If a minor teenager takes a gun from his parents home that the father had not locked up securely and commits a murder, can the father be held partially responsible for this crime? It seems that the charge cannot be "accessory before the fact" since the father did not know anything about the crime. But most states have a so-called (CAP) law, (a child access prevention law) This law requires adults to use a gun-locking device or store guns in a place that is not readily accessible to minors.
See this link: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/
The father claims to have hidden the key to his bedroom, where the handgun was kept. But the handgun did not have a trigger-lock and it wasn't in a vault or safe. The minor son knew where the key was; he unlocked the door and took the gun and killed someone. Can the father be held liable, and is it up to the prosecuting attorney to make this decision? Thanks for your help, Joe Conrad
2006-10-28 07:37:30 · 7 answers · asked by Joe Conrad 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Depends if the father acted reasonably under the circumstances as opposed to acting with reckless disregard of the likely consequences of his failure to secure the gun. Ultimately, the prosecutor will have the discretion to decide whether to prosecute and if so to prosecute for what crime. The facts to take into consideration are the behavior of the son, past experiences with the gun and the son, and how secure the gun is, and the efforts the father has taken to discipline the son and educate the son about the gun and responsibility.
2006-10-28 08:13:50 · answer #1 · answered by Tara P 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the kid knew where the key was. Then he also knew why it was locked up. Meaning he knew it was off limits for him. So the only "crime" I think the father is guilty of is trusting his kid. He probably never thought in a million years his son would deliberately do something so heinous. So the guilty person here is the son. He was obviously old enough to know right and wrong and he set out to do the wrong one. He should be punished, not the father, for he has already been punished enough.
2006-10-28 07:51:10 · answer #2 · answered by aslongasitrocks 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Parents could not be watching kids 100% of the time and anything close to it is overprotective and leads to rebellion, including criminal behavior later in life. Its the theory "if you don't want me to do that I will scheme and do something even worse, something that you won't even think I am capable of you watch me" or maybe that is what happened to the guy whose life story appeared in "Catch me if you can" You cannot put parents in jail for crimes thier kids did, so the best is juvenile hall However, you can make parents financially responsible in civil cases against something committed by a minor, which is wrong but then again the parent can punish the kid for the parent's own punishment with things such as "no new anything" and then force the child, if going to school, to use last years school supplies.
2016-05-22 03:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow.
Yes, the father should hold some liability if the kid knew how to access the gun and gain control of it.
2006-10-28 08:14:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The father's negligence led to a crime not the teenager's negligence.
Most teenagers are like time bomb.
Our duty to set them right and defuse by taking care of our children's activities.
The father is at fault indirectly.
2006-10-28 07:45:12 · answer #5 · answered by SKG R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think he should be fined alot, if you own a gun it is your responsability to be responsable for it, i am not sure of the law though
2006-10-28 07:40:47 · answer #6 · answered by Star 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
regardless of what i think. i say yes in todays world, absolutely. is it right? or wrong? i am glad i am not a judge.
2006-10-28 07:42:35 · answer #7 · answered by polyesterfred 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