Punish the parents?

Zulu

Hi folks,
the recent killing go of the Polish men got me thinking. Generally I'm of the opinion that we should rehabilitate, but lets face it - that's not happening here in Ireland today, so...

How do we punish minors? Murder aside, what about public order offences? Why don't we fine the parents? Impose parent and child community work? Why should society as a whole have to suffer the results of poor parenting?

Now I understand that parents aren't always to blame. Some kids go bad because of bad friends, but perhaps if the parents have more of a vested interest...

What do you think?

Drift

I have to agree wholeheartedly. I'm not familiar with the age of the perpetrators of the recent murders but there are an ever increasing number of cases in Irish courts every year dealing with youths who's behaviour is anti-social in the best of cases and downright evil in the worst.

I know if I ever attempted anything like that when I was there age my parents would have dealt with me very severely and you could be sure if I did it once it wouldn't happen again. My parents were good parents and made sure I grew up knowing right from wrong and respecting other people. It seems that nowadays a growing minority of parents seem to blame society for the abhorrant behaviour of their children while discounting their own responsibility.

I think sizable fines, community service and in some cases brief custodial sentences for parents of children 16 and under who carry out crimes would have a noticable effect on the amount of juvenille crime in Ireland. It's time to start holding poor parents responsible for their actions.

Zulu

Yea although I'd be careful with custodial sentences. I can't see how community service could be anything but a good thing.

nacho libre

Zulu wrote: »

Hi folks,
the recent killing go of the Polish men got me thinking. Generally I'm of the opinion that we should rehabilitate, but lets face it - that's not happening here in Ireland today, so...

How do we punish minors? Murder aside, what about public order offences? Why don't we fine the parents? Impose parent and child community work? Why should society as a whole have to suffer the results of poor parenting?

Now I understand that parents aren't always to blame. Some kids go bad because of bad friends, but perhaps if the parents have more of a vested interest...

What do you think?

according to an eminent neuroscientist some people are born with defective frontal lobes. so, in some cases it is harsh to apportion all the blame on the parents. i'm not trying to legitimize bad behaviour by suggesting there maybe a genetic component to some people's behaviour. afterall, whether there is or not we all have free will. Rather that no matter the nurturing some people will turn out to be troublesome even with the best parenting in the world.

Zulu

nacho libre wrote: »

according to an eminent neuroscientist some people are born with defective frontal lobes. so, in some cases it is harsh to apportion all the blame on the parents. i'm not trying to legitimize bad behaviour by suggesting there maybe a genetic component to some people's behaviour. afterall, whether there is or not we all have free will. Rather that no matter the nurturing some people will turn out to be troublesome even with the best parenting in the world.

I understand that and take it completely on board. The angle I'd be coming from is that, the parents have a duty of care until the child is an adult. As such, they should be making efforts to protect the child from society, and much as protecting society from the child.

Naturally, one would expect that if such measures were introduced, a judge would handle it similarly to other matters in todays society - ie: if the parents were clearly seen to be caring for a problem child - re councilling and seeking help from carers etc., there would be little punishment etc.

dr_manhattan

Well yeah, I'd assume that we're talking about repeat offenders here, and trying to correct the situation rather than "punish" people (punishment isn't really supposed to be what justice is about, yeah?)

Also, can we please avoid adjectives like "evil"...? I mean, what's the point of discussing anything if the label "evil" is gonna be used?

And if you wanna use it, could you please supply the scale from "antisocial" to "evil" please? LOL -

Is it: Antisocial, extremely nasty, downright objectionable, absolutely abhorrent, atrocious, and then finally Evil?

;-)

dr_manhattan

Oh and as regards genetic disorders or antisocial mental health issues:

A child is your responsibility. If you refuse to take proper care of a child with epilepsy and they have a fit and die, you can't say "oh well this child has epilepsy, your honour, it's not our fault".

Similarly, though i believe the state should assist parents of problem kids, when all is said and done either parents are responsible or not...

I'm undecided, personally. This is why I don't plan to have kids.

Zulu

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Also, can we please avoid adjectives like "evil"...? I mean, what's the point of discussing anything if the label "evil" is gonna be used?
And if you wanna use it, could you please supply the scale from "antisocial" to "evil" please?

Lets leave the modding to the mods - what do you say?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Similarly, though i believe the state should assist parents of problem kids, when all is said and done either parents are responsible or not...
I'm undecided, personally. This is why I don't plan to have kids.

Well it's already agreed that the parents are responsible for the welfare of their children, so I'd be saying - yes, yes they are responsible.

dan_y

what would be the point of punishing the parents? sending people to prison because they've committed a crime is designed to deter them from doing it again. punishing someones parents because they "didn't raise them right" doesn't really sound very useful. the problem is already there - so penalizing the parents for not seeing it coming or not caring enough is just pointless, isn't it? punish the children. they need to understand the concept of consequences. if their parents are passing the buck, let the state take it. the main thing is to punish these kids in a way that will leave them in no doubt that repeating what they did Ever Again would be a very bad idea. parents are just the first line of defence.

