should parents be punished for their crimes that children commit?

Question

need help for debate

Answer 1

Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's behavior. In many countries, you have to put a muzzle on your dog when you take him on the metro. This is a wise precaution because the dog might fight with another dog, or bite a person.

While the dog analogy might seem harsh, parents have to realize that children, just like a growling dog, can do a great deal of harm. Some children can be unbelievably callous and vicious. When they want their way, nothing else matters. I have seen small children beating their parents, and while they might not have been able to do much damage, even a kick to a knee could incapacitate a grown up.

In the eyes of the law, the child is like a parent's property. When the child turns 18, and becomes an adult, the parent ceases to be legally responsible. That is why some parents have disowned their children because they realize they cannot control them, and hence refuse to be responsible for their actions.

Too many parents don't take the damage their children can do seriously enough. Teens often vandalize property, without realizing that, if you damage someone's car, the owner may not be able to drive to work, and this could jeapordize his employment. How about throwing rocks through windows? This happened to me, and by strange coincidence, I happened to sleep in a different bedroom that night; otherwise I would have been covered in broken glass since my bed was right below the window. A small shard of glass in my eye could have blinded me.

If parents aren't held responsible, they will certainly take their role as parent less seriously. If there are no consequences to them for their child's behavior, they will not take the steps necessary to make sure the child behaves. Hence, the parent is actually enabling the child to misbehave. The child knows he will not be disciplined, and therefore can follow whatever wild urges most greatly amuse him.

Answer 2

It's not all black and white. Some parents are clearly responsible for their children's actions. If they are to busy partying, working in excess, or abusing their children in some way then they should be held partly responsible. On the other side there are some kids who have such strong personalities that they just make bad decisions, even with good guidance. Those kids should be held completely responsible. The only problem with that is how do you legally prove which is which. The only way to get real proof is to have a video camera put in the home and how many personal rights would that break? An answer to the question though would be, yes some parents should be held responsible. I hope I didn't make it more confusing for you.

Answer 3

definite. If mum and dad have been punished for the behaviour of their little ones then in line with possibility human beings might think of two times in the previous having little ones that they are in a position to't have adequate money or don't have time to boost genuine. i'm a 31 365 days previous guy who nonetheless refuses to have little ones till i'm financially and emotionally waiting. If that would not take place then i'm going to in no way have little ones. mum and dad are too waiting responsible society asserting that they are in a position to't help their little ones with out suggestions from others. If it extremely is genuine then are not getting pregnant and have them. in case you're making the errors in life then i do no longer see why you will possibly desire to constantly get forgiven.

Answer 4

They should be held accountable for damages done in civil cases, I feel. My sister with the original "bad seed" child feels differently. I so NO reason EVER that a person should have to pay damages done to their property by someone else's children. I see no reason any insurance company should have to pay those damages either if compensation can be gotten from the legal guardians.

Take away that new Cadillac in compensation for what your kids do, and I bet you'll be more concerned about their actions in the future. I don't care about your uncontrolled kids, I don't love or hate them, but it is YOUR job as parents to rear them and pay for that.

As far as punishment, like jail, usually not; the child should be removed from the home and placed in a care facility if the parents aren't adequately able to control him/her.

Answer 5

Not unless the parents encouraged the crime. If the parents where un-aware that the crime was being committed than they are no more at fault than you are. Kids are infuenced by much more than their parents these days. TV, internet, peer pressure, bullying... they all mold our kids psychology and can influence their behavior just as much as a parent can. As an individual you are ultimately accountable for your behavior, just because you turn 18, you don't suddenly become more self aware and responsible... you're no more mature than you were when you were 17 years 364 days old... no magic there.

Answer 6

If the parents are not going to allow the children to be charged or sent to juvi, then yes, they should be either charged or fined heavily. Children, only because they are childre should not be able to get away with any type of criminal behavior or mischief. The parents have to be held liable for their childrens actions, or surrender them to the authorities.

Answer 7

There needs to be more intervention, education and outreach for families. As far as legal liability goes, if the kid is under twelve, it may be an issue. After that, you would have to prove that the kid was set up, conditioned or encouraged by the parents to carry out plans for their sake.

Answer 8

yes, because if they cared enough as parents in the first place they'd make sure their children were raised and taught right. The children then would know that doing something wrong involves consequences.

Answer 9

Sometimes, yes. Especially in violent situations.

Answer 10

No because a parent can't make choices for their child, they can encourage them in the choices they make but thats about it.