Parental responsibility

AngryBadger

Ok.

With the disgusting murder of two polish men all over the papers/airwaves recently a lot of people have been discussing the teenaged suspects in this murder and how much responsibility their parents should be taking, and obviously that's extended to the responsibilities of parents in general.

Now the argument seems to break down loosely into two sides.

Side 1:
If you have children then you're implicitly accepting total reaponsibility for them until they reach adulthood, or 18 years in this country (not sure if that's an international standard?). Erego many people feel that in the instance of juvenile crime the parents should be held accountable, at least to some degree. The scale of accountability depends on who you ask I guess, some people think fiscal penalites, other say jail time in place of or accompanying their kids.

Side 2:
Parents should not be held accountable for their kids since with the best will in the world and infinite resources it's impossible to predict how your kids will turn out. It's also difficult to police your kids whereabouts/social circle 100 % of the time. So basically people on this side of the fence seem to think how kids turn out is pot luck.

Personally I'm for side 1. Children are important and the future and all the usual BS, but none of that means a damn if people aren't willing to actually be responsible for their kids.

However, in addition to a more detailed airing of peoples views on this, there has been reference to the fact that bad kids tend to come from bad homes which tend to have bad parents and that under such circumstances...well this is where I get a little confused, but it sounds to me like some people feel that if you come from a broken home then society is somehow responsible for your lousy upbringing.

Now I do believe we all have a certain amount of civic cuty in regards to our fellows, making sure everyone has access to comprehensive education, healthcare and so on. but exactly where do we draw the line? I mean, and I'll grant you that I'm coming from a household where I was well educated and had two stable parents in a stable relationship so I may have a blinkered view here, but if two people decide to get married and have a clutch of kids they can neither afford, nor attend to, how is that societys fault? In fact while i believe that it is very much NOT societys fault, I also feel that it's other members of society who actually suffer because of this.

Just to be clear, (and so I don't get accused of fascism ) I notice this kind of thing in multiple demographics, I notice it amongst my own peers, I notice it in wealthier groups, and in poorer groups and so on. So I'm asking a general question the answer applying to all of us.

Right....WOW me!

Davidius

Be like everybody else on boards and blame the government.

*Insert comment about brown envelopes*

muppetkiller

The problem is somewhat to do with their upbringing but the real issue is the fact that they cannot be put away for any lenght of time due to their age.
If you stab someone in the head with a screwdriver at 14 or 40 you should do minimum of 15 years..and none of this suspended sentence rubbish.

Build lots more prisons for young offenders and fill them.
3 strike rule too gets min 5 years.

AngryBadger

muppetkiller wrote: »

The problem is somewhat to do with their upbringing but the real issue is the fact that they cannot be put away for any lenght of time due to their age....

Ok, but that's not really what this thread is about, unless you're saying you feel parent should not be held accountable for their children?

MIN2511

While you are at it, should children bear the brunt of their parents’ crimes? Are the sins of the father/mother the sins of a child? If the answer is no then i think it is fair to say you can never know anyone as you know yourself. If an individual commits a crime they should pay for it and their friends and family shouldn't have to go through the media circus. It alienates them from the rest of the world.....

MCMLXXXIII

AngryBadger wrote: »

Side 1:
If you have children then you're implicitly accepting total reaponsibility for them until they reach adulthood, or 18 years in this country (not sure if that's an international standard?). Erego many people feel that in the instance of juvenile crime the parents should be held accountable, at least to some degree. The scale of accountability depends on who you ask I guess, some people think fiscal penalites, other say jail time in place of or accompanying their kids.

Side 2:
Parents should not be held accountable for their kids since with the best will in the world and infinite resources it's impossible to predict how your kids will turn out. It's also difficult to police your kids whereabouts/social circle 100 % of the time. So basically people on this side of the fence seem to think how kids turn out is pot luck.

