The Responsibility of Parents in the Crimes Commited by Children - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: RESEARCH The Responsibility The Responsibility of Parents in the Crimes Committed by Children The followingstudy was conducted using a focus group as the basis of the discussion, while using secondary resources in order to explain various aspects of the topic. The idea that parents should be held either socially or legally responsible for the actions of their children was discussed with six individuals which formed three parental pairs. Through the discussion and the accompanying research, it was determined that the actions of children could only be controlled on a limited basis by parents. Because children see the world through confusion and fantastical belief systems, parents could only hope to have them pass into adulthood without any events that turn into criminal behavior. The discussion makes it clear that while further study is required, parents have only a limited control over their children and the behaviors that they display. The Responsibility of Parents in the Crimes Committed by Children Introduction The rise of crimes that have been committed by children has created theories about the responsibility of parents in the commission of those crimes. Proposed ideas about holding parents responsible for anti-social behaviors of their children include fines and jail time. The theory is that if parents were more responsible and took the time to teach them how to behave within society, then they would not be committing crimes. Thus, since it is hard to hold children completely responsible for their crimes, parents should pay the price to society. The concept of holding parents responsible for the crimes their children commit is based upon the premise that in committing crimes, children are behaving in a manner that reflects parenting skills through which they have been raised. The idea behind holding parents responsible is to act as a form of inspiration so that they will teach their children to behave within the boundaries of society. As well, it could act as a deterrent for children as they commit crime if they know it will impact the lives of their parents. This theory, however, draws consequences that are likely higher than most families can afford. The consequences of financial fines could bankrupt and devastate the whole family, leaving them unable to recover and in a position to deteriorate rather than rise above incidents that have already caused difficulties within the family dynamic. In addition, a parent going to jail for the crimes of their child will create a series of long lasting consequence from which the family might also never recover. The inequities within the various socio-economic classes within the United States means that the poor would be punished to an unprecedented magnitude, leaving a further gap between lower classes and the upper classes. Parents should not be penalized for the crimes of the children, rather children and parents should be put through therapies and courses of treatment that can re-socialize them so that they understand their mistakes, can recover from the incidents, and can move forward towards more productive lives. This research study has been conducted in order to understand how criminal liability for the crimes of children that is placed upon families would affect those families. The opinions of parents in relationship to this concept have been examined through the use of a focus group which was interviewed in a semi-structured format to encourage parents to discuss the topic and relate their beliefs on the feasibility and consequences of holding parents responsible for the crimes of their children. Through qualitative methods of discovery, the opinions and experiences of three sets of parents have been examined to understand the belief systems that are in place in relationship to the responsibility that they hold for the crimes of their children in relationship to social and public consequences that society may choose to impose. Background The extent to which parents are liable for the crimes committed by their children is a difficult topic in which to create definitive answers. One of the most publicized and horrific cases in which a crime committed by children found the blame placed upon the parents, both socially and civilly, is that of the Columbine High School shootings in which two students who were seniors at the high school went on a shooting spree in which one teacher and twelve students were murdered, leaving an additional 21 injured. After the shooting the two students committed suicide, leaving no one to directly take the blame which landed on their parents (Tomaszewski, 2005). In a class action suit, the parents of the murdered children from the massacre attempted to get 250 million dollars in damages from the parents of the two boys who committed the murders. Colorado law, however, had a cap set at 3500 dollars for crimes committed by children in holding parents liable for monetary awards. The case brought about a debate about the extent to which parents should be held liable and responsible for the crimes committed by their children (Tomaszewski, 2005). One of the causes of the backlash to the parents was partly due to the suicide of the two young men, who being in the upper range of their teen years would have likely brought them into adult courts had they survived. As it was, no one was available to be blamed and it is likely that the parents were sued with such vehemence because of the deaths of their children. Another example is when in 2004 the Recording Industry Association of America sued twelve year old Brianna LaHara for downloading music from the internet. Her mother had paid a monthly fee to Kazaa which was a file sharing service, which put them in violation of the law. The suit was settled for 2000 dollars. The problems with most punitive recourse against parents is that it is very selectively applied and usually done to make a public case out of the issue as an example. Tomaszewski (2005) writes in relationship to these matters that “While a parent might have a legitimate responsibility to oversee the behavior of a small child, a