The long debated argument over parents being forced to pay for their kids crimes, sparked up afresh when the Los Angeles City Council was set to consider adopting a new law that would make parents financially liable for the graffiti vandalism caused by their kids.
Under the new law, parents would be cited for such vandalism, and the proceeds would be used to help clean and recondition destroyed property. Parents also would be forced to enroll in parenting classes.
County Sheriff Lee Baca announced, during a news conference, that two adults and 10 juveniles had been arrested in an anti-graffiti sweep, targeting two main areas.
In a legal first in July 2004, an Australian court ruled that the parents, (on an appeal) be held responsible for their children's actions and pay $60,000 to the owners of two properties, which two teenagers had set fire to, creating $400,000 worth of damage. One of the homes had to be totally pulled down.
The judge, Denis Reynolds, ruled that the parents had generally been responsible around the time of the arson attacks. However, he added, the parents had not been adequate in their supervision of their children, who were using amphetamines and cannabis, besides drinking alcohol.
Judge Reynolds said the recompense order was not designed to be more punishment.
The lawyer representing the teenagers' parents says her clients acted appropriately and responsibly during the period of the children's upbringing. Carmel McKenzie, a Kalgoolie lawyer, stated that parents should not be punished for their children's crimes. "We're used to, in our society, people being punished for what they have done but the concept of punishing somebody for something somebody else has done is obviously an unusual situation".
"At the end of the day, these are your children and they are your responsibility whether you like it or whether you don't", one of the victims of the fire stated.
Others would however argue that the custodian cannot be held responsible for deliberate actions committed by the child unless there is proof that the child was specifically led to the end result that a crime was committed.
The debate over whether parents should or should not be held liable for the crimes of their kids has been around for many years. Texas passed laws that inflicted penalties on both the parents and the underage kids.
Silverton, Oregon, was the first state to adopt this type of law in 1995, where parents can now be fined as much as $1,000 if their child is found carrying a gun, smoking cigarettes, or using illegal drugs. Parents who agree to take part in parenting classes can dodge the fines.
In the first two months of passing the law in early 1995, seven parents were made to pay penalties and many others took part in parenting classes. The Oregon law applies to parents "failing to supervise a child". The law covers such things as breaking a curfew or skipping school. Fines range up to $1,000, with a payment of up to $2,500 to be paid a victim. Since the law was passed, underage crime rate has dropped 53 percent.
Thirty-three states across America, can now command parents to pay restitution for crimes committed by their children.
Author RSS Views:
Print this article
Ask about this article