Close Topic Options

Who Is Responsible?

If your child were to commit a criminal act, do you think you as the parent should be held responsible for it even up to the full force of the law? Consider the following:

1. Up to what age should you be fully responsible?
2. Up to what age should you partially be responsible?

Responsible Who

Yes, absolutely.

1. Up to what age should you be fully responsible? Up to 12.

2. Up to what age should you partially be responsible? From 13 to 18.
From age 13 to 18 the child should be made to take responsibility for their own actions, the parents should also be co-responsible.

Who Is Responsible? History & Civil Business Politics

In my opinion, I think that parents are totally responsible for their childs actions until the child is 14 and partial responsible until 18. Now I do not have children, but I work in a place where I see parents with their children all the time. It is very easy to see where the control is and unfortunately most of the time it's with the child. I have heard children as young as 7 telling their parents off, in language that would make a sailor cringe, and the parents capitulating to their every whim. I do not advocate beating a child in any sense of the word, but a well place swat to the backside is a great attention getter. I know it's a good thing that I decided not to have children, I just don't have the patients to put up with the disrespect I see now days. Goodness that makes me sound old, doesn't it. My father didn't believe in spanking, but my brother and I would never have spoken to him the way children speak to parents today. Sorry if I've gotten off topic but I believe everything a child is taught molds them into the adult they will be, and that is the parents total responsiblity.

Responsible Who

Neo,

You ask some questions !

It is my understanding that, under the law of Israel, a person who was considered accountable - I believe it was aged 8 - was considered as an adult before the law but their age was nevertheless taken into consideration. They *begin* to be accountable at that age. I am personally of the opinion that none of us are very fully accountable in all things in our lives - it is a process, but that's another thread.

As far as the parents are concerned I am not sure. I would say that they should be held accountable *in terms of restitution* when the child is young, but *not* in terms of punishment unless perhaps there is a very clear and vicious intent can be proven on the part of ther parent (which is unlikely to be the case).

My views on this are not fully developed.

Dubhdara.

Responsible Who

I think that parents should be responsible for children's acts up to the age of 16. If a child murders someone, or otherwise causes them bodily harm, the parent should not be held responsible. For monetary cases, such as tort violation, the parents should be required to restore the plaintive to their previous state( ie by paying for any damage done by the child) Once the child has become a teenager, they are now responsible for any actions they take. A thirteen year old who blows up a neighbors propane tank is unable to restore the plaintive to their previous place, but a 16 year old that is able to earn money, could. That is why, once a person is able to work, they should become semi-independent financially. I'm not sure about murders and serious felonys such as rape, but I think it would be fair if they were held semi accountable for their actions once they reach 13.
Happy holidays

Who Is Responsible?

Under the Old Testament law, a child was fully responsible for their own actions once they reached the age of 13, although the child was still under the responsibility of the parents. This was fully emphasized by the laws that allowed parents to take action against their children, so much so that the act of total disrespect carried capital punishment (only if the parents chose to do so).

I personally think children should be held partially accountable from the time they have a basic concept of right and wrong (i.e., at whatever age you would begin to discipline your child), and fully accountable at the age of 13. For pecuniary damages, restitution could be delayed until the person can begin to work. For other damages, I think anybody at the age of 13 should be able to be tried as an adult.
Some people would disagree with me, but I have seen an interview with a person who, at the age of 13, decided to kill his parents. He knew full-well what he was doing, knew it was wrong, and decided to do it anyways. Even so, our judicial system only gave him several years in juvenile prison.

Who Responsible

Well that would be a tough one to answer in my opinion it would depend on the case at hand if it were something as simple as shoplifting then i would not put the parent responsible at all but if it were something like rape or murder or assult then yes i would put some heat on the parents i don't think really the age is an issue as much as the crime.So in my conclussion i think the crime is what decides not age

Edited: malexander on 17th Dec, 2004 - 8:01pm

Who Responsible Politics Business Civil & History

In my mind, there is a big difference between a child's independent choice and his or her education from parents. Thus, if a 17-year-old uses drugs after being taught in his or her home that it is completely unacceptable, the child is totally responsible for that act. But if he or she uses drugs after seeing his or her parents' example of drug use during the formative years, the parents should be held completely responsible. However, that is difficult to enforce, or to encode legally. That's why I don't make laws.

Bottom line: Once parents have educated a child by principle and consistent practice until the child understands the moral and social consequences, the child is free to act as an accountable agent for himself, and should be treated as such.