Personally I'm for side 1. Children are important and the future and all the usual BS, but none of that means a damn if people aren't willing to actually be responsible for their kids.

Yes, people need to take responsibility for their children, and they are important for the future...but other than that - I mostly disagree. We now have this generation of "helicopter kids" that have "helecopter parents." The helecopter parents are always hovering over their kids and watching what they do. The kids rarely make their own decision without their parents' input, and the parents love to give feedback. It sounds good when you read it, but it makes it very hard when the kids need to make their own decision. And they usually don't make good decisions, because they have no experience in critically thinking of the outcomes before they make their move. Where I live, you reach "criminally adulthood" at 17 years of age, or if the crime is harsh enough they are tried as an adult anyway.

AngryBadger wrote: »

However, in addition to a more detailed airing of peoples views on this, there has been reference to the fact that bad kids tend to come from bad homes which tend to have bad parents and that under such circumstances...well this is where I get a little confused, but it sounds to me like some people feel that if you come from a broken home then society is somehow responsible for your lousy upbringing.

Bad kids don't necessarily come from bad homes, and good kids don't necessarily come from good homes. If there is a large enough area, it might make a difference. If there is a bad home and their kids go to school with everyone else that comes from a bad home...that could create some trouble. It is known that people (especially teens) are more influenced by their peers than their family. Someone in primary school will make a decision based on what their friends think - not their parents. So do we blame the parents? Do we blame the other children? Do we blame the parents of the other children? What about the teacher? Teachers in schools spend all day with these kids, and the parents spend a few hours in the evening with the kids before putting them to sleep. The teachers have responsibility for the kids more often than the parents.

AngryBadger wrote: »

Now I do believe we all have a certain amount of civic cuty in regards to our fellows, making sure everyone has access to comprehensive education, healthcare and so on. but exactly where do we draw the line? I mean, and I'll grant you that I'm coming from a household where I was well educated and had two stable parents in a stable relationship so I may have a blinkered view here, but if two people decide to get married and have a clutch of kids they can neither afford, nor attend to, how is that societys fault? In fact while i believe that it is very much NOT societys fault, I also feel that it's other members of society who actually suffer because of this.

Socioety suffers from every action from every person - whether it's good or bad. Remember - one person's gain is usually another's loss. The parent's should take responsibility, but the children still need to be punished - otherwise they will never learn. Without punishment, they will grow to adulthood thinking that they are invincible and that they will never get in trouble. No one will take blame for anything, and everyone will blame someone else for their actions.

AngryBadger wrote: »

Just to be clear, (and so I don't get accused of fascism ) I notice this kind of thing in multiple demographics, I notice it amongst my own peers, I notice it in wealthier groups, and in poorer groups and so on. So I'm asking a general question the answer applying to all of us.

Right....WOW me!

To wrap up, I agree with your idealistic views on how children need to be raised, but other than that I think we will be better off looking at the big picture - so we can secure the future.

Right...Wow you.

Red Hand

AngryBadger wrote: »

Side 1:
If you have children then you're implicitly accepting total reaponsibility for them until they reach adulthood, or 18 years in this country (not sure if that's an international standard?). Erego many people feel that in the instance of juvenile crime the parents should be held accountable, at least to some degree. The scale of accountability depends on who you ask I guess, some people think fiscal penalites, other say jail time in place of or accompanying their kids.

And if the child keeps misbehaving from an early age, no matter how good the parenting, what should the parent do in order to keep him/her and the child out of prision?

Beat some sense into the child?

muppetkiller

AngryBadger wrote: »

Ok, but that's not really what this thread is about, unless you're saying you feel parent should not be held accountable for their children?