teenager, who is more likely to engage in inappropriate behavior, is more independent. Therefore, the relationship between poor parenting and the teen’s actions is more attenuated” (p. 575). Tomaszewski (2005) goes on to discuss the application of common law as it is relevant to the liability of a parent for the actions of a child. Common law suggests that There must be a close, demonstrable connection between the child’s bad act and some action, or lack of action, on the parent’s part” (Tomasxewski, 2005, p. 577). This broad relief for parents in the actions of their children is cited as being too liberal and has been the subject of debate in connection with the idea that parents are protected while victims of the crimes of children are neglected under these considerations. Civil parental liability statutes exist in every state, but they are limited and in many critics opinions do not truly hold parents accountable for their children’s actions (Tomaszewski, 2005). Current statistics show that the worst crime, murder, has been declining in relationship to child perpetrators (see Appendix 3). Trends in child crime have taken a downward turn, which indicates that socialization of children is being successful in deterring them from committing heinous crimes. The cause of this downturn, however, is difficult to determine as the believed causes such as television violence, gaming, and fictionalized violence have continued to be a part of the popular culture. In relationship to this downward turn, it is possible that parental influences have increased, causing children to be more closely monitored and protected against false or anti-social belief systems. Purpose Statement The purpose of this study is to engage the concept of holding parents responsible for the crimes of their children and to determine if this idea has merit or if it is ill conceived. Significance of the Research The significance of this research would be to help to define ways in which to engage parents into the act of teaching social behaviors to children to prevent them from committing crimes, but without having to pay a penalty at the court level for the crimes that their children commit. As the entire family is put at risk when such compensation, either in money or time, is made by families whose children commit such crimes, it does not seem to be a feasible solution to juvenile crime. Summary This paper will attempt to uncover the sense of responsibility that is felt by parents and the methods through which the courts might begin to use parental responsibility to pay for the crimes committed by children. Through a focus group of three sets of parents, this topic was discussed and conclusions have been drawn. The paper has been divided into sections in which an introduction was first made, the methodology is then discussed, and then the results revealed. In the fourth section a discussion of the results was conducted, with the fifth section providing conclusions and recommendations on the topic. Methods The methods of that were used in order to create a viable small scale study on the issue of whether or not parents should be held responsible combined secondary searches and a primary source of a focus group in order to provide depth to the discovery that was intended. The nature of the discovery was given depth by real life interviews of parents who were coping with the struggles of raising children in a post-industrial civilization. The following framework of inquiry was used to provide resources for this study. Secondary Research The research that was conducted for this study was first explored through using internet resources for searches of books, newspaper articles, and online journal articles that were relevant to the topic. The database Jstor was searched for online journal articles, with Google Books being searched for relevant topical information within books written on the topics of law, juvenile delinquency, and parenting. Search engines were used to see if an suitable newspaper articles were available on the topic. Empirical Research This study was based upon a focus group styled interview in which three sets of parents were gathered to take part in a semi-structured interview in which their feelings, opinions, and experiences as parents were used to understand how the impact of holding parents responsible for the crimes of their children would affect their families as a whole (see Appendix 1). While the social impact of the stigma was discussed, the potential for formalized penalties were also a part of the discussion. Participants were members of the researcher’s community, asked to take part because they met the following criteria: they had children, they were concerned about social issues were their children were considered, and they were also willing to take part in the focus group setting. Anonymity was maintained in order to protect their confidence in the process. Because of the small scale of the study, they were known to the researcher and to each other, which under other larger scale studies would most likely not be the case. The nature of the study is qualitative in which the importance of the experience of being a parent has been explored in order to relate this to the feelings that are involved in the topic of parents being held responsible for the crimes of their children. The topic was explored through observing and recording the answers of the parents, and then through using a grid in which to place the answers of the parents in order to find commonalities that would suggest a trend. Results Case Study The first question was a simple question in which the three sets of parents were asked who was responsible when children committed crimes. The resounding response was ‘the parents’, but the follow up question was ‘why’, which began the true discussion about the topic. The general consensus was that children commit crimes because they have not been taught properly. At that point, the interviewer asked if any of the parents in the focus group had children who had committed crimes. Two of them agreed that they had, but only one had a child who had been caught in the act of the crime and held legally responsible. The question was asked