Are parents responsible for their childrens actions?

Xterminator

I have been thinking over the last few days about the Taxi-man who was killed, and the circumstances around it.

All 3 of the young men involved had criminal records.
This means their parent/guardian knew there was a good chance the youths would be up to anti-social acts, if allowed out unsupervised, at a late hour.

And at the end of the day these are minors. Somebody is legally responsible for these children, (eg a parent/guardian).

Now when a minor is found to have been out at 4am in the morning, riding in a stolen vehicle, and to have a history of criminal behaviour doesnt this raise the question, what were there parents doing? Were they doing there best to keep there children away from trouble, or did they let the children roam free?

Should a parent be held responsible for the actions of there under age child? Should they be held responsible, if they have been negligent, or should they be responsible full stop?

If not who is responsible for there actions, if they are a minor?

I personally believe that if a parent has been negligent, then they should be punished. In a case where life has been taken, perhaps the children should be taken from the negligent parent(s), and the parent(s) fined or sent to jail. The parents should certainly be held responsible for any financial costs of the victim, and and civil costs incurred by the state in prosecuting in these cases..

What do you think?

X

Talliesin

This is pretty much the same question as that of a recent thread on the parenting board.

DeVore

Either the parents should be held responsible up to the age of the child becoming a legal adult or the parent should file a statement saying they cant control the child or be responsible for them and the state should step in.

Not for the sake of the society, the parents or the victims necessarily, but for the sake of the kids who grow up without a chance to be what they can be...

DeV.

Hellrazer

Originally posted by DeVore
Either the parents should be held responsible up to the age of the child becoming a legal adult or the parent should file a statement saying they cant control the child or be responsible for them and the state should step in.

Not for the sake of the society, the parents or the victims necessarily, but for the sake of the kids who grow up without a chance to be what they can be...

DeV.

Couldnt have said it better.The recent death of the taxi driver shows that there are SOME parents out there who cant control their teenagers and the state should step in and either impose some sort of curfew on the kids or start holding the parents responsible for the behaviour of their kids.
Maybe if it was the parents who were going to be locked up these kids would think again about stealing cars/their actions etc.

Talliesin

Maybe if it was the parents who were going to be locked up these kids would think again about stealing cars/their actions etc.

Do you really think that the kids who engaged in such an activity would be more concerned about their parents' liberty than their own? :rolleyes:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

just cos some kids steal a car doesn't mean they want to see their parents locked up

Thanx 4 The Fish

So what are the criteria for not being able to control a child ?

If they have a criminal record maybe ?

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson had nor prior problems with the police and from reports at the time they were two normal (whatever that means) boys yet they took Jamie Bolger on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, over which they beat and tortured him. When they stopped they kicked him to death along with perpetrating many other atrocious acts which do not bear mentioning. They knew what they had done too because they left his body on the train tracks so a train could run over Jamie and possibly hide what they had done.

If adults had of done this do you doubt that they would have felt the full rigours of the law. If it was the case that the parents were blamed for the crimes of the child, the parents of these two boys would be banged up forever and the boys who perpetrated the horrific crime would have essentially gotten away unpunished.

And even if you do have a criminal record, does it always follow that if you ever shoplifted, or vandalized something as a child that you were doomed to become even worse as an adult ?

Beruthiel

Originally posted by Talliesin
Do you really think that the kids who engaged in such an activity would be more concerned about their parents' liberty than their own? :rolleyes:

I have the idea that the parent might actually make a bigger effort to know where their kid is at that time of night if they knew it would effect them in some way.

Talliesin

Yes they would. And then what?

There are parents who have said they can't control their children, as DeVore suggested, but there's nowhere to put children actually convicted of crimes, never mind those whose parents say they may commit them.

As a society we only give a damn about these kids when something like this happens every couple of months. In another month they'll be forgotten about again until the next time.

There are parents who are actually afraid of their children. What are they going to do to control them.

While one is responsible for how one's children are brought up, there are other factors that affect their behaviour beyond the control of any one or two people. (The bright side of that is that for the same reason some people with really screwed up parents turn out ok.)

Xterminator

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
So what are the criteria for not being able to control a child ?

If they have a criminal record maybe ?

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson had nor prior problems with the police and from reports at the time they were two normal (whatever that means) boys yet they took Jamie Bolger on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, over which they beat and tortured him. When they stopped they kicked him to death along with perpetrating many other atrocious acts which do not bear mentioning. They knew what they had done too because they left his body on the train tracks so a train could run over Jamie and possibly hide what they had done.

