Should parents be held morally and legally resonsible for the actions/needs of thier children?

Question

Hey! My english class is doing debates right now. I was put on the pros team for this question. Could anybody give me some good pros not cons, but pros facts/opinions or specific examples which would be good for my team to use against the cons?

Answer 1

In a sense yes, but we all should be held accountable for ours and others actions and needs.If a parent was solely responsible for their childs every action and they were punished for it then people might start thinking twice before having any children, therefore we wouldn't keep the society going very well thinking this way. That is why I think we are all responsible in society for one anothers needs and actions, A parent can't stay by a child's side while he/she is in school, so how can a parent have control over the child's action. Just the same as an adult, what if the adult didn't have parents? who would be legally responsible for the adults actions? I would say a parent is more morally and legally responsible for the childs needs more so than their actions, ( as the saying goes we learn from our mistakes) So we can only teach and set an example to a child what is proper and what is not. I hope this helps you!!!

Answer 2

Boy..I'd rather be arguing in favor of parental responsibility than against it!

Children are raised by their parents. Its the parents responsibility to instill in the child the concept of "right" and "wrong". A parent is a child's "legal guardian" unless a court of law changes that.

Parents have a responsibility to provide appropriate food, clothing, shelter and education to their children. Why would society mandate that we have to provide food, water, shelter to our pets and not our children? (yes, there are laws about animal abuse - catch Animal Cops on Animal Planet).

Children under a certain age (usually 8) are generally considered to be incapable of negligence. That means they are too young for them to appreciate the consequences of their actions. Therefore, the parents have a duty to supervise the children and to prevent them from engaging in behaviors that harm the public good. If the child acts in a way that goes against the public welfare, then the parent may be responsible for not properly supervising the child.

It was in the paper recently that one of the California wildfires was started by a child under the age of 13 playing with matches in the yard.

Also - there are very strict child labor laws - how would an 8 year old pay for damage that was done? A child is judgment proof. They don't have assets to take! They don't have the right to enter into contracts or own property. How would they pay a judgment?

Children are also not allowed to vote? Why is that?

You also register for the draft at 18 (age of majority) - again, why is that?

The main argument that I see for the other side - has to do with teenagers - it's becoming more common for teenagers (13+) that commit adult crimes (such as murder) to be tried as adults. Think of ways to over come this argument if raised by the other side. The thing that comes to my mind -is the teenager may be held criminally liable for his actions as an adult -b/c at 13 most courts hold the child does know the difference between right and wrong - but his parents may still be held civilly liable (IE. sued by the victim's family -you still can't sue a minor).

Good Luck

Answer 3

Yes. Until a child is emancipated, there parents are responsible for the care and feeding of the child. If a child does not comply with societies mores or laws, then it is (often) a case of nurturing which is the parents' obligation.

Für Elise – Support the Breast Cancer & Heart Foundations

Answer 4

what happened in my neighborhood.
Kids spay painted , uninated and deficated at a local park. The city would come and clean this up. It was costing the city money and no one was uning the park.
The parents should be foreced to clean up the mess and pay a fine. The crimes would stop

Answer 5

They made it, they own it.