Is it time for parents to be held responsible?

[MaggieD]

This is such a tragic story . . .

DUNCAN, Okla. (AP) — Oklahoma prosecutors have charged two teenage boys with first-degree murder in the random killing of an Australian baseball player as he jogged on a tree-lined road. A third teenager was charged with being an accessory.
Officers say Christopher Lane was shot dead in what Police Chief Dan Ford described as a thrill killing. Ford said a 17-year-old defendant told officers that the three teenagers were bored and shot Lane for "the fun of it."
Boys ages 15 and 16 were charged with first-degree murder and ordered held without bond. Bond was set at $1 million for the 17-year-old, who also was accused of using a vehicle while a weapon was discharged.
The 17-year-old said in open court, "I pulled the trigger," but the judge directed him to remain quiet.

Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

 

[Thom Paine]

It may be a tempting proposal ... but .... no

Thom Paine

 

[Jack Hays]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

I don't think so. Could too easily lead to the "Office of Parenting Quality Control" which would be an invasion of privacy to end all invasions of privacy.eace

 

[Aunt Spiker]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

Only if the parent had some type of involvement - giving the child the weapon for a gift, let's say. Or encouraging them to be reckless.

But generally - no.

I try my best to instill the proper values with my children, but I cannot govern every single thing they do, now matter how much I might want to. Trust me, if that were possible, I'd probably do it sometimes. This last semester it would have been nice to have that type of control over my 2nd son.

 

[Thrilla]

were the parents involved in the crime?.... did they give the go ahead?... did they raise em to kill people if they are bored?

I thinking it's probably wise to punish these "kids" for their actions and not to punish the whole village.

 

[Fisher]

Assuming the car was in the name of one of the parents, somebody is going to bootstrapped into it civilly.

 

[Beaudreaux]

To break the chain... Yes.

Parents should take responsibility for their children. If the child is beyond control, the parents can get help. If they do not attempt to get help, and the child commits a crime, the parent should be responsible for their unsupervised acts. If a parent can be prosecuted and have their children taken from them for neglect, then this is no less an act of neglect than any other form. If a parent has a weapon in the house and the child takes the weapon and commits a crime, the parent can be held responsible. If a kid breaks the neighbors window, the parents have to pay to replace the window. Why is being held responsible for a window any more important than being held responsible for a murderous act?

If parents knew that they could be held responsible for the actions of their unsupervised and undisciplined kids, maybe they would take appropriate actions to get the kids either under control, or the help from others to get the kids under control.

 

[joko104]

Not, not unless there are extraordinary circumstances showing direct causation.

What could be relevant would be exploring such cases and determining if there were parental illegal conduct such as child abandonment, providing the kids drugs and/or liquor (not uncommon), or other direct actions of parents (or other adults). But no, not held accountable for the crimes of their children. Rotten parents can have a great kid and an ideal parents can have a rotten kid.

 

[Jack Hays]

To break the chain... Yes.

Parents should take responsibility for their children. If the child is beyond control, the parents can get help. If they do not attempt to get help, and the child commits a crime, the parent should be responsible for their unsupervised acts. If a parent can be prosecuted and have their children taken from them for neglect, then this is no less an act of neglect than any other form. If a parent has a weapon in the house and the child takes the weapon and commits a crime, the parent can be held responsible. If a kid breaks the neighbors window, the parents have to pay to replace the window. Why is being held responsible for a window any more important than being held responsible for a murderous act?

If parents knew that they could be held responsible for the actions of their unsupervised and undisciplined kids, maybe they would take appropriate actions to get the kids either under control, or the help from others to get the kids under control.

The problem comes when you define "unsupervised" and "undisciplined" for people whose personal views of both will vary widely. Then deciding who gets to adjudicate, etc., etc. That would not be a place where I would want to live.eace

 

[joko104]

The other problem is laws now severely limit what a parent can do. There is a problem with government giving parents a huge list of what a parent must and must not do - and then prosecute parents when the government required parenting system fails. For example, in most jurisdictions it is ALWAYS illegal for a parent to do any corporal punishment under any circumstance.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The problem comes when you define "unsupervised" and "undisciplined" for people whose personal views of both will vary widely. Then deciding who gets to adjudicate, etc., etc. That would not be a place where I would want to live.eace

Regardless of the terminology, if a child (under the age of 16) commits a crime, the parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children.