If adults had of done this do you doubt that they would have felt the full rigours of the law. If it was the case that the parents were blamed for the crimes of the child, the parents of these two boys would be banged up forever and the boys who perpetrated the horrific crime would have essentially gotten away unpunished.

And even if you do have a criminal record, does it always follow that if you ever shoplifted, or vandalized something as a child that you were doomed to become even worse as an adult ?

I think an essential point here is, the parents should be held accountable if they were negligent.

From what I read of the bulger case, the boys who killed him were allowed to watch 18's videos, including the puppet master, where the killing of the puppet drew suprising parallels with the killing of the bulger child.

I would ask why they were allowed to watch inappropriate materials. I would ask why were the two boys, Jon and Robert allowed to roam the neighbourhood unsupervised, allowed to go to a large shopping mall, and an area where railway tracks (and speeding trains) were accesable.
Did there parents know where they were or were they being let run wild?

I can understand that there are parents who might do everything in ther power to restrain/correct/teach there children.
I understand that there comes a point where a single mother/infirm parent may become physically intimidated by there child.
I know there is a lack of spaces for young offenders.

But I am talking about cases where the parents havent done there bit. I knoiw of parents who have left their children alone at night to go drinking in the pub. i know of parents who are not at home when the children finish school, and have not made any arrangements. I see children as young as 6 or 7 out after 11 pm each nite, aand that is the type situation where the child will alost inevitably become involved in anti socail behaviour.

I wonder how much of the loutish behaviour can be prevented by nipping it in the bud?

X

seamus

Some things disgusted me from primetime last night. The Government only said they'd make 20 new places in some reform school place - 20?! we need at least 200. Also the fact that some kids were let go free, simply because there was nowhere to put them......Would we let murders and rapists and armed robbers go free if we had nowhere to put them? Would we fúck.

IMO, if there's no place for a kid in a young offender's educational institute, then lock them up until a place becomes free. Allowing them to just walk after committing crimes, helps no-one, especially not the kid.

Especially the pictures with 40/50 kids on the street watching guys joyriding - where the hell are all these kids' parents?

I think one little scumbag summed up the joyriders' mentality best; "Ah ye know, I feel sorry for yer man that died an' all, but ye know, shít happens." *boggle*. These kids have very little regard for other people or for society. And the only people who can keep them under any sort of control are their parents. If the parents can't control them, then it's up to the state to step in.

hussey

But one of teh problems with the young offenders reform school's is that many Delinquents come back criminals, i.e. they learn how to rob better, steal cars quicker etc.

one of my friends works in a youth centre in finglas, and he says alot of them would 'boast' about how they 'done in a cop' etc. and they would tell teh others .. where to steal the best cars etc.

leeroybrown

Unfortunately I don't see this situation getting any better any time soon.

As I see it all these little fecking knackers are a product of a society where kids are left to mess about in urban areas with nothing much to do other than cause trouble. All you really need is a few trouble makers and the rest of the kids will naturally end up engaging in the same crap with their peers.

On the issue of 18+ movies, etc, I was exposed to those movies as a young teenager and I've turned out to be a perfectly balanced psychopath who hasn't fallen on the wrong side of the law as yet. I used to roam around the place quite a bit and during the summer you'd have found me out until 11 pm or so a lot of the time.

I also used to arrive home from primary school to an empty house as both my parents worked but that was never a problem.

I just think the differences are that 1) I had parents who took an interest in making sure I didn't become a criminal (without beating me around the house) and 2) I didn't have too many knackers around.

Thanx 4 The Fish

No matter what controls a parent has, there is no way that they can keep them under 24/7 supervision. Now I would not let my child watch 18s movies, but he could go to a mates house whose parents will allow that and watches a film, while I would not approve of this, I may not know about it. Where does the blame stop then, surely the other childs parents have to accept some responsibilty for letting this go on. Or again what if his parents did not approve of that but had a film put away, the children take it down and watch it in their room. Everybodies child will at some stage want to do something they have been warned not to do. It is a fact of life and before people get on and say my child yadda yadda, just because you may not know about it, does not mean that it hasn't happened.