Drift

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Well yeah, I'd assume that we're talking about repeat offenders here, and trying to correct the situation rather than "punish" people (punishment isn't really supposed to be what justice is about, yeah?)

Also, can we please avoid adjectives like "evil"...? I mean, what's the point of discussing anything if the label "evil" is gonna be used?

And if you wanna use it, could you please supply the scale from "antisocial" to "evil" please? LOL -

Is it: Antisocial, extremely nasty, downright objectionable, absolutely abhorrent, atrocious, and then finally Evil?

;-)

I was the one who used the word evil and what I had in mind were the cases we've all seen on tv (not many from Ireland yet but it's only a matter of time) where young teenagers torture and hurt people for no other reason than they enjoy it and get a laugh out of it. To me that's evil. It usually involves picking on someone weaker than them who cannot retaliate, eldery and disabled people quite often.

Evil is perhaps an emotive word but I feel in some cases it's the only word that is appropriate. I know I was raised by my parents in such a way that I could never contemplate such a thing, so the parents of these criminals should be held to account for their own failings and as a deterrant to other inadequate parents. (Provided of course the parents actually have been negligent!)

dan_y wrote: »

the problem is already there

If you give a the parent of a wayward child a significant penalty that hurts them either in terms of their freedom or their pocket I'm pretty sure the courts would be less likely to see the child again. Children who don't fear the courts still quite often fear their parents wrath.

dan_y wrote: »

so penalizing the parents for not seeing it coming or not caring enough is just pointless, isn't it?

I don't think so. It provides a warning to other parents not to let the same thing happen. Much the same as the French "Good Samaritan" law. By your argument because whatever has happened is now over there would be no point punishing someone who didn't stop to help. I think if you do it'll warn others as to what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't.

I'm not saying to make scapegoats of people either, the punishment should be suitable to the level of negligence shown by the parent. If it can be proven that you're a good parent and despite your best efforts your son or daughter offended then obviously you cannot be held accountable. This sort of measure should only be used in cases where the parents are clearly not being parents.

dr_manhattan

"If you give a the parent of a wayward child a significant penalty that hurts them either in terms of their freedom or their pocket I'm pretty sure the courts would be less likely to see the child again."

So we're effectively just saving money by setting parents up as police officers?

Nah, sorry but a lot of these parents are clueless. I know a person who was locked in their room age 11-17 because brain damage from a car accident made his behaviour unpredictable and embarassing.

What you're suggesting encourages this kind of behaviour; if you want to look at "evil" behaviour look at parents in the US who farm kids for benefits while keeping them in cages.

I agree that parents have an amount of responsibility, but your method of making them accountable is full of holes. The prison system - as has been said above - is for rehabilitation, not punishment.

Therefore it has no way to deal with people who "allowed" a crime to happen, just those who did the crime.

Drift

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The prison system - as has been said above - is for rehabilitation, not punishment.

It's for both. It has been frequently used before to punish people who allowed a crime to happen or turned a blind eye. (People such as crooked cops, negligent carers etc.).

All parents are "police officers" as you put it because when a kid is born they don't know right from wrong they have to be taught. If you don't teach your children right from wrong you are a bad parent.

I've seen some sickening stories about the parents you mention and they deserve to be severely punished, by being sent to jail ... according to you they'd only be sent there if there was a chance of rehabilitating them.

I don't think the behaviour you mentioned like the poor kid locked in his room for 6 years would be encouraged by the type of system I'm mentioning. There will always be bad people who do wrong things but what I'm saying is that in my opinion if you punish parents for their children being criminals it would mean less children would grow up with no respect for morals or the law.

dr_manhattan

"in my opinion if you punish parents for their children being criminals it would mean less children would grow up with no respect for morals or the law."

So what you're saying is that the only effect of fining and imprisoning parents for their kids' behaviour would be better parents?

Wish I could share your confidence in human nature.

Drift

Perhaps I'm a bit naive but I just believe that our culture in terms of parenting has suffered the same problems as most of the rest of our society. No-one wants to accept blame for anything. Everything is someone elses fault. Putting hard work into making things go well doesn't appeal to people and they want things to fall into their lap. Parenting appears to be treated the same way by some people ... it's the education system's fault for not teaching their kids manners, it's the influence of other people's children, it's the lack of such and such a service in the locality. Parent's are the one's responsible for teaching children how to live as adults - everything else is just backup.

Also my point on custodial sentences was only meant for the most extreme cases and even in these cases of clear negligence of parental duties it should be a relatively short sentence. Of course what duties would be expected of a parent would need to be defined and enshrined in law and this would clearly be a minefield.