And it would be the courts, a jury of our peers, that would make the determination.

 

[MaggieD]

To break the chain... Yes.

Parents should take responsibility for their children. If the child is beyond control, the parents can get help. If they do not attempt to get help, and the child commits a crime, the parent should be responsible for their unsupervised acts. If a parent can be prosecuted and have their children taken from them for neglect, then this is no less an act of neglect than any other form. If a parent has a weapon in the house and the child takes the weapon and commits a crime, the parent can be held responsible. If a kid breaks the neighbors window, the parents have to pay to replace the window. Why is being held responsible for a window any more important than being held responsible for a murderous act?

If parents knew that they could be held responsible for the actions of their unsupervised and undisciplined kids, maybe they would take appropriate actions to get the kids either under control, or the help from others to get the kids under control.

This is pretty much where I am on this issue. Parents who've had ample warning that their kids are out of control -- who haven't sought help -- who've enabled their bad behavior -- who don't supervise them properly -- there should be some accountability.

17-year-olds don't own cars. Their parents own them. 17-year-olds live at home. Where did the kid get the gun? Where's he been storing it? Did his parents know and not report it as a crime? Or know and not confiscate it? It's a sticky wicket. I understand that. But kids running wild? If holding parents somehow accountable isn't part of the answer, then what is?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

To break the chain... Yes.

Parents should take responsibility for their children. If the child is beyond control, the parents can get help. If they do not attempt to get help, and the child commits a crime, the parent should be responsible for their unsupervised acts. If a parent can be prosecuted and have their children taken from them for neglect, then this is no less an act of neglect than any other form. If a parent has a weapon in the house and the child takes the weapon and commits a crime, the parent can be held responsible. If a kid breaks the neighbors window, the parents have to pay to replace the window. Why is being held responsible for a window any more important than being held responsible for a murderous act?

If parents knew that they could be held responsible for the actions of their unsupervised and undisciplined kids, maybe they would take appropriate actions to get the kids either under control, or the help from others to get the kids under control.

If you hold parents responsible - then they take on the punishment? By what, doing time? What good does that honestly do? What if the mom or dad have other kids, their careers? The murder isn't bad enough, just spread the devastation around because jo-jo was an freaking heartless idiot?

I don't think so - I just see any parent out there, good or bad, being tossed in the clink for something their kid did. . .and their kids having to be put in foster care, all because jo-jo was a jackass. Doesn't sit well with me, one tragedy is enough, I think.

 

[Dubliner]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

Very tragic indeed. I don't think the parents should be responsible for the action whatsoever. Some parents just have no control over their kids no matter what happens and it would be unfair to punish them. My brother was very defiant and it didn't matter what my parents did to try to help whether it be rehab, boarding school, or whatever he continued with the same antics. Sometimes a child's actions are just out of the parents control; therefore, the parents shouldn't be held responsible for something in which they cannot control.

 

[Jack Hays]

Regardless of the terminology, if a child (under the age of 16) commits a crime, the parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children.

And it would be the courts, a jury of our peers, that would make the determination.

And if the child committed the crime in defiance of the parents' teaching to the contrary? Or if the child committed the crime with the intention of getting his/her parents prosecuted?eace

 

[AngryOldGuy]

It may be a tempting proposal ... but .... no

Agreed but the trigger man should be put to death and I don't mean 20 years from now.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The other problem is laws now severely limit what a parent can do. There is a problem with government giving parents a huge list of what a parent must and must not do - and then prosecute parents when the government required parenting system fails. For example, in most jurisdictions it is ALWAYS illegal for a parent to do any corporal punishment under any circumstance.

Agreed, and that is ridiculous. There's a line between spanking a child and child abuse. Sometimes its a fine line, and other times its a wide one.