again if parents are then responsible for the crimes of their children. The father whose son had been caught stealing from a store said “well, we taught our son that stealing was wrong, but he did it anyway”. The interviewer asked if the rest of the parents felt that the parent was then still responsible, and the general response was that they were not in that case because it is a common thing that children will steal on occasion, even if it was embarrassing to parents. So the question was put to them again if parents were responsible when children committed crimes. The answer that was decided upon was that they were, but it was also something that was sometimes out of their control. The exploration of their world often led children to do things that were tests against limits, some of which were illegal. These conclusions is in line with the conclusions that have been drawn by Regoli, Hewitt, and DeLisi (2010) that children are more often not habitual criminals, but find themselves committing petty crimes as a way to test their limits. The child who had committed the crime and been caught was a thirteen year old girl who had stolen a lipstick from a store. The item was not expensive, and the girl had the money for the item, but the store wanted to make an example of her and called the police and her parents. According to Whittaker (2009) “stealing has an emotional background and is not the result of rational consideration” when children are involved. It is rarely about wanting the item in teens and pre-teens, but about wanting the thrill and the knowledge of their own ability to function within the world. Successful stealing of small items is about defiance of authority in relationship to finding empowerment within the world. Of course, this does not excuse the crime, but it does explain why it is common and how it reflects on parenting skills. The next question explored the topic of throwing apples at cars, another common childhood action which can actually be seen in other fruit, rocks, and cans. The general consensus of the group was that it was a common ‘prank’ but was not reflective of parenting skills. Pranks, they concluded were not the result of parenting but were more often done through challenges of peer pressure. This led to the next question that asked about children who take guns to school and kill others. This became a whole new set of questions that they began to ask each other. They all agreed both that it was and that it was not the parents’ fault when a major crime like this was committed by a teenager. The discussion turned into a small debate on the issue, but with no real conclusions. At this point the conversation was turned towards a discussion of the incidents at the Columbine High School, which is one of the most notorious events in relationship to massacres in schools by students. This discussion became one of sympathy for the parents of the shooters as the participants agreed that no parent would willingly be so neglectful as to allow this type of plan of action to take place. There was the fear that such internalized fantasies could come from any place, and not necessarily have anything to do with the parenting. This was surprising turn in the conversation, in which the parents agreed that the parents of the shooters had also lost their children and had been bewildered by the events, from what they remembered of the news coverage. Blaming them did nothing but extend the hurt and cause even deeper and prolonged wounds, according to one female participant. The question that had been skipped was that of throwing apples at cars, the discussion of stealing having replaced that portion of the interview. The question was posed about age and criminal behavior of children, but the parents agreed that they would feel responsible no matter what age their children would be at the time a crime was committed. When the question was steered back to legal liability, however, age remained immaterial, but parents felt that the crimes their children committed were generally outside of their control, not because the children didn’t know right from wrong, but because they created such rich fantasies about the real world as they were trying to find their way around within it that they did not always know what was right from wrong. Children also seem to have a barrier between themselves and adults in which adults do not understand what they were experiencing. One of the parents brought up the concept as it appeared in fiction where children were often portrayed as doing very dangerous things without discussing them with their parents because both the adventure of it and the importance was not a part of the adult world. The film Goonies was discussed as how children took off to do something they felt was important, even though no parent would have ever agreed to such an adventure. While fiction has fantastical occurrences that are not often found in real life, they do reflect that barrier between adults and children that is hard to pierce. While all of the parents felt they were responsible for the actions of their children, it was difficult for them to admit to feeling that they should be held criminally responsible for those actions. Two parents felt that other parents should be held responsible, but they had a hard time committing to the idea that their children would ever do something that might cause them to be put into that situation. At that point, the question about throwing apples at cars, a concept that is derived from an incident in the researcher’s youth, was brought into the conversation, even though it was out of order from the original list of questions. It was brought to the attention of the parents that this act could cause some very serious consequences should a driver lose control of their car or a high amount of damage if a window was broken or the driver was hit by the apple in the head. A simple act of a game by a child who was not intending grave consequences could cause a serious and expensive problem. This gave pause to the parents who discussed what would be appropriate. They all agreed that they would be responsible for the damages. Then the question turned to how they would be responsible if a death