Lemmy Lemmy:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
The government passed laws stating adults are responsible for damage caused by minors. Courts have refused to enforce that law. How do we get courts to do so?
Are you talking about civil or criminal court? Parents have always been responsible for the damages their children do in terms of civil law. You can't make someone serve another's penalty for criminal law. So, I don't know what you're talking about here. You want to send Mommy to prison because Johnny steals cars?
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Alternatively, in the 1800s you were treated as an adult by the time you're this age.
I see you don't get it. Real normal people do not have the financial ability to sue. Only rich spoiled brats can do that. You also see you only know a portion of the history. I remember when I was a child, media announcement of a new juvenile offenders act. It was late '60s or early '70s, I was too young to remember the exact date. It stated criminal court is REQUIRED to award damages as part of the criminal sentence, and parents or legal guardians are required to pay. But the courts refused to enforce it.
Yes, Mommy has to pay for the car because Johnny committed a crime. Mommy is responsible for the actions of the child, and is required to ensure the child doesn't commit a crime. Whether its armed robbery from a convenience store, house break-enter-and-theft, vandalism, or car theft. Mommy is supposed to have taught the child not to do that before the child was old enough to enter grade 1. If the child still hasn't learned, it's Mommy's fault. And it is Mommy's responsibility to ensure the child doesn't do that. If the child does, then the adult responsible for the child does have to pay. For not only what is stolen, but also damages caused. If a parent refuses to accept responsibility, that constitutes an abdication of parental authority, so the child must be taken by Child and Family Services, put somewhere an adult will be responsible.
Lemmy Lemmy:
ctually, no. Prior to the Young Offenders' Act (1984) there was no specific age that made one an "adult" under criminal law. Yes, it usually meant people under age 16, but people in their early 20s were frequently charged under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which treated young offenders as "wayward" rather than criminal. That's why youth custodial facilities were called "Training Centres".
That Juvenile Offenders Act also made the adult responsible for the child (parent or legal guardian) responsible for damages caused. That means criminal court is required to award restitution for damages caused as part of the criminal sentence. But again the courts refused to enforce it. You mention the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003), that one also required courts to award restitution as part of the criminal sentence, but again courts refused to enforce it. Finally the Manitoba Legislature passed legislation permitting victims to sue in civil court, stating that parents must pay for what their child has been convicted of doing. But that requires a second trial for the exact same offence. Most people can't afford the time to go to court, and certainly can't afford a lawyer. I could give you horror stories of lawyers refusing to take my case, not because of the case, but just because I was a nobody and the individual defrauding me had a important position in a big name organization. Re-trying in civil court is just not possible for the majority of Canadians.
Lemmy Lemmy:
We don't try anyone under 18 in adult court anymore. That was one of the main purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003). Furthermore, we don't put children in adult prisons anymore. Jesus, man, what are you thinking? You want to throw teenagers out for a joyride into the Black Hole of Calcutta!?!?
That those criminals did is not a "joy ride", they committed auto theft and malicious destruction of private property. That's a very serious criminal offence. That offence has very serious consequences. There are only two options: the adult responsible has to pay, or the individuals who committed the offence pays. If you claim no adult is responsible, then the default is the individuals are responsible. You don't seem to understand, by claiming the adult responsible is not responsible, you are saying the teenagers are adults.
Lemmy Lemmy:
Insurance companies can sue for damages in civil court. If the defendant is a child then its their "next friend" (an adult, usually parent, who represents them in court) who is actually sued and will be responsible for damages awarded by the court.
You don't understand. Real people don't have access to civil court. And don't tell me they do. It's my personal experience that when a person who is not considered "important" tries to do anything, that person is treated as a joke, and the "important" person gets everything he/she asks for. And lawyers refuse any case for an individual who isn't "important". Normal people don't have a law degree, don't know the procedures, and lawyers who are supposed to help with that just won't.
Lemmy Lemmy:
I'm not sure you're comprehending the difference between civil and criminal law.
You're not comprehanding: whenever you say the case has to be tried twice, you're saying the offender will not be held responsible. Period. The second case is just an excuse to let the criminal offender off.
CKA Uber 
Forum Super Elite 
CKA Uber 
