Parental responsibilities

[Ed62]

Recently, there was a double murder of an elderly couple. Two teenagers were charged with the murder. Someone brought up parental responsibility because the kids didn't have much of an upbringing. Which raises a question.

Although it sometimes doesn't matter how involved the parents are with their kids in their formative years, should there actually be a law that would require a certain level of involvement from the parents during these crucial years? If so, and the parents have been found guilty of mismanagement or whatever you want to call it, with the upbringing of their kids, what kind of penalty should the parents receive? What if it involves murder? What if it involves just drug dealing, but nothing more? Something to think about.

Ed

[dbhost]

Recently, there was a double murder of an elderly couple. Two teenagers were charged with the murder. Someone brought up parental responsibility because the kids didn't have much of an upbringing. Which raises a question.

Although it sometimes doesn't matter how involved the parents are with their kids in their formative years, should there actually be a law that would require a certain level of involvement from the parents during these crucial years? If so, and the parents have been found guilty of mismanagement or whatever you want to call it, with the upbringing of their kids, what kind of penalty should the parents receive? What if it involves murder? What if it involves just drug dealing, but nothing more? Something to think about.

Ed

Since you are discussing "Should there be a law", this is by nature a political discussion. Not trying to be mean or anything, and I would love to give a nice, detailed answer, but there is no way to answer the question without taking a political stance.

[cabinetman]

The answer doesn't have to be political. When I was a kid, parents were disciplinarians. Now, the little brats threaten to call the cops if they get disciplined. If minors aren't responsible...who then? You see this issue all the time on TV. Child breaks the law and goes to juvie. With some crimes children (minors) are tried and sentenced as adults.

I remember when I was old enough to know better that if I goofed up, I'd get smacked. If I had threatened to call the cops, I would have been a bloody pulp. Yep, I learned respect. I was also told that I knew right from wrong, and if I made a bad decision, I would have to suffer the consequences. Maybe the way it is, is as effective as it can get. The kid breaks the law...he/she faces the results of their actions.

My feelings are that if the parents knew that they may have to answer for the deeds of their children, they might just keep closer tabs.
.

[jackellis]

There's no simple answer. Some parents are involved and the kids still get into trouble. Some kids have no parents and they do just fine.

Once a child reaches the age of 12 or 13 (boys become men in some cultures at 13), I think you have to hold the individual responsible for his or her actions, no matter how involved or not the parents are. It seems to me that a kid might actually be less responsible if its parent's were on the hook.

Of course, if we had anarchy and I could do as I wished, the solution might be quite a bit different.

[Shep]

Good points so far. I think it would be a slipery slope. What about the "devil" child that come from a good family but still commits a crime. Should the parents be accountable for that? I don't think so.

Here's another, albeit more extreme, example: If a teen has an accident in his car, should the parents be held responsible for not teaching him beter driving techniques. What if the accident kills someone, should his parent be charged with manslaughter? Answer: no.

If we really want to teach our children how to be responsible citizens we must first hold them responsible for their actions. If we teach them that it's "not their fault," where does it end, and where does that lead this country?

[Uncle Cracker]

This is a question of societal ethics, not politics. In a society that seeks to regulate how and when people can discipline their kids, there goes a certain societal risk that must be shared for the consequences. Just as many people grow up to be good and useful citizens despite a rough childhood, many others are properly brought up, but turn into horrible people as adults. How can the parents be held accountable for that? Although the "abused or neglected child" card is played often today by defense lawyers looking to get pity from judges and juries, it's a cold fact that mental health issues, drugs, alcohol abuse, or just poor choices, can turn the most unlikely people into ne'er-do-wells, and the parents cannot be held responsible (beyond whatever separate crimes they may have committed). Can you image the civil and legal catastrophe that would ensue if this were the case?

[dbhost]

My point was, in response to Ed's question of should there be a law...

The question of should there be a law is in itself political in nature. Should the government take action, A.B.C. or D is a political question.

The nature of political discussion is discussion regarding how government authorities exercise that authority, and why.

Or as my political science professor from college told us. Politics is the science of who takes what from whom, gives it to whom else, when, how and why.

On the MORAL side of the equation, leaving authorities out of it, are parents responsible, morally for how their children turn out? Do they deserve credit if their kids turn out well, do they deserve blame if little Johnny turns out to be a mass murderer?

To a certain degree, yes, and to a greater degree, no. Let me explain.

If one were to look at my adult life, my childhood, particularly teenage years would not be readily apparent. I am a law abiding, contributing member of society. I have a good job with a lot of responsibility, and am well considered within my community. (I think anyway...).