occurred because of a thrown apple. The parents were unable to find an adequate answer to that question. The final portion was a question about a single mother who made about 30,000 dollars per year and if she should be fined 10,000 for a crime committed by her child. If the laws were to change, the question posed if she should be either financially or criminally responsible for the actions of her child. The parents were concerned with this question, recognizing the impact that such laws could have on entire families. The answer was that there was no good answer, with one parent bringing up the idea that the fact was that as much as they taught their children and monitored their activities, children will rationalize things in ways that they could not control, leading them onto a path that could end in a criminal act, even if their intentions were not specifically to commit a crime. The overall consensus was that while there were man tragic crimes committed by children, for the most part, parents were not able to truly know if their children were acting in a way that reflected what they were being taught. It is the parent’s and the school system’s responsibility to teach them how to be good citizens, but ultimately it is both circumstances and the child’s understanding of the world that will dictate the outcomes – in addition to a bit of good luck. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, the responsibility of the behavior of children was concluded to be in the hands of parents, but the actual control of behavior was in the hands of children and the circumstances with which they were presented. Ultimately, this meant that behavior could not be fully ascribed to bad parenting, nor were parents truly responsible for the pranks and belief systems that children invented that were beyond those taught by parents. Carducci (2006) discusses that children feel a sense of self-actualization when they experience independence while at the same time following the example of their peers. The study was significant in that it showed that the answer to the question of responsibility is both complex and in need of further study. Social and legal responsibilities are both structured to operate within the parameters of society as it is understood by its inhabitants. In this case, children have yet to fully come to an understanding of their world, thus their fantasy worlds seem to collide with it and create alternative belief systems that are outside of the understanding of their parents. Parents are at a loss to how they are supposed to control the emergence of beliefs when they are not always let into that world by their children. The example of fictional concepts, such as the film the Goonies or even the Harry Potter series reflect the idea that children often believe that the world will operate in a different way and it is through luck that their ‘adventures’ do not cause harm or come to tragic ends. The difficulty in coming to a conclusion through the discussion group stems from the personal connection that the parents have to a fear that something their child will do will result in a tragic event. With children, it seems, control is an illusion that parents try to assert but is still within the ability of the child to determine his or her behavior. Control is only asserted through convincing them that good behavior is better than bad behavior. Further research can help to determine if there are any real benefits to applying punishment to parents for the actions of their children, but it is likely that the results will be that the truth is that individuals, no matter what age, will behave against the stimuli that they are presented with, thus suggesting that parents can only teach, not control. Socialization is the greatest tool that society has in creating good citizens, giving them a benefit to good behavior that outweighs the benefits to bad behavior. Teaching good citizenship gives each child a chance, but it is not a guarantee against antisocial behavior. Resources Carducci, B. J. (2006). The psychology of personality. Oxford: Blackwell. Department of Justice. (2005). Juvenile crime statistics. Scholastic.com. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/sites/default/files/asset/file/juvenile_justice_statistics _doj.pdf Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D., & DeLisi, M. (2010). Delinquency in society. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Tomaszewski, A. L. (29 August 2005). From Columbine to Kazaa: Parental liability in a new world. Illinois Law Review. 2005(2): 573-599. Retrieved from http://illinoislawrevi ew.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2005/2/Tomaszewski.pdf Whittaker, J. K. (2009). Children away from home: A sourcebook of residential treatment. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. Appendix 1 Interview Questions for the Semi-Structured Interview 1. Who is responsible when a child commits a crime? Why? 2. If children throw apples at cars as they go by, who is responsible? Why? 3. If a child takes a gun to school and begins a shooting spree, who is responsible? 4. Does the age of the child make a difference? 5. If your child committed a crime, do you think you are responsible for their behavior? 6. Does this mean you were not a good parent? 7. If your child committed a crime, would you feel like you should be held criminally responsible for it? 8. Would you believe that fines or jail time would be appropriate? 9. Ok, so what about a single mother who is barely making it who earns 30,000.00 per year. Should she have to pay a 10,000.00 fine even if she had two other children at home? What if the law were such that she had to go to jail for the crime of her child? 10. Whose responsibility is it that children are not socialized to be good citizens? Appendix 2 Grid for Commonalities and Differences Individual Socially Agree Socially Disagree Legally Agree Legally Disagree Feels Responsible Feels no Responsibility Couple 1 Male x x x Couple 1 Female x x x Couple 2 Male x x x Couple 2 Female x x x Couple 3 Male x x x Couple 3 Female x x x Appendix 3 Murder and Forcible Rape by Children Rates from 1991 to 2005 (Department of Justice. 2005). Read More