Zulu

dr manhattan, I believe you've missed the point. I specifically said public order offences.

Imposing comunity service and/or fines would at least force negligant parents to right wrongs, and teach tear-away children that there are consequences for their actions.
It would also benifit the community.

To suggest it would encourage parents to abuse their children is a bit of a leap.

johnnyskeleton

Zulu wrote: »

Hi folks,
the recent killing go of the Polish men got me thinking. Generally I'm of the opinion that we should rehabilitate, but lets face it - that's not happening here in Ireland today, so...

...we should invest more in education and rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Punishing the parents is lazy reasoning, it's looking for someone to blame rather than trying to fix the problem.

seahorse

Drift wrote: »

...what I'm saying is that in my opinion if you punish parents for their children being criminals it would mean less children would grow up with no respect for morals or the law.

I have to say I agree with this. I am the single parent of a teenager myself, but I see so much inept parenting going on in this city; some people are just so utterly irresponsible in the raising of their own kids.

A woman I know of expressed the view that her two teenaged sons (on having attempted to rob somebodies car and gotten a well deserved few thumps and the guards called to arrest them) had been hard done by, and that the car owner involved should have "done one or the other, not both"! :eek: This stupid cow actually believed, and fervently, that her two scumbag brats deserved either a few thumps or a charge sheet - not both! :eek:

Those are the type of parents who could do with a charge sheet themselves (and probably a few thumps also; sorry mods! )

Earthhorse

Honestly? I think it would be completely unworkable. You're expecting someone who hasn't learned responsibility to teach it to someone else.

Also, how do you determine when the parents are responsible and when not? There are parents who have genuinely tried their best with kids who have serious behavioural problems. They don't deserve punishment they deserve help.

If we just invested seriously in early rehabilitation and continuing rehabilitation a lot of these problems would be diminished.

donaghs

Earthhorse wrote: »

Also, how do you determine when the parents are responsible and when not? There are parents who have genuinely tried their best with kids who have serious behavioural problems. They don't deserve punishment they deserve help.QUOTE]

Its hard to draw a line on and issue like this, but we have to, if we are going to have laws and enforce them.

There's too much dodging of the issue here. A clear case of responsibility is a minor killing two people with a screwdriver in a premeditated attack. It baffles me how people keep refusing to say anyone is responsible and needs to be punished. How many people would he have to kill before people get the point?

In many cases I think punishment would be help. Every other state mechanism like school, social welfare, social workers, hasn't work. So punishing parents, and the offenders, is worth a try.

Zulu

Earthhorse wrote: »

Also, how do you determine when the parents are responsible and when not?

Well I'd suggest that a judge would decide, with input from social services, the junior lesion officer etc.. I don't thin it would be too hard to see who's actually struggling and who has little johnny runnig amock while they are in the pub drinking/smoking their heads off/not doing their job.

There are parents who have genuinely tried their best with kids who have serious behavioural problems. They don't deserve punishment they deserve help.

Of course there are, and I'd suggest that parents who care would be crying out for help. This would be noticed, and work in their favour.

If we just invested seriously in early rehabilitation and continuing rehabilitation a lot of these problems would be diminished.

That's true, and I whole heartedly agree - but it's not happening, and it doesn't look likely to happen any time soon.

Ickle Magoo

As a parent, I think it's actually quite a good idea in theory. I'm so sick of seeing bad parenting & then the said same parents looking incredulous that their kids misbehave.

My Mum was a head-teacher in a rough area & she said the kids were great, it was the parents she had problems with, Jamie Oliver & his school dinners? Parents trying to sabotage their kids healthy eating. I think if you made parents accountable for their off-springs anti-social behaviour, more parents might care where their 12yr old son is at 10pm at night, or why their 15yr old smells of drink or smoke.

That's all good in theory, my problem is how do you implement it? Who decides if the parents are actually at fault or if the kid has behaviour problems or emotional development issues? What if the kid is adopted - do you punish the birth parents for the trauma or the adoptive parents for how they raised the kid? Are factors like poverty or parental IQ taken into account?

I think parents have a huge influence on their kids behaviour but there are also so many other variables that I don't think the conviction rate for proven bad parenting would be very high.

Zulu

You raise good points there Ickle. I'd suggest it rolling out with public order offencse and have similar to a 3 strike rule. First strike - fine + notify parents. Second strike - fine + parental warning + JLO. Third strike family day out in court. ??? Perhaps
I suggest the judge would then decide on the responsibility of the parents, with input from the JLO.

dr_manhattan

Zulu, what you describe is a massive amount of resources - some of which are already in use and do no good - all bound to the service of making sure parents are taking care of their kids.

I have already pointed out that parents - even under the watchful eye of social services - still abuse their kids. I know several examples whose parents will never be touched by social services because they know how to manipulate the system.

