Should parents be liable for their children's crimes?

[Delta4Embassy]

Hold a pet owner responsible for their pet's actions as if they bite someone, so why not hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children?

 

[Nutz]

YES! When these priviliged kids go on shooting sprees...the parents should certainly be held accountable.

 

[Anathema]

YES. Hold the parents of any minor or adult who still lives with their parents equally responsible for the actions of those they support.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe we should punish people for crimes committed by others. However, in the case of minor children who commit felonies, I think we should have a law which could apply to parents (or guardians) of said child under 'parental abuse' law. In other words, say your 14 year old intentionally shoots a classmate in a fit of rage, you could be charged as the parent for parental neglect. You're not charging them with the crime committed but at the same time, they do bear some responsibility for the actions of their child. I would be okay with something like that as opposed to charging them for their child's crime.

 

[September]

No.​

 

[Anathema]

No.​

So, who do we punish if we can't punish the minors and we won't punish the parents?

 

[MikeK]

Hold a pet owner responsible for their pet's actions as if they bite someone, so why not hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children?

In certain situations it would be justifiable to do so. But not in all situations.

I believe parents who are capable of properly influencing and controlling the behavior of their children but who instead apathetically ignore their children's anti-social tendencies should be held responsible for their conduct.

All children need to be disciplined -- some much more than others.

 

[MikeK]

I don't believe we should punish people for crimes committed by others. However, in the case of minor children who commit felonies, I think we should have a law which could apply to parents (or guardians) of said child under 'parental abuse' law. In other words, say your 14 year old intentionally shoots a classmate in a fit of rage, you could be charged as the parent for parental neglect. You're not charging them with the crime committed but at the same time, they do bear some responsibility for the actions of their child. I would be okay with something like that as opposed to charging them for their child's crime.

Do you believe our children are extensions of ourselves?

 

[Agit8r]

Hold a pet owner responsible for their pet's actions as if they bite someone, so why not hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children?

There are some situations where a case could be made. If say someone gives their idiot 16-year old a fast car, and he uses it to kill people for instance. Or if a parent teaches their child to hate a certain race, and their kid commits a hate crime against that race, that would be an obvious one.

 

[Care4all]

I think they should be held financially responsible in some cases....

not necessarily by Law.... I broke a neighbor's window with an over thrown soft ball, by accident, but my parents paid to fix it.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe we should punish people for crimes committed by others. However, in the case of minor children who commit felonies, I think we should have a law which could apply to parents (or guardians) of said child under 'parental abuse' law. In other words, say your 14 year old intentionally shoots a classmate in a fit of rage, you could be charged as the parent for parental neglect. You're not charging them with the crime committed but at the same time, they do bear some responsibility for the actions of their child. I would be okay with something like that as opposed to charging them for their child's crime.

Do you believe our children are extensions of ourselves?

No, I think individuals are individuals. I don't think we can delineate between what a minor "learns from a parent" and what they pick up from peers or outside influences. We can assume things about the parental role, but I can also see how we could be totally wrong in such an assumption. However, the parent is ultimately responsible for their kids and what they do. It's a very fine line and I think it would largely depend on the circumstances... case by case.

In any event, I am uncomfortable with the idea of charging the parent with the crime their child committed. How would we KNOW the kid didn't do whatever they did specifically so they could get back at their parents? I'll show you assholes, I will go shoot up the mall and you guys will go to jail for it! Can you not see that happening? On the other hand, if we try the minor as an adult or hold them accountable for what they did, then in addition, charge a complacent guardian for not properly supervising their child... I feel more comfortable with that.

 

[HenryBHough]

Before you jump on this remember that infancy now lasts to age 26 as defined in Obamacare.

 

[Boss]

For the sake of playing devil's advocate here, let's imagine that it's in the future and we've now passed the "parental responsibility act" or whatever... whether it's my idea of being able to charge the parent for neglect or the idea of charging them directly with the crime...

