthe kids like 5, and kills someone. That kid in no way understands what he did. But the parents were wrong by allowing that kid to getbthat gun when it wasn't stored or secured properly.

In my opinion what causes it, mostly bad parenting. If parents don't care or aren't present, set no limits on their kids then the kids can domas they please. And never being taught the proper morals of their culture and family. There are some outliers to that theory, but is my opinion, based on personal experience and first hand knowledge.

How to stop it? I think that's guna take more cash than the government has or is willing to spend. We'd need to restructure pretty much the entire juvenile justice system into something more rehabilitative than punitive.

Living For Love
January 10th, 2017, 09:23 AM
How to stop it? I think that's guna take more cash than the government has or is willing to spend. We'd need to restructure pretty much the entire juvenile justice system into something more rehabilitative than punitive.
Would you be willing, as a taxpayer, to have public funds being invested in rehabilitating delinquent kids if the cause of their delinquency was bad parenting?

Just JT
January 10th, 2017, 09:32 AM
Would you be willing, as a taxpayer, to have public funds being invested in rehabilitating delinquent kids if the cause of their delinquency was bad parenting?

You serious?
Yeah, I would
Cause if I didn't I would be against my very own existence in life
That's what's supported me for a long time

bentheplayer
January 10th, 2017, 11:12 AM
First of all I think we should be clear that there is no total fairness even in the law but the law is usually set to try attain some form of fairness as understood by a particular society/country.

The law regarding criminal parental responsibility due to negligent supervision seems somewhat fair to me. The way it is worded makes the parents liable only in a very narrow spectrum of possibilities. Parents are generally expected to be able to teach their kids and bring them up well otherwise social services will intervene and may even terminal parental rights. In the case of gun ownership, most countries require a permit of some form with an agreement that the owner keeps the firearm and munitions in a safe place away from children. Hence if a really young child were to use a gun to kill someone, the degree of blame still rests largely on the parents for 1) not providing adequate supervision over their kids (flouting the child abuse and neglect laws) 2) not abiding by the requirements of the gun permit.

For the case of the child calling 911, its a bit more tricky. One could argue that the homeowner has the responsibility of enforcing the rules in their homes and are responsible for what happens in their homes. Hence by extension, they should be liable when their kids call 911. But for practical purpose, I don't think most states will immediately impose such fines and would give the parents enough warnings/chances to rectify the situation perhaps by making the phones out of reach of their kids.

Beyond a certain age, it would be impractical to hold parents responsible for their children actions unless we were to accept that parents are not limited in their powers over their children. Think of it this way, how would you stop a child from doing something you know is wrong? It is actually pretty difficult is the child refuses to obey.

As for delinquency, I think, as you rightly point out, is a multi-factorial issue. One main reason I believe parental delinquency leads to child delinquency is because the kids won't know any better. If one were to grow up in that environment their idea of normal is our idea of delinquency. Also, to be fair to them, they tend to live in deprived areas with minimal economic prospects and knowledge on how to live better. There has been many research findings that supports this. Social mobility isn't as fluid as we think. Children (biological or adopted) from middle class homes are able to stay middle class as they are equip with skills (financial literacy/how to get jobs/legal parameters/etc)that are passed on to them by their parents.

Other types of juvenile delinquency could be due to a result of attention seeking impulses, pure rebelliousness, a disregard for authority or even a borderline medical issue where they can't control themselves.

It is all too easy to condemn people who we consider as delinquent but they too have their fair share of problems that we are privileged enough to not face. Broadly speaking, I agree with JT that society should focus more on the rehabilitative aspects for juvi rather than just punishing them. Punishing them all the time will only create a cycle of hate and anger in those kids.

Bob billy
January 13th, 2017, 11:29 AM
I don't like how discipline is being phased out. That's why we are getting poorly behaved kids more than ever now.

Flapjack
January 14th, 2017, 06:21 PM
So, my questions are:
- do you think it's fair that the parents of the child are jailed for a crime committed by the child?
It depends soo much on the situation! If a parent leaves a handgun on the table and a child shoots someone with it then of course jail the parent but if a kid steals some polos then it is not the parents fault.

- what are the causes, in your opinion, of juvenile delinquency?
Mental illnesses, bad home environment, parents being too controlling and possibly corporal punishment and bullying are what I imagine would be the biggest causes.

- how should the government tackle juvenile delinquency?
Send them to special schools where they can get both the discipline and emotional support they need but most importantly they need home for the future. if they were acting out because of abuse then that need to be stopped and if they believe they are going nowhere in life because they are failing school, they need to be taught other skills or get them the grades.

Living For Love
January 16th, 2017, 01:48 PM
Beyond a certain age, it would be impractical to hold parents responsible for their children actions unless we were to accept that parents are not limited in their powers over their children. Think of it this way, how would you stop a child from doing something you know is wrong? It is actually pretty difficult is the child refuses to obey.
Most of the times, we're not talking about children, we're talking about teenagers who can perfectly distinguish between good actions and bad actions. The problem is that the education they had (or didn't have) during their childhood and early teenage years might lead them to delinquency. It's not only about stopping your child from doing something bad, it's also about raising them and teaching them to respect others, and that can only be done when they're young children.