So to me, your system is just another bureaucrtacvy sitting on top of the current one, and isn't guaranteed to change anything: to me, it just seems to be more about the blame game. "someone has to be responsible", as is said again and again in this thread/

Actually, people kill people all the time, and "someone" rarely is responsible. This is simply an ugly side to life.

I happen to know a case of a child of two schizophrenics who *very likely* murdered a close friend in france. The story has never been cleared up. Both of them were under the influence of hallucinogenics at the time, and the facts have never been established. It happened when he was about 22 AFAIK.

So who "has to be responsible" for that?

His father, who had coimitted suicide long before, or his mother, who had at the time had over six courses of ECT? BOth of them filled his head up with crazy ideas... until presumably his own predisposition to schizophrenia took over...

Was it the social services who never noticed he was schizophrenic himself? What about the french police who didn't watch these two tourist kids enough? Or the forestry services who never removed two kids living in a tent on drugs from their land?

Some time later, this same guy fell into close friendship with another seriously ill bloke. After a while the other bloke attempted to murder him for delusional reasons (he thought he was going to steal his soul or somesuch schizoid paranoia) and *his* life was ruined by the subsequent jail time he served. He's dead now.

Who's to blame? For all that misery, for one death and two suicides... who knew what they were doing and can be held accountable?

And before you say this is a rare case and usually this wouldn't happen:

What about parents whose children commit suicide? Should they be punished? After all, it's their responsibility to raise a child with a proper sense of themselves in the world, productive, self assured people. Surely all teen suicides should be investigated by your new system and punishment doled out to parents appropriately?

Or is suicide sacrosanct? Surely though if homicide is the parents fault them suicide is? Cos I know one set of parents that were *definitely* responsible for the pressure that caused their son's suicide: but to them, they were just trying to prepare him for the world which they saw as full of pressure.

So who's to blame? Them? The world? Their son for being "too weak" to take it? After all, a life is lost and blame must be apportioned.

Somebody *has* to be responsible right?

Finally: the place where most teenagers can kill with impunity is the army. But when they commit war crimes who is to blame? Their parents? Surely not when the army retrained their kids. The Army? Surely not when so many soldiers do not rape and murder. The kid? Surely not when they were ordered to kill and fight, and deprived of all personal responsibility and self determination?

Perhaps the people who didn't get out of the way in time are "to blame". The ones who wouldn't shut up or be quiet or stand still...

It seems to me that reproductive licenses would cut through a lot of problems that your system would produce, and alienate about as many basic rights. Simple... until a parent proves themselves worthy their zygotes are forzen.

Except we have no idea what makes a good adult or a good kid. We have fair ideas, but we know that the greatest people come from adversity and privilege, and the worst come from adversity and privilege.

If we were trying to raise a balanced kid, for example, we would probably keep them away from *every* social and human experience that made Nelson Mandela who he is today.

Instead, we would coddle him, protect him and send him to networking schools... like GW Bush.

Which has the better moral compass? Who has presided over the most executions, invasions and strategic bombings? WHo is thought of as truly a shining example?

Yet any parent who "allowed" their child to be raised as a second class citizen and then fall in with a violent political movement could be blamed if their child kills, no?

Cos you see, while I agree with the *problems* you describe I see no solution using the blunt tools of the judiciary and bureaucracy; and certainly no clear model of what we are trying to "enforce" in parenting.

All your new legislature would do is enforce one type of parenting: it wouldn't create one type of kid. We don't know what makes kids how they are, and we especially don't know what makes one kid kill and another kid not.

Oh sorry I can't leave this without one last example:

A college associate of mine was raised by parents - a cop and a teacher - from the midlands. His family seems quite well adjusted and certainly in the aftermath of what he did, have been thoroughy investigated and found to be so.

That's because this guy - just at their retirement actually - decided to murder and mutilate them. He's still in Dundrum, it was a very public case. He also accused them falsely of abusing him; he was delusional and apparently knows now it never happened.

Who's to blame please?

Should we dig his parents up and lecture them about what a bad job they did?

What about the teachers and college lecturers, did they have a role in creating a monstrously dangerous child? Could his father's role in law enforcement have created a desire to enforce his own will on others?

In college he was obsessed by 60s band 'the doors' - whose most famous song narrates a parricide where the son kills his father and has sex with his mother.... so is Jim Morrison to blame? He had more of that guy's attantion than anyone else did, and he actually sang "father I want to kill you, mother I want to..."?

Cos as soon as the parents are resonsible, then every experience the kid has is under scrutiny as a potential "trigger".

Geoffrey Dahmer's childhood was pretty Idyllic, except his parents never spotted his habit of stripping animal carcasses and reassembling them into "new animals" was a warning sign. Hell, there's evidence to say his father actually found part of Dahmer's very first, trigger victim, but thought it was just more animal bits and pieces.

