[Yogi]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/ ... 1-sun.html


Is it time to hold the parents/guardians of such miscreants accountable, at least in part, for their kids actions? More and more, we are seeing behaviour such as this and it seems the offenders are getting younger. We have also seen, for many years, in a bid for leniency, the courtroom tactic used by lawyers, ' my client didn't have a bicycle or a teddybear when he was a child your Honor, that has caused him irreparable harm, and consequently he should not be held accountable for his actions'!

Those of us who have raised kids know that it can be a tough job sometimes. Sometimes, actually more often than not we have to tell them "NO"! It is our job to do so. One 'we chose'! The kids certainly had no say as to whether they were born. That being the case, shouldn't those who did make the choice be held accountable? Too often parents are abdicating their responsibilities. We have all seen the documentaries about gangs, if not having personally spoken to kids in gangs. Everyone of them cites that they are 'looking for a family' and that is why they joined a gang.

I don't think as a society that we should be waiting until these 'little darlings' murder someone before we act. Rather, I think that on the '1st strike' the parents get hauled into court with their kid and be held to account! If the parents can prove that they have done due diligence then 'Little Johnny' becomes a ward of the courts. If, on the other hand, the parents are found to be negligent or lacking in parenting skills, part of the sentencing should be that the parents are forced by the courts to complete the necessary lifeskills training to the courts satisfaction. During this time-frame the kid would be held in closed-custody in order that not only would they 'serve an appropriate sentence', but also some seriuos counselling. After which, the sitting judge would then review the progress of all concerned and decide whether the parents and child should be reunited as family.

[Brenda]

Those kids should never ever walk the streets again. Not even when they are considered rehabilitated. There's much to say for raging hormones, and puberty stupidity, but this attack is not even close to being that. This is vicious, I have basicly no words for this.

The parents should definitely be held accountable for raising those. I don't know how yet, I need to think about that, but this is not something we as a society can let go.

[raydan]

Why wait to do something when it's too late.

Nobody is allowed to procreate until they've taken a 6 month course in parenting followed by 3 months of practice in a daycare.
Then they are evaluated (including a psychological exam) and if they pass, they get a "License for Procreation".

How's that for Eugenics.

[Yogi]

raydan wrote:

Why wait to do something when it's too late.

Nobody is allowed to procreate until they've taken a 6 month course in parenting followed by 3 months of practice in a daycare.
Then they are evaluated (including a psychological exam) and if they pass, they get a "License for Procreation".

How's that for Eugenics.

And then they will only be allowed to produce 'blond haired, blue-eyed'...

[Brenda]

lily wrote:

You have a problem with blue-eyed blond kids?

Nah, only with blue-eyed blond adults

[DrJones]

In Ontario, the Children's Aid Society can take custody a child where it believes the parents are doing such a poor job the best interets of the child would be better served as a ward of the state. But they almost never do this, barring abuse by the parents against the children. NO judge will ever issue such an order except in the most horrific of cases. Separating a child from their parents is a huge move.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the parents. Sure they are responsible to an extent IF they aren't parenting well. But really, these teenagers know what they're doing and they constantly look to blame someone else. We should hold THEM accountable for their actions, and scrap this bullshit Youth Criminal Justice Act - at least how it treats VIOLENT crimes.

Finally, in Ontario at least, parents can be held FINANCIALLY liable for the actions of their children - see the Parental Responsibility Act.

Parents’ liability

2. (1) Where a child takes, damages or destroys property, an owner or a person entitled to possession of the property may bring an action in the Small Claims Court against a parent of the child to recover damages, not in excess of the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court,

(a) for loss of or damage to the property suffered as a result of the activity of the child; and

(b) for economic loss suffered as a consequence of that loss of or damage to property. 2000, c. 4, s. 2 (1).

Same

(2) The parent is liable for the damages unless the parent satisfies the court that,

(a) he or she was exercising reasonable supervision over the child at the time the child engaged in the activity that caused the loss or damage and made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage the child from engaging in the kind of activity that resulted in the loss or damage; or

(b) the activity that caused the loss or damage was not intentional. 2000, c. 4, s. 2 (2).

[raydan]

Yogi wrote:

raydan wrote:

Why wait to do something when it's too late.

Nobody is allowed to procreate until they've taken a 6 month course in parenting followed by 3 months of practice in a daycare.
Then they are evaluated (including a psychological exam) and if they pass, they get a "License for Procreation".

How's that for Eugenics.

And then they will only be allowed to produce 'blond haired, blue-eyed'...

I wouldn't care in the least what they looked like... except for the girls of course.

[Choban]

I've been a supporter for licensing parents for years now, and not only in relation to raising juvenile delinquents.
I feel you should have to prove you have the life skills nessesary yourself before you are allowed to have a child of your own.
If you parent a child and are not capable then that child should be eligable for someone to adopt.
And yes parents should be accountable for their childrens actions, especially in repeat cases where no progress has been made.