My parents divorced when I was a pre-teen, and my poor mother struggled to get a strong willed boy raised up and out on his own. And while my parents both meant well, I can honestly say I got into a lot of things as a teen I wouldn't have had there been fear of Dad in the home... I wasn't a shoot the neighborhood up thug or anything like that, but I did do my fair share of under age drinking and similar petty things. Folks that new me in high school are STUNNED when they find out where I am in life, and what I have accomplished. (You mean HE graduated from college with HONORS?!). The reason is, that it was pretty common knowledge that my mom, even though she meant well, wasn't around enough, or had what it took to keep a rebellious teenage boy in check.

Likewise, I have a former high school friend who's parents DID stay together, and honestly watching their family was like watching the Cleaver family on TV, they did EVERYTHING right. Their little prince is currently a guest of the corrections system in my home state for operating an unlicensed pharmacy as it were. (Meth lab / dealer). HE was the guy everyone thought would graduate with honors from college instead of having an extended stay at the gray bar hotel and resort.

Was it the parents? Nope... It was the individual.

[Richard in Smithville]

Ok, so what causes a child to be rebellious? Is it the parents who don't really care and let their kids do as they please? Or is it the family who protects their child so much-to the point of smothering-that they rebel from that?

[Ed62]

I certainly didn't post this thread to be political. Yes, if we make a law, that part is political. But I think most people would agree that it is an issue of society.

While I appreciate the comments, it seems as if some of you didn't really see this part that I wrote: "Although it sometimes doesn't matter how involved the parents are with their kids in their formative years, should there actually be a law that would require a certain level of involvement from the parents during these crucial years? If so, and the parents have been found guilty of mismanagement or whatever you want to call it, with the upbringing of their kids, what kind of penalty should the parents receive?"

This might involve parents who enjoy doing what it takes to bring children into the world, but do not accept the responsibility that goes with it. That responsibility would simply be to being involved with their kids, and try to steer them on the right path. I wasn't asking if parents should automatically be responsible for whatever crimes their kids commit. That would be absurd.

Ed

[dbhost]

Ok, so what causes a child to be rebellious? Is it the parents who don't really care and let their kids do as they please? Or is it the family who protects their child so much-to the point of smothering-that they rebel from that?

I have seen children rebel in both situations, I have seen children toe the line in both situations. I think overprotecting a child is more likely to produce a child that rebels against everything than a neglected child.

[natausch]

My brother and his wife are strong disciplinarians and loving/supportive parents. Despite this one of their children is a holy terror. I can't think of one holiday where he hasn't acted up to disrupt things in recent history. He breaks his toys, bullies his brothers and has probably one of the worst cases of talk-back I've ever seen.

My Sister-in-Law and her husband are lax disciplinarians and very busy people, Nanny and Daycare type busy. Despite this their children are well behaved examples of proper children. Please, thank you, may I, and we've yet to catch them trying to lie when they stay with us.

An awful lot of who we are is based on who we are... not the environment we are brought up in.

[Uncle Cracker]

Their upbringing is only one factor in the equation of how kids turn out. There are so many others, including random chance. Parents can only do their best and then hope it all works out. That they should have to worry, years down the road, that they might become liable for the results is ridiculous. The self-incrimination that most will heap upon themselves is penance enough.

[leehljp]

In both of our families of 6 siblings that have 17 children, the lax have more discipline problems than the strict ones. Among 10 cousins my age in the mid-south and their kids, the strict one's kids are more behaved - and in fact their kids are teachers, law enforcement, developers, company managers, other jobs and very productive in society. Not much problems there. I do have a cousin that was raised lax and is still a little rambunctious as an adult but strangely, he raised his kids as a strict disciplinarian and they are OK.

Looking at aunts and uncles kids from VA to CA and MI to FL, the stricter disciplinarians kids are more productive in society than the lax ones.

[conwaygolfer]

Laws?

If we are to have a law concerning the parents involvement in rearing the children, why not start earlier? Have a law that requires pre marital counseling. At least they get off to a better start or perhaps know what to expect - or better yet - what is expected of them.

If I read it correctly, the divorce rate in our great country is now at 50%....

Conwaygolfer

[Alex Franke]

I agree that this doesn't have to be political at all. Sure it can be made political, but I don't think it should be branded as political just because law is part of the equation.

That said, my answer would be no -- I don't think there should be a law mandating involvement. There are laws out there already that deal with raising kids, and I think this is a perfect example of the type of issue a jury of peers would be best at resolving.

If a parent, for example, teaches a kid how to murder, convinces him it's a good thing to do, buys him a gun, and sends him out with a six-pack and a hit list, then I think there are probably a few reasons under current law that the parent could be found at least partly responsible for a murder if it happened, and I think a jury would recognize that.

If it's a model parent and the same thing happened, then the same questions should be asked: "Was there anything the parents did wrong -- any neglect, abuse, encouragement, etc -- that contributed to the crime? If so, what should the parent's punishment be?"

There's a huge gray area in there, and I think it's actually a good example of why trial by jury of peers makes sense.

I think the tricky part is figuring out when a child should be considered to have the same responsibility for her actions as an adult would. I don't think it's the same for everyone.