Holding parents responsible for minor children who commit crimes

[Londo_Jowo]

I think in most states the parents can be held civilly liable for damages caused by their minor children. I wonder how many have laws on the books for holding parents criminally liable for act their minor children commit. Looks like St Louis is beginning to do so.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/12/09/stl-police-holding-parents-accountable/20161613/

ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - Police are turning their attention to parents after a recent increase in crime involving young teens. They're sending a warning to guardians: take responsibility for your kids, or you could end up in court.

Officers started using this new tactic following a shooting over the weekend. Police say one group of teens shot at another group of teens late Saturday night. A 16-year-old boy was hit in the foot. The shooters got away, but officers were tasked with finding the guardians of the victims. When they found them, police say, none of them knew where the kids were at the time of the shooting. So, they were issued summonses for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

The shooting was just one of several involving young people within the city of St. Louis in recent months. And, young teens were also recently involved in a string of violent robberies downtown.

In one case, a group of girls, ages 12, 13, and 14 were arrested for attacking women and robbing them downtown. The 13-year-old suspect was also pregnant. And, within that same week, a group of boys in school uniforms reportedly brutally attacked a lawyer who was walking on 10th Street near Olive.

 

[Blanky]

In theory this makes sense. In practice hopefully it will.

I think we know what will happen, though. Many of these kids' parents are barely functioning as adults and shouldn't have had kids to begin with. They had kids because they lack the ability to reason and plan properly, so punishing them isn't going to really change anything.

 

[desy]

exactly
Or the parents can be good but the kids are bad, they are still individuals with their own morality

 

[Jaskalas]

This makes no sense, as the teen's peers are the ones responsible for raising them and setting their moral compass. You think their parents raised them? You're a century too late for that.

It'd be more effective to punish the classroom, and sort classes by juvenile records.

 

[Blanky]

This makes no sense, as the teen's peers are the ones responsible for raising them and setting their moral compass. You think their parents raised them? You're a century too late for that.

It'd be more effective to punish the classroom, and sort classes by juvenile records.

Somewhat of a fair point but ultimately this is saying who is responsible for this minor? And that should be the adult, but like I said these people don't know where their kids are because they are shit parents and this won't change much.

 

[IronWing]

I've been mulling over the idea of requiring would be parents to post performance bonds prior to pro-creating.

 

[Jaskalas]

Somewhat of a fair point but ultimately this is saying who is responsible for this minor? And that should be the adult, but like I said these people don't know where their kids are because they are shit parents and this won't change much.

Getting the peers involved in stopping crime is the only way to change it. How to actually achieve that though... As a new concept it would take a lot of trial, error, and iteration.

Hitting up the parents is like trying to clean up Afghan terrorism by replacing the government. It's not going to work in most cases. You need a revolution at the ground level, among your target demographic. Thankfully American children are easier to control than the example, but we're still failing at both.

Chicago's violence points to a "ground zero" for our need to dramatically intervene.

 

[glenn1]

How exactly would you go about "holding them accountable" when there's nothing for them to lose? Can't fire them from jobs they don't have, shaming won't work because you can't reduce their social status below already rock bottom, make them live in some shitty place since Ferguson is a dump anyway (well, I guess you could move them to Detroit). You could take away their welfare I guess but how would that help things? Or put their kids in juvenile detention, but again how is that some sort of punishment against the parents?

 

[Subyman]

No way. You should never be liable for someone else's crimes. That is insane. Unless the parent is an accomplice in some way, they should not be held liable. That is a major slippery slope into all kind of weird stuff.

So the kid is misbehaving, so we put the parent in jail? What happens to the kid? He goes to jail too? What good does that do? Now we have two people in jail instead of one. If the parent has other children, I guess they end up in the foster system. Breaking up families is the last thing we need to do.

 

[DrPizza]

I have a problem with holding parents completely accountable for knowing exactly where a 16 year old kid is. 16 year old children have the mental capacity to be able to successfully lie to their parents. "I'm going to John's house to work on homework." Do you really expect a parent to drive over to John's house to check up on their kid? To call their kid every 5 minutes to verify their location? To use smart phones to track the geographic location of their kid non-stop?

To put it into a different perspective, that would be like punishing a teacher because a student skipped class. Doesn't matter that the teacher marked the student absent, or that the teacher called the office to make the office aware that the student was missing. Teacher is responsible for that student during those 42 minutes, therefore, it's the teacher's fault. Sounds pretty stupid?

Parents have until the kid is about 10 years old, if that, to raise the kid. After that, things are fairly well set in motion.