[Yogi]

lily wrote:
You have a problem with blue-eyed blond kids?


Brenda wrote:
Nah, only with blue-eyed blond adults




Not at all.In fact 'blue-eyed blond kids grow up to be 'blue-eyed, blond adults', and I just happen to be in the market for one myself!!!

[raydan]

To Lily,

Thank you, thank you, thank you....
My first reputation points.

raydan,
XXX

[Yogi]

Choban wrote:

I've been a supporter for licensing parents for years now, and not only in relation to raising juvenile delinquents.
I feel you should have to prove you have the life skills nessesary yourself before you are allowed to have a child of your own.
If you parent a child and are not capable then that child should be eligable for someone to adopt.
And yes parents should be accountable for their childrens actions, especially in repeat cases where no progress has been made.

Give this some serious thought. Such a requirement is unrealistic & unenforceable!

Dr. Jones: There is a variation of these laws 'on the books' in every province. Laudible, but rarely enforced for lack of 'manpower or desire'. In either case it is up to the one making the allegation to come up with the proof. More often than not the result is that very little if anything is done.

What I am suggesting is that 'upon Little Johnny's first offence' the parents must also stand before the judge and answer for their kids crime and be held accountable. Remedial 'punishment' would be meeted out at that point and follow-up by the courts, not an over-worked, under-achieving 'social worker'!

[martin14]

This is not just a parental problem.. it is our society as a whole.

Been in East Europe for a while now, watching the people change as they
have joined the rest of Europe.

The stories of random violence, youth gang crime, cats in the microwave, etc.
havent happened here.. yet.

But things are changing, as they adopt our standards towards
consumerism, family and work, I imagine morality will follow soon enough.

I think kids like these are not just a product of bad parents,
but start to reflect things changing in our society.

[DrJones]

Yogi wrote:

Dr. Jones: There is a variation of these laws 'on the books' in every province. Laudible, but rarely enforced for lack of 'manpower or desire'. In either case it is up to the one making the allegation to come up with the proof. More often than not the result is that very little if anything is done.

What I am suggesting is that 'upon Little Johnny's first offence' the parents must also stand before the judge and answer for their kids crime and be held accountable. Remedial 'punishment' would be meeted out at that point and follow-up by the courts, not an over-worked, under-achieving 'social worker'!

The problem with this is the resources it would take to enforce it. The parents would deny liability. The state then has to "prove" they're negligent parents. Who's going to pay for more prosecutions in an already bursting at the seams court system? It'll never happen.

[Brenda]

DrJones wrote:

Yogi wrote:

Dr. Jones: There is a variation of these laws 'on the books' in every province. Laudible, but rarely enforced for lack of 'manpower or desire'. In either case it is up to the one making the allegation to come up with the proof. More often than not the result is that very little if anything is done.

What I am suggesting is that 'upon Little Johnny's first offence' the parents must also stand before the judge and answer for their kids crime and be held accountable. Remedial 'punishment' would be meeted out at that point and follow-up by the courts, not an over-worked, under-achieving 'social worker'!

The problem with this is the resources it would take to enforce it. The parents would deny liability. The state then has to "prove" they're negligent parents. Who's going to pay for more prosecutions in an already bursting at the seams court system? It'll never happen.

How can you deny liability as parents?

[Yogi]

DrJones wrote:

Yogi wrote:

Dr. Jones: There is a variation of these laws 'on the books' in every province. Laudible, but rarely enforced for lack of 'manpower or desire'. In either case it is up to the one making the allegation to come up with the proof. More often than not the result is that very little if anything is done.

What I am suggesting is that 'upon Little Johnny's first offence' the parents must also stand before the judge and answer for their kids crime and be held accountable. Remedial 'punishment' would be meeted out at that point and follow-up by the courts, not an over-worked, under-achieving 'social worker'!

The problem with this is the resources it would take to enforce it. The parents would deny liability. The state then has to "prove" they're negligent parents. Who's going to pay for more prosecutions in an already bursting at the seams court system? It'll never happen.

Initially, yes. It will cost a lot of money to institute such a process. In the long run we would save billions of dollars! Not to mention countless of lives. The root cause of these kids troubles is at home. With few eexceptions, either the parents are trying to do a good job ( do they require some help there) or they aren't. If they are not trying, within their circumstances then they are as guilty of the crime as their kid is! Not unlike treating a noxious weed. if you want to have any chance at cleaning up or eradicating the noxious growth, you attack the root. It costs me nothing to 'lopp off' the head of a dandelion on Monday and then on Thursday and again on Sunday. But the effort is ongoing! On the other hand, a litre of 'Round up' costs damn near $50.00. Takes very little in a syringe applied directly to the root of the problem. ONCE!