The Criminal Acts of Underage Children; Are the Parents Really the Blame?

Johnson 1

Jasmine C Johnson

Amanda Palleschi

English Comp 1

25 October 2017

The criminal acts of underage children; Are the parents really the blame?

It’s no secret that teens break the law, thinking they’re basically invincible. They engage in underage drinking, vandalism, also possession, and under the influence, of drugs. Then there is some young people commit much bigger crimes- felonies such as breaking and entering into a house, grand theft auto, even murder, and rape. Children of all ages are capable of breaking the law, but it’s speculated that adolescents tend to break the law more. Unfortunately, adolescents in Washington, DC engage in some risky behavior in their middle and high school years. Many would say “Bad behavior starts in the home; where are the parents?” or the parents are responsible for the criminal actions of the children, as if adolescents are not exposed to the world the moment their, cognitive functions began at age 3. These crimes unfortunately have severe consequences that can possibly follow them for a lifetime. While these minors are thought of as children simply making mistakes, they are still rational, mostly reasonable human beings who knowing exactly what they are doing. Therefore, parents are not responsible to pay the cost for the crimes of their children.

        Imagine a world where parents are being punished criminally for each infraction made by their children, even children too young to understand the law. Would it really make sense to punish a hard-working parent for what their child does elsewhere while they are at work; or perhaps the overwhelmed single mother whose 12-year-old steals an item unnoticed from the shelf in a convenient store while the parent tends to her other children? Thankfully, according to New Jersey courts have determined that laws criminally punishing parents solely for the acts of their children are unconstitutional (Doe v. City of Trenton). Accomplice and conspirator liability are exceptions to the general rule that each person is only liable for the crimes they commit. In such cases, the intent of the actor is the key. Several high school Football players in Sayreville, New Jersey were arrested for sexual/physical abuse back in 2014. Reporters Nate Schweder, Kim Barker, and Jason Grant from The New York times shares how Members of Sayreville's high school football team are accused of sexually assaulting its younger members as part of a hazing ritual. Students were arrested, the football season canceled and responsibility for the players committing these crimes were the adolescents, however many feel as though the ones at fought should have been the students’ parents.  According to newyorktimes.com/opinion Angry commenters blamed the parents for prioritizing football over respect, for not being aware of the entrenched and abusive locker room culture, and for not stopping the assaults — even though it is certainly not clear that any of the parents knew what was happening in the first place. In all honesty attempts to deem parents responsible for the offense of their children are not new. In 1646, Massachusetts passed the "Stubborn Child Law," which permitted parents to be fined when their minor children were caught stealing. Since then, other states have experimented with laws — both criminal and civil in nature — that permit parents to be held responsible for the harms caused by their children. Those in favor of such laws argue that if parents are required to properly supervise their children, then they can — and should — be held liable when they fail to do. In March 2014, for instance, a New Jersey judge allowed the parents of alleged bullies to be sued for the torment experienced by one student at the hands of other children. If successful, this type of suit could potentially open new avenues to pursue parents for a wide range of their children's behaviors. In fact, New Jersey already allows parents to be sued for their children's behavior when it results in damage to certain public property, like public schools.. Holding parents legally responsible for their children's behavior, however, is probably not in society's best interest. As research on juvenile delinquency has established, children are developmentally immature, lacking in impulse control and an understanding of the long-term consequences of their actions. To hold most parents liable for the ill-conceived, albeit sometimes vicious, actions of their children seems, to put it mildly, unfair This is not to say that parents can't play an important role in stopping their children's negative behavior. They can talk to their children about respect. They can encourage their children to think for themselves and to resist peer pressure. And they can instill in their children a sense of empathy and kindness that could help them avoid abusive situations like that which allegedly occurred in the locker room at Sayreville High School.