As for roaming the neighbourhood unattended, are you a parent TALLIESIN ? I severely doubt it. A child is encouraged to go out and play, mostly they go out with their friends, how do you propose that you, I assume being an adult, would join in and be a member of your childs particular peer group ? Insist that they play in your garden, well that's fair enough until they want to go to a friend up the roads' house. I know the parents of this friend and they are nice, decent people, of course my child is allowed to play up there. I am sure they think the same of me or they wold not let their child play in my house. Unfortunately children grow up, start playing football or doing drama or whatever they choose to do. They meet other people who will have different influences on them and maybe they walk back from school on their own or they come back from footy.

The 24/7 surveillance option is not possible and until we can track our kids every movement I do not think that the parents of a child who has perpetrated a serious offence can be punished for that offence.

Cabaal

Originally posted by leeroybrown

On the issue of 18+ movies, etc, I was exposed to those movies as a young teenager and I've turned out to be a perfectly balanced psychopath who hasn't fallen on the wrong side of the law as yet. I used to roam around the place quite a bit and during the summer you'd have found me out until 11 pm or so a lot of the time.

I also used to arrive home from primary school to an empty house as both my parents worked but that was never a problem.

I just think the differences are that 1) I had parents who took an interest in making sure I didn't become a criminal (without beating me around the house) and 2) I didn't have too many knackers around.

I couldn't agree more,
When I was a kid I had loads of freedom, even more then friends of mine did
But did I end up robbing and damaging property, **** NO!.

Why, well because my parents thought me better so I knew better not to do such stupid things.


Some parents try to blaim schools for the problems, but its parents, school shouldn't have to tell kids not to do this and that.
Schools are there to learn about the world.
Not such a simple thing as right and wrong and the difference between the two
Thats the parents job and if they can't do it, well maybe they just shouldn't be parents...

As for this whole thing that films and video games make kids more violent, its just a load of bull.

I've seen 18 films since I was around 7 and you don't see me wanting to go into work with a gun or carjake, granded it affects some people but for it to affect a person there has to be something loose in the head already.

Xterminator

Originally posted by leeroybrown
On the issue of 18+ movies, etc, I was exposed to those movies as a young teenager and I've turned out to be a perfectly balanced psychopath who hasn't fallen on the wrong side of the law as yet. I used to roam around the place quite a bit and during the summer you'd have found me out until 11 pm or so a lot of the time.

I also used to arrive home from primary school to an empty house as both my parents worked but that was never a problem.

I just think the differences are that 1) I had parents who took an interest in making sure I didn't become a criminal (without beating me around the house) and 2) I didn't have too many knackers around.

I agree that the main difference is that you had parents/guardians who took an interest.

To re-phrase a little, suppose a child were arrested for a first offense, when they were supposed to be in a friends house. First you would expect they were be punished for that, yes?. Then the next time this child told their parents they were going out at night to your friends house, the parents should at the very least make sure the child was going where he said he was going.
If it turned out he was conning them again, etc, then the childs freedoms would be revoked by said parents, and not allowed out without supervision, (espically at nite) until the child proved trustworthy by staying out of trouble for a period of time..

Now i am not saying your parents cant take allow you out, without following you, but if you have a have history of trouble, then imposing a curfew, and not allowing you out unsupervised at nite, and not allowing you associate with criminal friends would be be reasonable, dont you think?

X

DeVore

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!


I hate it when something I say veers off and becomes something else and I end up looking like a neo-conservative-fascist!


READ. VERY. CLOSELY.


Noone will DECIDE that a parent isnt fit to have kids. Thats obviously ludicrous.


The PARENTS should accept that if little johnnie goes out and smashes a bunch of stuff up, then they should be liable for a bill, a fine or imprisonment. They are *RESPONSIBLE* for him.

Ok, so what if little Johnnie is a f*ckin psycho who his parents CANT control. Then they should sign a form saying "WARNING WARNING WARNING SOCIETY... WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT OUR KID IS DOING. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM".

This is a get-out-of-jail-free card which gets them off the hook of being legally responsible for their son/daughter.

HOWEVER since they are divesting themselves of responsibility for little Johnnie, the state would have to step in and take over.
(Since SOMEONE has to be responsible for minors imho).


Now, the problem people have with such an idea is that they picture places like ARTANE etc when they think of state responsibility for kids. We dont have a very good record at all in fact.

That is a PROBLEM which needs fixing. ie: we should have much better facilities for such kids.

Once that problem was fixed, the underlying logic of my proposal goes from being FACIST and CONSERVATIVE to actually being much more liberal and humanitarian.


No kid wants to rob cars and snort glue. They do it because they are allowed to and because they dont care about their lives or anyone elses. That, is a crying shame.


DeV.