Are they to blame for not knowing dahmer was a dangerous monster? In communities where hunting is prevalent, stripping animals is normal, everyone has a garage for it. Nobody spotted dahmer, not even the cop who returned one of his victims to him.

Are they all to blame?

My 2 cents on this recipe for a witch hunt.

Oh and one last question:

Zulu, are you a parent?

hottstuff

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Oh and one last question:

Zulu, are you a parent?

Ahem , that's a big NO.
Although he does mind nieces & nephews.lol

Earthhorse

doc manhattan made a lot of great points in his post but just to briefly address some points.

donaghs wrote: »

A clear case of responsibility is a minor killing two people with a screwdriver in a premeditated attack. It baffles me how people keep refusing to say anyone is responsible and needs to be punished. How many people would he have to kill before people get the point?

If you are referring to a specific case there I'm unaware of it. I'm not saying no one is responsible, just asking how we determine parents are responsible in a case like that. You say it's clear cut and I ask why?

The kid could have had a mental disorder, been on drugs or any number of other things could have caused an extreme and violent behaviour like that, and in such cases it almost always takes something like a mental disorder or the effects of a drug for such behaviour to appear; I don't see how parents can automatically be blamed in such cases.

Zulu wrote: »

Well I'd suggest that a judge would decide, with input from social services, the junior lesion officer etc.. I don't thin it would be too hard to see who's actually struggling and who has little johnny runnig amock while they are in the pub drinking/smoking their heads off/not doing their job.

When it comes to that stage I think social services should really be looking at taking the kids away from the parent. And again I would disagree that it would be easy to see who's actually struggling and who's just lazy.

Part of the problem here is that we only get to read in the paper about the crime that's actually committed, never the circumstances immediately around it or the background of the perpetrator. Almost anytime you do dig deeper you find scenarious very similiar to what the doc outlined in his posts and I think in such situations it is almost impossible to apportion blame to parents.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

o.0

if he's referring to a specific case? are you in Ireland atm?

dr_manhattan

Actually I'm in ireland atm but don't know the case being discussed.

I work too hard ;-)

Earthhorse

Yup. Is it the Polish case or something? I tend not to read up on things like that to be honest.

dr_manhattan

Oh can I also throw into the mix that only *one* kind of bad parenting is being discussed here.

Middle and upper class kids also turn out bad, but don't get punished. They're not visible on street corners, they do their violent beatings and date rapes in hotel rooms and BMWs or outside posh nightclubs. When they burn cars out (and they do) mummy and daddy lubricate the process with good old cash.

We know these kids can actually get away with murder.

ANd then when they enter the workforce everyone really suffers.

So if a child grows up to dodge taxes and lie to the public about it (ahem, our fearless leaders, ahem ahem) should their parents be punished?

Or are we just talking about kids who wear sports gear here? Not kids who commandeer state helicopters, import shirts from france during a recession, or buy islands?

Cos who causes more lasting social damage, the kids who burn out the cars or the kids who prove to all other kids by example that lying, cheating and dodging are the way to success?

Time travel and advanced genealogy is the only answer: as soion as someone misbehaves, go back in time and erase their parents.

Jean Claude Van Damme can do it. I've seen him actually travel in time to fight crime. Hell, he once fought *his own twin*

;-)

donaghs

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Actually, people kill people all the time, and "someone" rarely is responsible. This is simply an ugly side to life.

I happen to know a case of a child of two schizophrenics who *very likely* murdered a close friend in france. The story has never been cleared up. Both of them were under the influence of hallucinogenics at the time, and the facts have never been established. It happened when he was about 22 AFAIK.

So who "has to be responsible" for that?

Like most crimes, the person most responsible in the example you outline, is the perpetrator. Obvious? No, not to the society where no-one is responsible.

He was a schizophrenic? Clearly then its harder to find fault with the parents. This would also diminish the perpetrators guilt. However, if someone was killed then the person directly responsible (the perpetrator) should be firstly locked away to protect society, and then given treatment to see if this will help.

Zulu

Dr Manhattan, you've raise some interesting points, no doubt, but I'll reiterate what I said before (you clearly have missed it)

Zulu wrote:

I specifically said public order offences.

ie: not murder cases.

donaghs

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So if a child grows up to dodge taxes and lie to the public about it (ahem, our fearless leaders, ahem ahem) should their parents be punished?

Or are we just talking about kids who wear sports gear here? Not kids who commandeer state helicopters, import shirts from france during a recession, or buy islands?

Our leaders aren't minors with parents as guardians. WTF?!

Sorry, should have realised much earlier that you're taking the piss. Not quite sure if it qualifies as trolling. Pity a serious issue, particularly in relation to the Polish guys ends up as this.

dr_manhattan

"He was a schizophrenic? Clearly then its harder to find fault with the parents"

I don't think you're reading what I posted.

Both his parents were schizophrenics.