Just the other day, I was in the food market and a woman was screaming at her (I would guess three y/o) son. She was using foul language so I stopped nearby. When the shouting lead to her striking the child in the face, I did what I would hope anyone else would do. I went over and picked the child up off the floor, carried the child to the service desk and told the manager what had happened; the mother following and hitting me in the back the whole time. I didn't say a word to the woman, even under her continual attacks, and waited on the police to show up. A number of other people also saw what had happened and stood by me. The police showed up and after we all told them what had happened, I left.

That was not corporal punishment. That was child abuse. If she had not been cussing at the child, and popped his fanny for being a little ****, I would have never stopped or gotten involved.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This is pretty much where I am on this issue. Parents who've had ample warning that their kids are out of control -- who haven't sought help -- who've enabled their bad behavior -- who don't supervise them properly -- there should be some accountability.

17-year-olds don't own cars. Their parents own them. 17-year-olds live at home. Where did the kid get the gun? Where's he been storing it? Did his parents know and not report it as a crime? Or know and not confiscate it? It's a sticky wicket. I understand that. But kids running wild? If holding parents somehow accountable isn't part of the answer, then what is?

Amen Maggs... Amen.

 

[joG]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

The US has aged and Denis the Menace is now armed.

 

[Cameron]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

That doesn't feel right to me, although I'm curious to read what others have to say.

Besides the obvious difficulties in establishing any kind of proximate causation, I would worry that such a rule might actually create rather than prevent problems, by fostering distrust between parents and children and perhaps forcing troubled but harmless children into a pattern of treatment that is unnecessary and possibly even damaging to their psychological and emotional development. The motivation to prevent violent acts by children is obviously a noble one, but perhaps some other mechanism would be more beneficial.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

No. Why should any other "free will" person be held responsible for the actions of another person? Would you assert that a husband, brother, sister or babysitter be held accountable for the actions of someone left "in their charge"? Does this "guilt by association" exttend the other way; should a child suffer for the actions of their parent? We are constantly told that HS dropouts that breed like bunnies are "entitled" to gov't assistance to care for their brood - does that make it "society's" (or is it only the village's?) child and thus we all should do the time for their children's crime?

 

[Beaudreaux]

If you hold parents responsible - then they take on the punishment? By what, doing time? What good does that honestly do? What if the mom or dad have other kids, their careers? The murder isn't bad enough, just spread the devastation around because jo-jo was an freaking heartless idiot?

I don't think so - I just see any parent out there, good or bad, being tossed in the clink for something their kid did. . .and their kids having to be put in foster care, all because jo-jo was a jackass. Doesn't sit well with me, one tragedy is enough, I think.

The parents know that jo-jo is a jacka$$, and need to get jo-jo straightened out, or get help to get jo-jo straightened out.

I see no difference with keeping a jo-jo hidden from the world until jo-jo kills someone, or robs a store, or whatever, than having some other hazard to the public health and safety hidden until it kills someone, injures someone or disrupts commerce.

The parents brought jo-jo into the world we live in. They have a responsibility to control jo-jo. It's called a "duty" in legal terms. Google it.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

This is such a tragic story . . .



Two teens charged with murder of Australian college baseball player

I don't know what kind of supervision these kids had . . . whether they had involved parents or not . . . whether their parents had tried to get them help if they had previous records. I don't know a whole damned lot here.

But I know this is tragic. And these kinds of shootings happen all too frequently.

Should parents be held culpable in some way when their kids break the law if it can be shown they acted negligently as parents?

Short answer: Yes.

As the mother of two teens, I am solely responsible for their behavior. If I am negligent as a parent I most certainly should be held responsible for their actions in serious matters such as this. If it's not a serious issue, then I'm responsible regardless.

I knew all this, going into it.


I hope that makes sense. I'm taking nyquil and God knows if this makes sense to anyone else but me.

 

[Beaudreaux]

And if the child committed the crime in defiance of the parents' teaching to the contrary? Or if the child committed the crime with the intention of getting his/her parents prosecuted?eace

I thought I addressed that. If the parent has attempted to get outside help and the little terror still commits a crime, the parents are not held responsible.

 

[Lutherf]

At some point they should.

If a kid screws up he should have an appropriate penalty. If he fails to perform on that penalty then a parent should also suffer that penalty. I'm talking about stuff like if Junior doesn't show for community service then Junior AND Pops get the gig.