Boston

Originally posted by DeVore
No kid wants to rob cars and snort glue. They do it because they are allowed to and because they dont care about their lives or anyone elses. That, is a crying shame.


DeV.

Typical south side, "we don't have a clue about anything" attitude towards the north side, inner city problems. I "blame the parents, I blame the parents". I Blame the people who allowed the driver of the car out on the streets just over a week after he was sentenced to two years in prison. Two of them had recently been given two year prison sentences, and the driver of the car was arrested on the 30th of December for breaking into a house. And away they went. Pretending that the parents of these people can have any pressure on them is insane. usually there drugies themselves or in prison.

btw one of the lads father was the tosser methan, (warning I've heard that this may not be true) but he's in jail for murder. Do you want him to sign your note saying he can't control his kid.

That whole its a crying shame bit, what crap, I must believe you have never meet someone like who we are talking about. They do it because its run, they do it because in run down ****ty areas there's nothing better to do, no facilities, nothing to get them off streets. And if you where doing something that was great fun, and it seemed the gardi took it as seriously as you, why the hell would you stop. The only crying shame here is that they didn't rap the car around a poll doing 170 and kill the three of them out straight

Xterminator

Originally posted by Boston

That whole its a crying shame bit, what crap, I must believe you have never meet someone like who we are talking about. They do it because its run, they do it because in run down ****ty areas there's nothing better to do, no facilities, nothing to get them off streets. And if you where doing something that was great fun, and it seemed the gardi took it as seriously as you, why the hell would you stop. The only crying shame here is that they didn't rap the car around a poll doing 170 and kill the three of them out straight

Boston, thats crap.

There are many good kids growing up in the inner citys, aswell as the 'troubled' suburbs. I was one.
The 'good' kids dont rob cars, burgle houses, dont get drunk underage several nights a week, dont drop out of school, etc etc.
Yet the good kids suffer from the same lack of facilities.

The difference is more often than not, the good kids have good parents.

One way to stop the bored youth, would be if there parents grounded them, and made them do there homework instead.
However when there parents are in the pub seven nights a week, its quite difficult to maintain dicipline!

I hate the excuse "they had nothing better to do" , which is trotted out time and again. When our parents grew up, ask then what kind of leisure facilites they had on there door step,
(E.G. swimming pools, lesiure centres, sports clubs etc)
Because the working class had feck all, but that didnt mean they were allowed to terrorise the neighbourhoods at night unchecked!

X

Clinical Waste

As for roaming the neighbourhood unattended, are you a parent TALLIESIN ? I severely doubt it. A child is encouraged to go out and play, mostly they go out with their friends, how do you propose that you, I assume being an adult, would join in and be a member of your childs particular peer group ? Insist that they play in your garden, well that's fair enough until they want to go to a friend up the roads' house. I know the parents of this friend and they are nice, decent people, of course my child is allowed to play up there. I am sure they think the same of me or they wold not let their child play in my house. Unfortunately children grow up, start playing football or doing drama or whatever they choose to do. They meet other people who will have different influences on them and maybe they walk back from school on their own or they come back from footy.

The 24/7 surveillance option is not possible and until we can track our kids every movement I do not think that the parents of a child who has perpetrated a serious offence can be punished for that offence.

I don't think we are talking about on the way home from school or playing in the afternoon. Its mainly night-time that the probs occur. This is where the parents should know exactly what the child is doing and where he is. This is where the parents must accept full responsibility and consequences.

DeVore

What X said.

Boston, you dont know f*ck about me ok. So drop the "I'm more street then you" bull you feckin troll. I went to Coolock public school, my friends and I drove a car when we were 14 and I lived for 5 years just north of Summerhill. Not only do I know the types you are talking about but since I lived next to a cop shop, they kept me awake at night.

DeV.

Boston

Originally posted by DeVore
What X said.

Boston, you dont know f*ck about me ok. So drop the "I'm more street then you" bull you feckin troll. I went to Coolock public school, my friends and I drove a car when we were 14 and I lived for 5 years just north of Summerhill. Not only do I know the types you are talking about but since I lived next to a cop shop, they kept me awake at night.

DeV.

well its important not to get into personal attacks. I wasn't aware you lived beside summerhill, how terrible for you. I also didn't know you went to a public school in coolock, lifes a bitch i guess. As for you being kept awake at night, thats a crying shame, i blame the parents.

Xterminator some good points, i'll reply with a full anwer once i've had a chance to think about it.

