Editorial: Sins of the child should not fall on the parents
5:29 AM Saturday Dec 1, 2012
Troubled youth are not simply the product of bad parents. The solution to juvenile offending is far more complex. Photo / Brett Phibbs
The case of Jahche Broughton, who murdered Scottish tourist Karen Aim in 2008, is a particularly disturbing one. Why, as coroner Wallace Bain, asked this week, had a 14-year-old boy been allowed to roam the streets of Taupo after midnight with a baseball bat? The situation appears all the more reprehensible given that Broughton had liquor and a seeming disposition to violent behaviour.
"It raises," said the coroner, "the standard and question of supervision and whether there should be any criminal or other responsibility for those who were supposed to be supervising him."
Dr Bain's frustration is understandable. He is also not alone in asking whether parents should be made more responsible for the behaviour of their children. Indeed, this has become a staple suggestion as the rate of juvenile crime escalates worldwide, and new solutions are sought.
Some provinces in Canada and states of Australia and the United States have reacted already, passing laws that range from punishing parents, ordering them to exercise better supervision, or ordering them to attend guidance counselling. California has one of the toughest.
Parents may be fined up to $2500 and imprisoned for up to a year if they are found guilty of contributing to the offending by failing to exercise reasonable care, protection and control over their child.
There is a surface allure to such laws.
Research has shown that inadequate parenting, especially factors associated with child neglect, are among the strongest predictors of juvenile crime. Does it not, therefore, follow that society would benefit from a law that deterred parents who were not properly supervising their children and controlling their behaviour?
They would know that there would be serious consequences if they did not prevent their child's offending.
The thrust of such a law also fits well with the current emphasis on providing greater succour to the victims of crime. Parents, not just their children, would get their just desserts.
Unfortunately, the very limited use and general ineffectiveness of such laws confirms matters are not quite that simple.
Equally, there are questions about the validity of this means of administering justice.
In the vast majority of cases, it is questionable if parents' failure to exercise control is the cause of juvenile crime. It is just one of a number of competing social, cultural, economic and family factors influencing children's behaviour.
And if it cannot be said with certainty that a failure of parental control has caused a juvenile crime, it cannot be concluded that the parents should be punished by society. Or that such a law will deter juvenile delinquency.
There are other detriments to this approach.
One is the intrusion into the privacy of homes, and the implication that parents must raise their children in a certain way. Another is that such a law may cause some parents to impose an unnecessarily strict regime.
That, in turn, may lead some children to become even more difficult to control.
Bad children are not simply the product of bad parents.
The solution to juvenile offending is far more complex.
It involves addressing the root causes through social programmes, as well as providing support services for inadequate and struggling parents.
Child abuse and neglect laws also offer a better option than a law in which the sins of children could fall unfairly on their parents.
Children raised with a set of values (universal values just like universal human rights such as respect for others, respect for others property etc), a moral compass, will mean that that child has a considerably less chance of going off the rails and becoming a criminal.
The California law does not seem to punitive to me. It requires the parent to show that they have taken reasonable steps to raise the child properly and provided an acceptable level of supervision.
A child of 9 being taken home at 2 am after being picked up wandering the street and the parents becoming abusive towards the police who bought him home is clearly not showing the acceptable level of supervision.
This would not be a difficult determination to make and the parents to suffer the consequences just as a parent is convicted for leaving children, under 14 years of age, at home by themselves. I think the editor, like many others, takes the "UN approach" of not offending anyone, ensuring nothing is ever done and the problem keeps growing.
If I earn to *much*, I will have to be responsible for her financial welfare whilst studying. Yet if she decides to be a violent criminal/sociopath/there will be no onus on me to be held in anyway responsible.
Whilst I do realise there is no simple answer to this social problem area, perhaps more parental responsibility/inclusion in the adverse acts of children will encourage some parents to be more involved in helping to teach a child their behaviour is not acceptable.
It need not be fines to be paid, why not make these children AND their parents do community service. If the child vandalises, the child and mum and dad get out their and clean the mess up. If a child shoplifts more than once, the family is barred from entering those stores and a family photo goes up on display. If a child is drunk and roaming the streets, the parents are got out of their beds to go and get them. Etc etc.
I think that every situation should be judged on its merits. A large number of these juvenile offenders have shown problems at an earlier age and alarm bells should have rung then. Celia Lashlie was vilified for her stance on identifying killers and problem juveniles at an early age.
These young killers must surely have shown some propensity to violence, perhaps having abused animals, but the parents must take some responsibility.
If I had been the parent of that innocent young Scots woman I would be very angry and frustrated.