Parents should be held responsible for the crime of their children because in most cases criminal involvement of children is the result of lack of parental control. In other words, parents are responsible for the delinquent behavior of their children.
The case of parental responsibility for crimes of children is not a matter limited to the United States of America. In Hong Kong, for example, a court of the law heard a trial over a case involving the rape of a 13-year-old girl. The defendant could not be charged because he was of the same age as the victim. According to local law, young people under 14 cannot be prosecuted for criminal offenses. As Zou Hanru noted, only 10 ten days after this case two10-year-old boys sexually assaulted their female classmate. Evidently, the seriousness of committed crimes cannot be doubted. However, none of the offenders can be charged because of age. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the crime has to be neglected.
Children’s rights groups argue in favor of raising the age of criminal responsibility. They point out that putting children into prisons is not an effective solution to the increasing rate of juvenile crimes. Nevertheless, there is another side of the argument: children may not understand the seriousness of their crimes. This argument is rather weak as children are exposed to a wealth of information through movies and even cartoons about murders and tortures. Crimes committed by children are the direct result of parents’ failure to explain to their children elementary things such as what is wrong and what is right. In response to the increase in juvenile crimes, France lowered the age for criminal responsibility to 13 while Greece to 12. Referring to the examples in the previous paragraphs, cases involving children younger than 12-years-old are numerous and parents should be held responsible for crimes.
Special attention should be paid to the impact of video games on children. The increasing body of research indicates that video games contribute to the criminal involvement of children. In response to increasing crime rates among young people, the Supreme Court ruled on September 29, 2006, that game makers, as well as parents and grandparents, can be held responsible for the crimes committed by children (“New Parental Responsibility Law”). The primary incentive behind this decision is that parents do allow their children to play games despite the age requirements. Thus, parents should also assume responsibility for the results of their ignorance. As the author of the article “New Parental Responsibility Law” noted, the decision is an “attempt to put the blame where it really belongs”.
William Glaberson argued that the “American law generally holds people responsible for crimes only if they actively participate, aiding and abetting in a homicide, for example”. Undoubtedly, it is not easy to prove the fact of parental involvement as many of the parents are not aware of the criminal plans of their children. Nevertheless, unawareness does not eliminate responsibility for the consequences. Moreover, the number of civil suits to impose damage on parents of children who committed crimes is steadily increasing. Crimes should be punished and if children cannot be held legally responsible for their own actions, parents should assume responsibility. In many states, for example, parents have been fined or sentences to counseling for failing to supervise their children properly.
Current criminal law would make parents responsible only if they knew about the planned actions of the child and actively assisted. There is an opinion that holding parents responsible for crimes of their children “would involve a significant departure from the fundamental principle that to be guilty of a crime you must have a guilty mind and commit a guilty act” (Locantro). Nevertheless, the fact that parents are responsible for educating and supervising their children cannot be denied. Thus, delinquent behavior and subsequent criminal actions are the direct results of the lack of attention devoted by parents to their children. In other words, children may commit crimes because their parents failed to prevent them. Moreover, there is no biological predisposition to criminal activities. Researchers failed to trace the link between biological factors and criminal involvement. Therefore, parents, as people with the greatest influence on a child, must assume responsibility for crimes committed by their children.
In conclusion, any crime should be punished. If children who commit crimes cannot be held responsible for their own actions under the current legislation, parents should be ready to assume responsibility for the criminal offenses of their children. Parents shape the personality of their children and have the greatest influence on their maturity and development of values. Crimes committed by children are the result of a lack of parental control over their kids. If parents are not held responsible for their children’s crimes, the rights of victims will not be protected. The American law should ensure the protection of rights. The rate of crimes committed by young people is steadily increasing and unless parents are held responsible for the actions of their children, it will not decrease.
Works Cited
Hanru, Zou. “Hold Parents Responsible for Kids’ Crimes”. China Daily, 2007. Web.
Glaberson, William. “Terror in Littleton: Responsibility; Case Against Parents Would be Hard to Prove”. New York Times, 1999, Web.
Locantro, Damon. “Are Parents Responsible for Their Kids’ Actions?” The Daily, 2007.
“New Parental Responsibility Law”. 2006. Web.