Nobody knows how schizophrenia starts, works, or its roots and causes. It's thought to be genetic with a social trigger causing outbreaks around 30. However stress can trigger anytime, and nobody knows how or when.

When this kid was young and his mother was recieving ECT, he would dream that he could feel her shock treatment, because she TOLD him that they were psychically connected and the bond was unbreakable. You have no idea how messed up this kid was: and yes the cure-all of "social services" were all involved and they DID NOT WORK.

So again, are his parents responsible or are they not?

They raised him badly, as a crazy person.

The other example I gave, the parents raised him perfectly and he killed them.

Who's responsible in both cases and why?

Answer both cases please.

dr_manhattan

Ah right.

So because only poor kids hang out in public and cause "public order offences" then what we are talking about is a PC way of saying "we should control knackers".

Zulu, what you want is a set of laws and a social support system so that kids who bug YOU can have their parents punished, cos YOU hate their parents.

Well screw that.

And btw, no I'm not kidding about the tax dodging issue - after all, if a parent is responsible for how their kids behave, then we have to bring it to its extreme: these people have no social accountability or responsibility, it surely must be their parents' fault for not instilling it in them?

But no, apparently it's only poor kid crime we're talking about here.

Yep, lock'em all up, especially the parents, and then none of us will have to live around any of that icky sordid carburning carry on.

Meanwhile all private behaviour carries on as normal.

dr_manhattan

Oh and PS: I thought this polish case *was* a murder?

And the first case I described, the murder occurred in public.

So...?

Zulu

I'm not quite sure whats gotten a bee in you bonnett dr_manhattan.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Ah right.
So because only poor kids hang out in public and cause "public order offences" then what we are talking about is a PC way of saying "we should control knackers".

No any one can cause a public order offence. Anyone. I'm not trying to be PC, but clearly you are bringing you own prejudices here. Personally I'd prefer if you didn't. I was rather interested in discussing this sensibly, and I really didn't want this to descend into knacker vs snobs thread. Can I ask that you refrain from dragging it that way please?

Zulu, what you want is a set of laws and a social support system so that kids who bug YOU can have their parents punished, cos YOU hate their parents.

Why are you trying to make this personal? Fair enough, you disagree, but to suggest that I hate someone is a complete fabrication. Please don't pretend to know what I feel.

And btw, no I'm not kidding about the tax dodging issue - after all, if a parent is responsible for how their kids behave, then we have to bring it to its extreme: these people have no social accountability or responsibility, it surely must be their parents' fault for not instilling it in them?

As as I know - a child has never been convicted or even charged for tax dodging, so while sensational, it's a moot point.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Oh and PS: I thought this polish case *was* a murder?

This isn't about the polish case.

dr_manhattan

LMAO, I have no "bee in my bonnet" Zulu, I just have some spare time online.

This is nothing to do with the polish thing?

So why does it start with you saying:

"Hi folks,
the recent killing go of the Polish men got me thinking."

The reason I presume you hate the kids and parents you are speaking about is cos you seem to want to really mess their lives up, with no particular focus on how everyone benefits. You don't seem to care what ways that punishing them will change their kids, you just want them punished.

So I take it you want their families broken up and parents and kids fined and imprisoned because you care a lot about them?

dr_manhattan

"As as I know - a child has never been convicted or even charged for tax dodging, so while sensational, it's a moot point."

It's not moot, just overblown: we must determine where this parental responsibility begins and ends. After all, if a broken window is a parent;'s fault, then is a rape? Or an assault? Or are these not "public order"? Is shouting? Littering?

After all, no parent *makes* their kid screw around in public. No parent forces their kid to vandalise, fight, whatever.

It happens cos they don't raise the kids to behave, according to you, and you believe their should be punished. So I'm asking where that ends?

So what you;'re saying is, just keep the kids indoors till their 16 and then sure screw it, it no longer matters. 16th birthday, off you go son, we no longer care cos we're no longer in the dock if you mess up.

Or is it 18?

Or 21?

Or 30?

hottstuff

dr_manhattan wrote: »

It happens cos they don't raise the kids to behave, according to you, and you believe their should be punished. So I'm asking where that ends?

?

According to Zulu: "parents should be fined/punished for smacking their children , as it's abuse"
"parents should be punished/fined if their children misbehave in public"

:rolleyes:

Maybe he should have kids himself , instead of an opinon on something he has no experience on whatsoever.

Zulu

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So why does it start with you saying: "Hi folks, the recent killing go of the Polish men got me thinking."

Read it again, I'll highlight the key phrase.

So I take it you want their families broken up and parents and kids fined and imprisoned because you care a lot about them?[/QUOTE]So you read the first line - but did you actually read any of my other posts? If you re-read you'll note I suggested: "community service" - the idea being that the punishment would "also benefit the community."
I'd like to see the particular children and parents getting involved with the community; putting work into the community and possibly (possibly not) helping them to feel part of the community - building respect and understand.
I think it could be a great way to repay a debt.