Boston

There are many good kids growing up in the inner citys, aswell as the 'troubled' suburbs. I was one. The 'good' kids dont rob cars, burgle houses, dont get drunk underage several nights a week, dont drop out of school, etc etc. Yet the good kids suffer from the same lack of facilities. The difference is more often than not, the good kids have good parents.

Don’t know what you getting at good and bad kids for, doesn’t really work calling them kids either, must of these guys have had terrible life experiences which mature them pretty quickly. School is not a detention center, nothing worse then being stuck in a class with half a dozen Muppets who don’t want to be there, so you kick them out, then what, nothing no prospects for anything. Difference in our parents day was that you didn’t need an inter cert to get a good job. So harping on about them is really pointless.

Parents being good, don’t know what you mean by that, do you mean most decent kids have two, If so I know plenty of decent people that have come out of single parent families. I know a guy who’s parents both have masters, one teaches in trinity, and his sister has an eng degree. He smokes heroin, probably main lines at this stage, and a few weeks ago was involved in a murder (didn’t kill him). What are you going to say, I blame the parents?

[quotes]I hate the excuse "they had nothing better to do"[/quote] but that’s the truth of the situation unfortunately. You kick people out of school what are you going to do with them then.

DeVore

Pathetic Boston... you started the "you're from d4 what would you know" crap.

By the time they are mainlining or robbing cars ITS TOO FNCKING LATE.

Anyway, you are just trolling. If I wasnt an admin I'd put you on ignore.

DeV.

s10

id just like to take this opportunity to congratulate the proud mother of this years first baby born IN IRELAND in the year 2003 ,
her 17th may i add. 17TH CHILD in her late 30s , well done
yuk.. to any1 living in limerick sort it out will yeh

who said blame the parents , Boston ? damn right .
they are responsible mine know it n i turned out most honorable
knowing that the guards were the least of my worries if i ever got into trouble

blame the parents toss them out on the street
they didnt pay for the houses did they ? no/yes
got em free for getting knocked up at sixteen ,
if they had to move back into their mothers /fathers houses there would be more people to keep an eye on the little fcers

it should be manditory soap dropping for them

Boston

Originally posted by DeVore
Pathetic Boston... you started the "you're from d4 what would you know" crap.

By the time they are mainlining or robbing cars ITS TOO FNCKING LATE.

Anyway, you are just trolling. If I wasnt an admin I'd put you on ignore.

DeV.

Do you live there now, no, and i bet its been a hell of a long time since you did.

Anyway you proved yourself that your point is bull****, by saying you and your friend drove cars when you were 15(dont know what you mean by that, joyriding?) Anyway do you blame your parents for your criminal past. no you dont, so why should you think its ok for other people too. You want to call me a troll that just fine, but a troll disagrees with people just for the hell of it,I'm disagreeing with you because your wrong.

And X, personally i think there all a bunch of cop outs, "no facilities, bad parents, high on drug at the time, my mother never loved me, the internet made me do it." People should take resonsiblitiy for their own actions, at 15 years old i knew enough to be able to do that.

DeVore

Do you live there now, no, and i bet its been a hell of a long time since you did.

Actually about 14 months...

Nice work Boston or whoever you are... I find I cant now ban you from Humanities for your joke on the Tim Allen sentence thread about sending him to Limerick as I would have otherwise, because of this thread.

It wasnt joyriding, we built a car and drove it around a bit. (mostly on Dollymount strand)
Illegal? yes. Did my parents know? No. Would I blame them if we'd run over someone? They'd be at least partially culpable but I lied to them, they werent negligent. Its not like I was being dragged home by the cops every second night.

Any kid can do something wrong but the difference is that when I vandalised stuff (and I did on two occasions) my father coughed up the repair costs and took responsibility for my actions. HE took responsibility for MY actions. Thats what parents SHOULD do.
I can tell you I didnt do it very often either as the consequences weren't pleasant.

DeV.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
As for roaming the neighbourhood unattended, are you a parent TALLIESIN ? I severely doubt it. A child is encouraged to go out and play, mostly they go out with their friends, how do you propose that you, I assume being an adult, would join in and be a member of your childs particular peer group ? Insist that they play in your garden, well that's fair enough until they want to go to a friend up the roads' house.

It's not very hard to work out who said what. Every post in thread is in a box. To the left of that box is a name. When you look at that name, it tells you who said the thing in question.:rolleyes:

Nevyn

up until the age of 18 parents /gaurdians are legally ment to know where thier child is at all times or else they are neglent.