 

[Bitek]

I see it OK up until a certain age, but holding parents of a 16yo responsible is too much. 14/15/16 or so and the delinquent will only learn by being punisher directly

 

[Brovane]

In the United States we never hold back from trying to criminalize as much as possible.

 

[Moonbeam]

What purpose have we given our poorest children that they want to build rather than destroy. They are the detritus of our society, the ones the machine has decided don't count for anything. Put them in jail, put their parents in jail, it's all in the cost of doing business. When the shipment arrives you throw the box away. But throwing them away is a metaphor. You can't just yet throw millions of people away. It would give some folk bad dreams. So we put them in new boxes to store them away for a rainy day. And it gives a bunch of people who would otherwise have to be thrown away also, something to do. They love the income and clamor for more business. And woe betide any who want to fuck with this business model.

 

[trenchfoot]

A multi-faceted problem with very few painful, costly solutions.

Things go downhill really quick if parents do not hold themselves accountable for their children's actions from the time the child "should know better" to the time when the "child" can legally be held responsible for their own actions.

 

[inachu]

This would be good and bad.
Hey son! How does it feel that your dad went to jail for your stupid ass?

Son! Hey I am speaking to you! Right now I am sure your daddy was made as a wife in jail. No he will not be able to sit properly for a very long time when he gets out.

Yeah next time do not steal stuff and get ready for an ass whoopin when he gets home.
Might be a good time not to be home when he gets here.

 

[Smoblikat]

What purpose have we given our poorest children that they want to build rather than destroy. They are the detritus of our society, the ones the machine has decided don't count for anything. Put them in jail, put their parents in jail, it's all in the cost of doing business. When the shipment arrives you throw the box away. But throwing them away is a metaphor. You can't just yet throw millions of people away. It would give some folk bad dreams. So we put them in new boxes to store them away for a rainy day. And it gives a bunch of people who would otherwise have to be thrown away also, something to do. They love the income and clamor for more business. And woe betide any who want to fuck with this business model.

Why are you so articulate/intelligent/crazy?

 

[soundforbjt]

Getting the peers involved in stopping crime is the only way to change it. How to actually achieve that though... As a new concept it would take a lot of trial, error, and iteration.

Hitting up the parents is like trying to clean up Afghan terrorism by replacing the government. It's not going to work in most cases. You need a revolution at the ground level, among your target demographic. Thankfully American children are easier to control than the example, but we're still failing at both.

Chicago's violence points to a "ground zero" for our need to dramatically intervene.

Of the Top Ten most violent cities per capita
in the U.S. , Chicago didn't make the list...

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/11/11/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-4/4/

 

[SlickSnake]

Of the Top Ten most violent cities per capita
in the U.S. , Chicago didn't make the list...

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/11/11/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-4/4/

Shitcago didn't make the top ten violent city list because they make up their own violent crime statistics and misreport it, just like a lot of other large cities with out of control violent crime rates do. And I have tried repeatedly to make a case for this being a widespread practice, but the politically correct loyalists around here will have none of it, because the popo absolutely never lies, and stuff.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...xperts-Dallas-undercount-of-assaults-6330.ece

Et cetera.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2338378

 

[soundforbjt]

Shitcago didn't make the top ten violent city list because they make up their own violent crime statistics and misreport it, just like a lot of other large cities with out of control violent crime rates do. And I have tried repeatedly to make a case for this being a widespread practice, but the politically correct loyalists around here will have none of it, because the popo absolutely never lies, and stuff.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2014/Chicago-crime-rates/

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...xperts-Dallas-undercount-of-assaults-6330.ece

Et cetera.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2338378

How come Chicago didn't make the top 25 in 2009/2010?
You're link said they changed the method in 2010...
http://www.businessinsider.com/25-most-dangerous-cities-2009-11#1-st-louis-mo-25

 

[SlickSnake]

How come Chicago didn't make the top 25 in 2009/2010?
You're link said they changed the method in 2010...
http://www.businessinsider.com/25-most-dangerous-cities-2009-11#1-st-louis-mo-25

I have no doubt at all that miscategorizing violent crimes has been going on for some time PRIOR to their OFFICIAL policy changes about it.

One easy and lazy way to instantly turn down violent crime reporting and statistics, is simply calling a typical murder a suicide instead. Then, the cities save a ton of money that would otherwise be spent doing detective work and solving actual murders. Because if it's labeled a suicide, they usually close the case immediately and forget about it. This is often done even in cases when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And even then they will still steadfastly refuse to reopen the case, unless public pressure through the media forces them to, which is pretty rare.