I would be very cautious about breaking up families, and imprisoning them - as I said from the start (but I guess you missed that too!!:eek:)

dr_manhattan

LMAO at this thread.

Starts off with "the recent murder of a polish bloke made me think..."

And then "it's not about murder"

and then "it's not about the polish case"

and then "we're onl;y talking aboput public order offences"

So, Zulu, come on then stop wasting out time.

Give us a full description of the things you want to change. What laws, what situations, what crimes and what structure of punishment.

Especially with regard to what is and isn't public order.

Then we can reply and not waste time while you redefine your argument in order to "win"

Zulu

hottstuff wrote: »

According to Zulu: "parents should be fined/punished for smacking their children , as it's abuse"

Hottstuff, look sorry if I offended you before, but dragging opinions from other threads that are (months?) old, isn't very helpful, or productive.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

Hottstuff, look sorry if I offended you before, but dragging opinions from other threads that are (months?) old, isn't very helpful, or productive.

In two seperate topics you have posted conflicting opinions.
As you are the topic starter and have such extravagant opinions , i feel its only right to highlight this.

Basically my point being , you are not a parent and so your ultimate point of view: Blame the parents.

Zulu

hottstuff wrote: »

In two seperate topics you have posted conflicting opinions.
Basically my point being , you are not a parent and so your ultimate point of view: Blame the parents.

What conflicting opinions? I stated (in a different thread, months ago!) that I don't agree with adults hitting children (or parents hitting children). In this thread, I'm suggesting punishing the parents of disruptive children.
They don't conflict Hottstuff.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

What conflicting opinions? I stated (in a different thread, months ago!) that I don't agree with adults hitting children (or parents hitting children). In this thread, I'm suggesting punishing the parents of disruptive children.
They don't conflict Hottstuff.

But how can a parent control a teenager/child who has no discipline, in a physical sense.
Call the police??

McGinty

I think that this arguement is being split in two seperate categories; that is either the parents are to blame for their children's behaviour or they are not to blame for their behaviour.

Dr-Manhattan you give a compelling arguement against the total blame parent game, but equally

Perhaps I'm a bit naive but I just believe that our culture in terms of parenting has suffered the same problems as most of the rest of our society. No-one wants to accept blame for anything. Everything is someone elses fault. Putting hard work into making things go well doesn't appeal to people and they want things to fall into their lap. Parenting appears to be treated the same way by some people ... it's the education system's fault for not teaching their kids manners, it's the influence of other people's children, it's the lack of such and such a service in the locality. Parent's are the one's responsible for teaching children how to live as adults - everything else is just backup.

this is a compelling arguement. I am a parent myself, raising my son alone and I believe that it would help to define the role of a parent before addressing what a parent is responsible for or not.
I believe the role of the parent is to care, guide and teach. In terms of caring the parent is required to ensure that the child's physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs are meet, sounds easy in theory but it is incredibly hard. The basical physical care needs are the easiest to define, that is clothe, feed, help with hygiene and safety. Emotional care includes listening, offering support in the case of a cut knee or a fall out with a friend, psychological is being aware of how you behave and treat your child, so treating them with diginity, respect etc, and spiritual is whereby catering for their religious / spiritual needs. To guide a child is to ensure they are allowed to develop as an individual, ensure they have an education, to be able to interact socially that is acceptable to the wider community, and finally to teach. A parent needs to teach their child how to walk, to eat, use the toilet, hold a pen, what is good behaviour ie: don't hit Johnny, how to be respectful to property, people, not to lie, steal, how to tie shoelaces, boil an egg, sweep a floor, etc, etc. So parents are carers, guiders and teachers. We all fail to a greater or lesser degree on all of the above, but I believe it is our duty to do all three, if we do not teach our children respect for themselves, property or people then who will teach them. The school may compensate a little, the government? How much do we want to hand over to the government, I believe we had too much of our autonomy as it is. By doing the caring, guiding and teaching to the best of our ability, we as parents have done our duty, if the child fails to act on our guidance/priniciples it is in one sense out of our control. Again I am not saying any of this comes easy but it can and should be done. I don't know what the solution is but the belief system that children can be popped in to a microwave and hey presto, they become a fully functional well adjusted child is never going to happen, but many people approach childcare like that.