Yes you can make sure that they are infact in a friends house you make a ipoint of meeting the kids parents ect. Tell ur child you will ceck up on them and it theyy are not were they say thier busted grounded what ever punishment you have agreed with them.

You can have them and ur friends in ur house and give them a lil space , make sure they gonna respect the house and let them have the sitting room or kitchen. Better that then them out in the rain on a cold wet nigth standing at a street corner.

DeVore

You cant know where you child is exactly 100% of the time. However you can bloody well make an effort and the first time they lie to you, you ground them or punish them in whatever form you consider acceptible.

No kid goes straight out and robs cars, they develop like that. Just about every kid I know grows up wanting nothing more then the admiration and attention of their parents.

Btw, lol @ talliesin... and he's the father of two lovely girls.

DeV.

Mnemoniac

Originally posted by DeVore
Either the parents should be held responsible up to the age of the child becoming a legal adult or the parent should file a statement saying they cant control the child or be responsible for them and the state should step in.

Not for the sake of the society, the parents or the victims necessarily, but for the sake of the kids who grow up without a chance to be what they can be...

DeV.

I agree. But IMHO, it's for everyone's sake. That of society, the parents, the potential victims and the kids themselves. It's in everyone's interest that such children get an education into society, whether from their parents, guardians or the authorities.

amp

Originally posted by DeVore
I find I cant now ban you from Humanities for your joke on the Tim Allen sentence thread about sending him to Limerick as I would have otherwise, because of this thread.

I take it myself, Micro and Zeniths services are no longer required here then?

I'd ban you for deleting comments that you shouldn't have and for undermining the moderators authority but I find I can't. Cos you're an Admin.

Either you want us to treat you as a normal user here or you make yourself mod.

amp: pissed off in a non-trollish way :mad:

Thanx 4 The Fish

Originally posted by Talliesin
It's not very hard to work out who said what. Every post in thread is in a box. To the left of that box is a name. When you look at that name, it tells you who said the thing in question.:rolleyes:

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say there you funking fool. Obviously your years in school were wasted on you.... Now contribute to the thread or shut up.

Dev, I was making out that you are an ultra neo-conservative-fascist! This was because I have had experience (all be it second hand) with the type of institutions that currently exist in Ireland for youths who require extra care. During your first explanation there was no mention of modernising the institutions in Ireland. Something that those in the health boards have been requesting for as long as our family have had dealings with them. If there were such improved places and the money available to staff them then that would be a different matter. These later qualifications obviously change those opinions (for all the difference it makes )

Unfortunately it is not always repeat offenders who perpetrate these crimes and there can never be any reparation made to the family of those families who lose a Father/Mother/Sister etc, even if the parents were willing to make it.

Talliesin

I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say there

No. You don't really seem capable of working out what people are saying. That was my point.

Anyway, enough of that and back to the thread.

A big part of this is the question of how much of a degree of influence do parents actually have over children. The degree of moral culpability for one's children's actions is clearly related to that. And there are quite a few differing opinions.

The most mechanistic view would hold one almost entirely responsible. With this view though one must also blame one's behaviour as an adult on one's upbringing, hence there is no moral culpability for anything and the matter becomes purely one of utilitarian expedience (i.e. would punishing parents work).

Even within such a mechanistic view, it is clear that there are other influences (peers, schooling, media, religious doctrine, observed norms of social behaviour). There is also the question of free-will — if we have free-will then our parents influence is limitted by that.

Of course one of the ways in which we as parents try to influence our children, is in controlling the extent to which these other influences have an effect. We cannot be totally successful in this, as some lessons can only be learnt through interacting with others, and indeed it's often good that we cannot be totally successful in this (as this is the only hope for children with truly bad parents).

Societies that held parents legally responsible for the actions of their children (and in some cases also husbands for the actions of their wives) combined this with giving the parents a degree of legal control over their children that was close to slavery (sometimes including the right to execute their children). Ancient Rome is an example of such, and we can see how it would have worked well, but at a cost to liberty that few could justify today.

Examining the problem of these children requires that we look at how these other factors influence them, to what extent are they beneficial, to what extent are they detrimental, and to what extent we have a right and a duty to change them.

One area in which is particularly hard to isolate is the casual disregard for the law that one sees every day as far as things like running red lights, littering, speeding, not vacating seats on buses when required to, etc.