As for delinquency, I think, as you rightly point out, is a multi-factorial issue. One main reason I believe parental delinquency leads to child delinquency is because the kids won't know any better. If one were to grow up in that environment their idea of normal is our idea of delinquency. Also, to be fair to them, they tend to live in deprived areas with minimal economic prospects and knowledge on how to live better. There has been many research findings that supports this. Social mobility isn't as fluid as we think. Children (biological or adopted) from middle class homes are able to stay middle class as they are equip with skills (financial literacy/how to get jobs/legal parameters/etc)that are passed on to them by their parents.
I agree social-economic factors play an important role.

It depends soo much on the situation! If a parent leaves a handgun on the table and a child shoots someone with it then of course jail the parent but if a kid steals some polos then it is not the parents fault.
Who's going to pay for the [insert stolen item], then?

[...] parents being too controlling [...]
Could you please explain how over-controlling parenting can lead to juvenile delinquency?

bentheplayer
January 17th, 2017, 07:20 AM
Most of the times, we're not talking about children, we're talking about teenagers who can perfectly distinguish between good actions and bad actions. The problem is that the education they had (or didn't have) during their childhood and early teenage years might lead them to delinquency. It's not only about stopping your child from doing something bad, it's also about raising them and teaching them to respect others, and that can only be done when they're young children.

I think you are mixing up the issue here. By legal definition, United Nations define a child as anyone aged below 18. Depending on scenario, a child’s age can even stretch up to 26, usually for health insurance coverage purposes.

Firstly it depends on the specific national law that you are referring to. I was merely pointing out that criminal parental responsibility only exists up to very limited extent; usually it ends once a child reaches the age of criminal responsibility. While arguably arbitrary, most countries globally have a much lower age of criminal responsibility(10+) than the age of majority(18-21) which is usually higher than the juvi/adult age line(16-18). Children who are over the age of criminal responsibility but younger than the legal age of adult criminal responsibility will be sentenced by juvi(youth) courts and sent to juvi centres. There had been talks about changing the age of criminal responsibility to a test that determines whether a child is able to live up to the moral and psychological components of it but I don’t think any country has implemented this yet.

If you are talking about teenage delinquency, this group of offenders are tried in juvi where the approach is usually more rehabilitative in nature than retributive and they get sent to juvi centres instead of jail. That said, most countries usually have statutory exclusions where murder or violent crime cases gets tried in adult criminal court where the said court gets exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the accused age. Yes life can be pretty harsh for this group of teens especially those who come from broken homes but then again life isn’t fair. The only way we can ensure that everyone has been through the same education and start off in the same playing field is for the state to take over the care of all kids; a policy that will never be accepted by any developed country.

I am not sure if you have ever encountered difficult kids before. When I was 13 I joined some tutoring program to help kids from the more disadvantaged backgrounds in their studies. It was kinda a nightmarish experience for me but I learnt loads there. Those kids view the world and society in a very different manner from us. You can’t expect them to be good and study when they don’t see the point of it. They don’t know or even have the means to get any opportunities. To them, life is about playing with friends. If they were unlucky and mixed with wrong crowd they ended up become what society calls delinquents with anti-social behaviour. As a human being, I feel for these kids but in all honesty there isn’t much that I can do nor can I see any solution. I can’t blame these kids’ parents either as they are all busy trying to make a living. Bread and butter issues will and has to be prioritised over their kids’ behaviour.

Ultimately, the law usually doesn’t care about a person’s upbringing, knowledge (of the law) or circumstances. These can also be used as mitigating factors but in the eyes of the law every person has the ability to choose right from wrong. The law is far from perfect but that is what it is.

I agree social-economic factors play an important role.

As much as social-economic factors play an important role there will always be people from a lower economic background. That’s life in the current capitalist economic regime. The global middle class is supported by low wage jobs just like how the wealthy are supported by the global middle class. You have probably heard about the biological food chain but never the economic food chain cos it is too unPC.

Who's going to pay for the [insert stolen item], then?

I believe the shop will simply have to pay for it by writing off the item. This will be simply considered as a cost of doing business. An analogy would be the debts of a deceased person. If the deceased person’s estate can’t pay of the debts the collectors will have no choice but to write off the debt as children and relatives are not liable and can’t be legally forced to cough up (Co-signers are still liable tho).

Could you please explain how over-controlling parenting can lead to juvenile delinquency?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/collections/201311/rich-kids-in-trouble

Juvenile delinquency can manifest in many forms. Kids with helicopter parents and those from wealthier backgrounds have a greater tendency towards substance abuse which is easily covered up by their parents. It is present just not seen, unlike the types of overt acts favoured by those from less privileged backgrounds.

Hyper
January 26th, 2017, 01:09 AM
So, my questions are:
- do you think it's fair that the parents of the child are jailed for a crime committed by the child?
- what are the causes, in your opinion, of juvenile delinquency?
- how should the government tackle juvenile delinquency?

- Yes and slightly no. In principal yes parents should be responsible for their children, but sometimes circumstances in a household are not ideal for raising a child.

- The dissolution of the family unit, lots of fatherless children, poverty, mental health - the last two mostly tie into single parenthood households.

- Hell if I know. Somehow deal with poverty (not through welfare) and propagate the family model again.

NewLeafsFan
January 28th, 2017, 06:17 PM
I think that its a good thing that parents are finally being held responsible for creating this worlds monsters. Many people dont realize how much their childhood continually effects the rest of their life.