No I'm a big believer in the parents being held responsible for their kids..
Parents should know what their kids are up too in the evening and should be fined if their kids are out of order.
People get fines for not controlling their dogs same rules should apply to their kids.

andyl222

I think it boils down to the classic 'nature or nurture' argument. I personally think a parents input on a child while significant doesn't solely shape a child's attitude towards others or the world around them. If one were to try and hoist accountability of a child upon their parents shoulders too, then at what age should it be deemed sufficient to then start to blame the child solely?? 16? 18? 30? Perhaps they should have held the parents of Jamie Bulgers killers in some way accountable for their actions, but alas at what point does a parent instill the motivation to mutilate,dephile and dismember a child??? It doesn't happen. I think some people fear the idea that there are individuals that are just bad. Not evil, but sociopathic, sadistic or otherwise inclined. It is with these people in mind that mandatory life sentences should be put in place. Look at the death of the two polish men again, they were murder by youths 14-17 years of age, these people know what murder is,and know it is wrong. Noone can say with any seriousness that lodging a f*cking screwdriver into someones head was doen with the intention of anything less than murder. That is why I find people sayin ' its down to society' so infuriating. We are all part of this society,some more advantaged than others, but at no point in our lives were we shown that society condones murder and violence.

stevoman

I most probobly think their parents are common scum just like them TBH :mad:

rainbowtrout

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Teachers in schools spend all day with these kids, and the parents spend a few hours in the evening with the kids before putting them to sleep. The teachers have responsibility for the kids more often than the parents.

Yes, not only are we expected to teach them english, irish, maths etc, we are now expected to spend our time teaching them how to behave as well. Some parents, and I stress some, think that once their child leaves the house in the morning, they are no longer their responsibility until they return home, and if they cause trouble in school it's not their problem.... which leads of course to discipline problems

andyl222

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Yes, not only are we expected to teach them english, irish, maths etc, we are now expected to spend our time teaching them how to behave as well. Some parents, and I stress some, think that once their child leaves the house in the morning, they are no longer their responsibility until they return home, and if they cause trouble in school it's not their problem.... which leads of course to discipline problems

Alot of my friends are teachers and I think they have a tough enough time of it as it is, without expecting them to instill morality and basic human decency into the cretins that they have to deal with....

MCMLXXXIII

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Yes, not only are we expected to teach them english, irish, maths etc, we are now expected to spend our time teaching them how to behave as well. Some parents, and I stress some, think that once their child leaves the house in the morning, they are no longer their responsibility until they return home, and if they cause trouble in school it's not their problem.... which leads of course to discipline problems

I absolutely agree with you. It should be the exact opposite as how some parents see it. Once then kids leave the school, it's not the teachers' responsibility - you are not getting paid to work after hours. The parent needs to be a responsible adult and a good role model ALL the time. Teachers are paid to educate, not to dicipline. Sometimes it's needed, but that shouldn't be the main focus of the job, and it's getting to be that way - especially in schools in the poorer areas.

User45701

When you think about it children spend more time in school/watching TV than with there parents so it is down to themselves to know right and wrong. Parents might be somewhat to blame but a scumbag is a scumbag by choice, unless the child was actually conditioned by the parents like some parents condition their children to following their religion.

rainbowtrout

User45701 wrote: »

When you think about it children spend more time in school/watching TV than with there parents so it is down to themselves to know right and wrong. Parents might be somewhat to blame but a scumbag is a scumbag by choice, unless the child was actually conditioned by the parents like some parents condition their children to following their religion.

It's not so much that they are conditioned to behave in such a way, but they are not corrected when they do wrong, so then they think it's ok. Others then just learn from the example set at home.

A small example of changes I've noticed. I did my Leaving in 96 and in my school we stood up when our teacher/principal entered the room, held doors open for them, got out of the way if they wanted to pass us on the corridor. We did not argue back or back answer. Now I'm teaching and I'm lucky not to get trampled in the melee on the corridors between classes and it's a fight to get in the main doors if there are a bunch of students coming out - they expect you to get out of the way. And they argue 'their rights' over everything. That's not to suggest that this is scumbag behaviour, but small things lead to bigger things and people's respect for others has generally declined.