I'm not saying it's a case of "I brutally beat someone to death when I was 14 becaue I saw someone litter when I was 8", but rather that a general attitude that the law isn't something to take seriously seems to exist amongst both those who commit minor offenses and minors who commit offenses.

Another part of this is the view that many adults take towards soft drugs. It's one thing to say "well there shouldn't be a law against smoking cannabis, so I'm going to smoke it". That isn't civil disobedience, and unless you have a medical condition the law against cannabis isn't actually hurting you. If you want to engage in civil disobedience then you should make sure you are smoking it somewhere you are going to be arrested, otherwise you're just kidding yourself if you think it's some sort of stance. As such there is no moral difference between someone smoking cannabis and a child experimenting with whatever drugs they manage to get their hands on.

Wook

Quote Devore:
Ok, so what if little Johnnie is a f*ckin psycho who his parents CANT control. Then they should sign a form saying "WARNING WARNING WARNING SOCIETY... WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT OUR KID IS DOING. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM".
This is a get-out-of-jail-free card which gets them off the hook of being legally responsible for their son/daughter.
HOWEVER since they are divesting themselves of responsibility for little Johnnie, the state would have to step in and take over.
(Since SOMEONE has to be responsible for minors imho).Question : Do you agree that parents who sign off the kid , would not be allowed to have more ? Unless proven 'ready' or examined as 'capable' ?

What I do notice in Ireland is the multitude of Young parents.
parents who themselves have to grow up and experience the feeling of being 'Responsible'. Just have a look on a weekend in any shopping centre and observe the action.

And I do believe that parents should be responsible for the kids they have..is it not a part of the family that you try to educate your kids and have them make smart decisions and know the difference between right and wrong ? But I guess that sitting in front of TV and not talking to each other is the way most families are run these days ?!

Velvet Vocals

Originally posted by DeVore

No kid goes straight out and robs cars, they develop like that. Just about every kid I know grows up wanting nothing more then the admiration and attention of their parents.

DeV.

I think at this stage the point has to be made that some times Bad Fish are born bad fish. Just about every kid you know might want to be good and grow up happy and wanting their parents admiration and attention and they may or may not get it, and that may or may not result in them turning out good or bad. But what about the cases where you hear "His mother and father were such nice people" For example that priest from Donegal (can't think of his name right now) But he was done for child sex abuse or over 40 children and some of the cases were violent. His parents (and I know this through a friend of theirs) were perfectly normal, loving and very proud of their son and now they're deviated. His parents did nothing to make them accountable for his actions and turned out to be monster.
Another example I have is of a family friend who adopted two children. They were brought up again in a normal home, not perfect. Parents did separate, but not until the children were teenagers. The son has turned out to be a complete nightmare. He always was, when he was in play school he would beat up other children. He went on to rob cars including his father’s car on more then on occasion. He been deported from other countries for selling drugs the list is endless. He has been punished by parents from the word go and eventually by the courts but nothing has ever stopped him. He has never displayed remorse and has never showed any sign that he needs affection or love. What could his parents have done? They went down the child psychology road and always tried to get him as much help as they could but he's the way he is because he was born that
way.

Anyway, I've gone on a bit, sorry; my main point is that I do feel that parents are accountable for their children’s actions and should be held so. But as it has been said before, only if they can be found to be negligent. I don't however feel that this is only what is causing young people to behave the way they are.
There are plenty of things that I hold my own parents accountable for but I could have turned out a lot worse then I have (not too bad at all) but I CHOOSE not to. And I made the choices at a young age.
I think that teenagers and children now a days find it harder and harder to make those choice due to peer pressure. It has become far more important to have the respect of your friends then anything else.
I'm going to sound like a right 'Ol wan when I say this but I think influences from pop culture and rap music and films of those kind are playing a huge role in this.
Obviously they are not sending a direct message to rob a car and smash it up, but more a message of rebellion and if you’re a teenager from an affluent area and have loving parents your idea of rebellion might be to wear the shortest skirt and go out drinking with your mates, and if your from a not so affluent area and your parents don’t care or they are not there your idea of rebellion might be very different. It could be to steal a car or to take drugs or shoplift.
(sorry this post is so long, I couldn't really condense it)

Boston

Any kid can do something wrong but the difference is that when I vandalised stuff (and I did on two occasions) my father coughed up the repair costs and took responsibility for my actions. HE took responsibility for MY actions.
DeV. [/B]

And what of those who do not have dadies?

Btw where does your arguement stand with people who are completely antisocial.

