Parents should be punished for their kid's crime?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: WindWip They are. But this brings up the question of why parents should be responsible for damage that a child does (graffiti/vandalism) yet they should not be responsible for attacking another person.

They should be financially responsible for any damages from the assault -- medical bills, lost wages, maybe pain and suffering -- but they are not criminally liable. The purpose of criminal proceedings is to assign guilt (obviously), and then to take action to ensure that this won't happen again. The connection between punishment through fines and jail time, and the prevention of future crimes, is tenuous enough as it is; I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a properly chastised parent is going to be able to ensure the child will not commit another offense.

If it is justice you want, then as I said above: punish the one who committed the crime. Once we get into who is to blame for making the criminal into a bad person, we have opened a whole new kettle of fish -- and we have also excused the criminal of all responsibility for his or her act. Neither is a good precedent.

[brien]

Quote by: WindWip They are. But this brings up the question of why parents should be responsible for damage that a child does (graffiti/vandalism) yet they should not be responsible for attacking another person.

It probably has to do with the criminal code as opposed to the civil code.

[brien]

Quote by: ZNFYRH brien I agree with you, but I thought parents were already accountable for civil damages?

They are.

[brien]

If it is justice you want, then as I said above: punish the one who committed the crime. Once we get into who is to blame for making the criminal into a bad person, we have opened a whole new kettle of fish -- and we have also excused the criminal of all responsibility for his or her act. Neither is a good precedent

Well stated CS. What is to stop the state from blaming someone else for the criminal behaviour of another, and then letting the perpetrator go? This reasoning is as asinine as it is irresponsible. It makes no sense in a just society.

[Kamehameha34]

They are. But this brings up the question of why parents should be responsible for damage that a child does (graffiti/vandalism) yet they should not be responsible for attacking another person.

Because compensating for the damages shouldn't have to be put on hold to account for the vastly limited income of children.

However, children have no shortage of time on their hands.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The connection between punishment through fines and jail time, and the prevention of future crimes, is tenuous enough as it is; I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a properly chastised parent is going to be able to ensure the child will not commit another offense.

But would you say that they would be more likely to try to prevent their child from committing the crime? Personally I believe that alot of crime that is committed by children stems from either lack of parental involvement or a lack of skill in parenting. If a parent was required to pay a fine for the child's vandalism I think that would encourage their involvemment in the childs life. I believe in a parenting class as part of punishment because that helps to give parents the tools(skills) to help their child not commit a crime.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Rinoa But would you say that they would be more likely to try to prevent their child from committing the crime? Personally I believe that alot of crime that is committed by children stems from either lack of parental involvement or a lack of skill in parenting. If a parent was required to pay a fine for the child's vandalism I think that would encourage their involvemment in the childs life. I believe in a parenting class as part of punishment because that helps to give parents the tools(skills) to help their child not commit a crime.

Those both sound fine to me: classes and fines, absolutely. But in both cases, these should be seen as sanctions imposed on irresponsible parents, not as punishment for criminal actions. If that was what the OP intended, that the criminal child pay for their own crime, AND the parents suffer some kind of penalty such as you describe here, then I'm happy with that, personally.

But what a sad state of affairs when we have to encourage a parent's involvement in a child's life by imposing a fine after criminal action.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Those both sound fine to me: classes and fines, absolutely. But in both cases, these should be seen as sanctions imposed on irresponsible parents, not as punishment for criminal actions. If that was what the OP intended, that the criminal child pay for their own crime, AND the parents suffer some kind of penalty such as you describe here, then I'm happy with that, personally. But what a sad state of affairs when we have to encourage a parent's involvement in a child's life by imposing a fine after criminal action.

I agree that it's pathetic, but something must be done, and I can't think of anything better.

[Athena]

Quote by: Rinoa I'd like to see an expansion upon this post. What do you mean by liberal education? Do you believe that parents or schools are responsible for the development of the childs moral beliefs?

We live in an amoral society and public education has promoted this, as well as media decisions. The change in education came before the change in media. Our national values have radically changed since the radical change in public education. It is our nature to conform to social pressure and the masses extert much greater social pressure than the parents of teenagers can. On the other hand, the organization of Mormons and early training of Mormon children is the kind of social pressure that molds individuals.

I don't know how to answer your question, considering it doesn't seem an apprepriate question. It is like asking if I think bird parents should be responsible for teaching their offspring to sing. Bird parents are not separate from the flock, and human parents are not separate from the culture that influences their children. On the other hand, public education is so powerful, it can change our national values.

[Athena]

How about this- when my daughter was 14, a well meaning school counselor, helped her decide to go live with her aunt, without consulting with me. The school allowed my daughter to use the school phone to make all the arrangements to live with her aunt in another state. Further more, the school assured her a ride to the bus station after she got to school on the school bus. All of this was done without my knowledge.

How do you think I felt about this and the harm done to my position as the responsible parent?

I will argue public schools have usurped the authority over children, with the intent of preparing them for an technological society with unknown values. Our children are thought of as products to prepare for industry, and this was the mentality of our world war enemy. Many parents have decided to home school their children to have control over their children's education. This was not an option when I raised my children. I also was totally unaware of any reason to not rely on public education, until things went very wrong on a national scale and we announced a national youth crisis, and I began investigating why we would have a national youth crisis. That announcement completely changed my understanding of what happened to our children and nation.