What level of control do we allow the parent to have over the child as a human being? Could they even have protected human rights? You can see how this might become an issue. If I am responsible for you the same as my pit bull, can I put you on a chain in my back yard like I do with him. Parents are sometimes not physically able to constrain their minor child. That is just a reality of the way things are.

I think we have enough problems with child abuse now, we don't need to add an excuse for monsters to beat their kids.

 

[DGS49]

It is the same principle that applies to dogs: if the parents are NEGLIGENT then they are financially responsible for torts committed by their offspring.

Exhibit A: Child is an 'A' student, never in trouble, and one day he goes berserk and beats the shit out of another kid, putting him in the hospital. No parental liability.

Exhibit B: Kid is a constant problem child, subject to periodic fits of rage where he destroys property and attempts to harm others. Parents are obliged to take steps to protect those who may be injured by the problem-child. If another kid is injured, they are financially responsible.

Exhibit C: Parents have loaded firearms unsecured in the home, and have never instructed the kid in gun safety. Latchkey kid. Kid shoots neighbor while playing with the loaded gun. Parents are financially responsible.

For comparison, a dog. If a dog has no past history of violence or aggression toward others, then inexplicably attacks a neighbor's kid, the owner is generally not responsible. the SECOND time it happens, the owner is fully responsible. Referred to as "One free bite."

 

[there4eyeM]

A level of parental responsibility must be demanded.

 

[martybegan]

I think they should be held financially responsible in some cases....

not necessarily by Law.... I broke a neighbor's window with an over thrown soft ball, by accident, but my parents paid to fix it.

This is more workable than making parents criminally liable, unless the parent's themselves did some criminal act.

This is basically "sins of the father" in reverse, and american legal culture does not recognize it (unlike Klingons).

 

[RKMBrown]

Hold a pet owner responsible for their pet's actions as if they bite someone, so why not hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children?

Parents are already responsible for some of the crimes of their children. The amount of responsibility depends on the age of the child and the crime committed.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Should hold parents legally responsible for everything their children do. Charge the child as well when appropriate, but any criminal charge the child gets should be applied at adult-levels to the parent.

If parents are held responsible for the actions of their children, children wont be allowed to run wild like they are often times now.

 

[RKMBrown]

Should hold parents legally responsible for everything their children do. Charge the child as well when appropriate, but any criminal charge the child gets should be applied at adult-levels to the parent.

If parents are held responsible for the actions of their children, children wont be allowed to run wild like they are often times now.

Nonsense talk. Parents can only do so much to contain adolescent children from making mistakes during adolescence. I've got a better idea. How about you stick your blame stick up your butt.

 

[Boss]

It is the same principle that applies to dogs: if the parents are NEGLIGENT then they are financially responsible for torts committed by their offspring.

Exhibit A: Child is an 'A' student, never in trouble, and one day he goes berserk and beats the shit out of another kid, putting him in the hospital. No parental liability.

Exhibit B: Kid is a constant problem child, subject to periodic fits of rage where he destroys property and attempts to harm others. Parents are obliged to take steps to protect those who may be injured by the problem-child. If another kid is injured, they are financially responsible.

Exhibit C: Parents have loaded firearms unsecured in the home, and have never instructed the kid in gun safety. Latchkey kid. Kid shoots neighbor while playing with the loaded gun. Parents are financially responsible.

For comparison, a dog. If a dog has no past history of violence or aggression toward others, then inexplicably attacks a neighbor's kid, the owner is generally not responsible. the SECOND time it happens, the owner is fully responsible. Referred to as "One free bite."

Again, if it's the same principles that applies to dogs, does this mean I can responsibly put my child in a kennel or crate for the day while I am at work? When out in public, it would be responsible for me to keep them on a leash, right? I can strap a muzzle on their face and claim it's a precaution because they have a tendency to bite, and that would be alright, wouldn't it?

And so you see here is the problem with this whole idea. You cannot hold the parent responsible while also telling the parent they have no effective means of control at their disposal. In order to hold them responsible, you have to allow them the ability to control the child by whatever means are necessary. That is going to get pretty uncomfortable for many people, I don't think we're ready for it.