Fair enough amp, but the last bit still stands

amp

Could we all keep from personalising this debate. Boston, if you want to discuss DeVore's personal history or have a argument soley with him then do it elsewhere. Your amazingly sarcastic barbs are not constructive.

DeVore

You are very lucky I didnt see that if it involved my family.
If you have the balls to say it to my face, in person, I'd be very very surprised.

<on topic>

Saint Something said:
I think at this stage the point has to be made that some times Bad Fish are born bad fish.

Perhaps there are "Bad Fish" as you put them... people who are sociopathic (if anyone thinks this means Silence of the Lambs... read a book).

Those people cannot be given the freedom of society... they must be removed, imprisoned, constrained or put outside it or the community cannot stand. If you think thats a shocking point of view you REALLY need to understand the meaning of sociopathy.



For the same reason we ban spammers here because for every 1000 well behaved users it would take only 1 or 2 spammers to completely make the community untenable... as Usenet and Yahoo-Groups have become for example...

The same with society as a whole... the vast majority of people a law abiding and good people... it only takes a handful to seriously fnck it up for the rest of us...

A society, imho, has the right to eject those who are unwilling to live within its boundaries.

DeV.

Kell

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
Unfortunately children grow up, start playing football or doing drama or whatever they choose to do. They meet other people who will have different influences on them and maybe they walk back from school on their own or they come back from footy.

The above seems to be based on the premise that scheduled and supervised (drama, club football etc) activities are available to these children. What about the sections of our society where these amenities are not available or the parents really couldent give a fu*k if little Johnnie can paint, play footie or dance like the sugar plum fairy?

There are things that I think parents can avoid such as being out when the kids get home, going to the pub and leaving them on their own etc. Someone needs to teach the children values and the only ones that can do that are parents.

I think that the biggest areas of society that are suffering worst from problem kids, joyriders etc are the sections of the community who have parents who are the least interested in their children and really dont care if the kids get up to all sorts. From this point of view, yes the parents should be held responsible and done accordingly. For the well to do's who's kids run amock, the parents should also be done for not hammering a sense of right and wrong into their children from the outset. I dont advocate beating children at all- no one get me wrong please- but it's societies fault that the teenager that deserved the slap to the face gets on the line to the Samaritans and has the parents done for abuse.

Boston

Originally posted by DeVore
You are very lucky I didnt see that if it involved my family.
If you have the balls to say it to my face, in person, I'd be very very surprised.

<on topic>
DeV.

Your acting like a complete muppet, and allthough i didn't say anything about your family i would have no problem to tell you what i think of you to your face. Btw the suggestion that i'm merely disagreeing with you so you "can't" ban me is bull. I dont play people like that. Allso i'd imagine the suggestion that amp or any decent mod, would allow me to insult another members family, and not ban me or atleast delete my post, is pretty insulting towards that mod. And out of repect for the situation amp is in, i will make this my last post on the subject.

My argument In summery.

I believe that if you live in a situation where your parent/s have reasonable control over you, then its ok to have the few point that they are responsible entirely for your actions.
However if you are getting arrested every other day, then its pretty obvious that your parent/s can’t or won’t control you, in which case he state clearly has a role to step in and take responsibility, if they feel imprisonment is the answer, then fair enough they take responsibility for, if they do not then they take responsibly for that as well.

If your going to blame the parent/s in a situation like this then you have to also blame the system, and society in general, and this is the point I’m making and this is why I disagree with your “blame the parents” stance”

A person chooses to be a victim of its circumstances, or not to be. To make something out of themselves, or not too. If you start blaming the parents where does it end, when the guys 18, chances are he’s well ****ed by then. If we subscribe to your train of thought that ultimately the parent/s have full responsibility for their child and how they turn out, then your would be asking me to believe that guys I know, who had ****ed up parents and managed to turn out ok, that their success is down to having ****ed up parents, And I can’t swallow that.

Your whole argument focuses on one influence on a person’s life and ignores the rest. If your going to allow one cop out “parents fault” then you have to allow all of them, and before you know where you are your blaming violence in videos, the internet the price of a pint, basically everything and everyone, except the bastard who one night gets behind the wheel of a stolen car and kills someone.

Now you can do what ever you want with what I’ve said, disregard it if you wish, but I’ve no intention in discussing this further with someone who has conducted themselves as poorly as you have in this thread.

Are parents responsible for their children? yes. Are parents responsible for their children getting into stolen cars and killing people? No, the guy that gets into the car and behind the wheel is.