Childrearing requires effort and time, more effort and time than any other project in the world but unlike building a house where putting one brick on top of another and it does what you set out, raising children requires raising individuals who will go against you to a greater or lesser degree. It is tiring saying no all the time, it is tiring showing the child again and again and again how to do something, or to say 50 times pick up your rubbish, don't walk in the garden, etc but eventually it becomes second nature to the child, where the act of littering is totally alien. I know of many parents where I live, whereby they feck the children on the street all day and half the night, who is teaching and guiding them? Half these kids don't go to school half the time so they don't get it from the school either, yet these same parents will blame the system rather than look at themselves. I don't know how to overcome this, I don't think parenting classes can help selfish and neglectful individuals but I don't know if letting them away works either. What works for the majority of individuals is consequences, so if I do said A action, I suffer said B action, but those who set laws and rules have to ensure they are carried through and I think this is where the problem lies, from the parent who warns their child not to do such a thing and then fails to carry out the punishment, right through to us having laws and no one to act upon them.

But how can a parent control a teenager/child who has no discipline, in a physical sense. Call the police??

I don't think Zulu has conflicting views, and I agree it is unfair to pull from his other posts, a parent can assert authority without smacking a child, it refers effort and thinking but it can be done, again it comes down to consquences, and the day my son raises his fist to me is the day I would feel I have failed, but if he were to try physically beat me up, do you think I would continue cooking, cleaning, or doing anything for him - HELL NO. A parent who gives money or treats to a child who is abusive and disrespectful is condoning this behaviour, that is how you get round these issues without violence. The amount of parents I know of and have seen give treats, etc to children/teenagers who are abusive is incredible, I would remove all privellages big time.

dr_manhattan

"I am a parent myself, raising my son alone and I believe that it would help to define the role of a parent before addressing what a parent is responsible for or not."

Absolutely: however in order to define this, we need to set in stone the recipe for a socially disruptive child and the recipe for a socially competent one. This is my whole point: we *do not understand* how personalities form.

We need to say "these actions produce bad kids" in order to place blame on a parent and prove in a court of law they are guilty of a crime. We need tio define a good and a bad kid and say what leaqds to them becoming this way.

Anyone following where I'm going here yet?

So therefore the state must control - at pain of punishment - exactly how we raise our kids. To the letter, otherwise how can you determine what's right and wrong in a court of law?

And that, IMHO, is absolutely unworkable.

Even more unworkable than non-parents tellimng us how we should raise our kids.

Eh zulu?

Any answers to my questions above btw zulu?

Mostly IU'd like to know why murder is not a public order offense. Or why parents of a child who murders should not be punished, but parents of kids who annoy you should be.

Cos you still haven't produced any solid definition of the kids and parents we should be so hot to punish.

Zulu

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Even more unworkable than non-parents tellimng us how we should raise our kids. Eh zulu?

For starters, you do not know if I'm a parent or not.
Secondly, it doesn't matter, as this is simply a topic of conversation (or at least it should be) and conversations and ideas can be had by anyone.
As the starter of this thread I welcome opinions from parents and non parents alike. Should you wish to have a parent only topic - by all means go ahead and start another thread.

Any answers to my questions above btw zulu?

I'd prefer to keep this topic about public order offences, as stated before, so I'm not going to address your point about the murders. Feel free to start another thread though, perhaps that might be the sensible thing to do?

Mostly IU'd like to know why murder is not a public order offense.

I'm neither a Guard or a solisitor, so I won't bother trying to explain. Perhaps contact guarda.ie?

Or why parents of a child who murders should not be punished, but parents of kids who annoy you should be.

I never mentioned "kids who annoy me" - please stop trying to make this personal.

Cos you still haven't produced any solid definition of the kids and parents we should be so hot to punish.

Look it's pretty clear you don't want to discuss this topic as is the spirt of this thread.

MiCr0

Can people please stay on topic?
As it see it, that a dicsussion on what punishmed there should be for children (and parents of children) who commit crimes.
Please stop discussing each other.

dr_manhattan

Well I have attempted to make points about the topic but apparently the crimes are too specific: this thread is for discussion of "public order offenses" and "murder is not a public order offence".

Funny how the thread starts off by mentioning a murder and a specific case at that, but *isn't about either*

Every single thread I've ever participated in on boards.ie is like this:

Either it's the wrong flavour or I'm posting quotes in the wrong fashion so people won't read them or I'm not brown nosing some pedant mod.

So **** this. And **** you both. Bye all.

Zulu

McGinty wrote:

those who set laws and rules have to ensure they are carried through and I think this is where the problem lies, from the parent who warns their child not to do such a thing and then fails to carry out the punishment, right through to us having laws and no one to act upon them.

I'd have to agree with that, but I'm thinking perhaps we might be able to remove the concept that teens are beyond the law by implementing such a system?
I'm guessing there exists an element that believe they are beyond the law (or are happily committing crimes that the guards are reluctant to prosecute as there is little positive outcome) . I'd think such a system might close that down a little, in that if the guards saw community service being doled out to parents & children at the weekends say, they might be more inclined to act.
Then again I suppose it would be them who would have to enforce it... (or maybe that'd be a job for the reserve...)

PS: Have you read Awareness? great DeMello meditation.