Perental Responsibilty Laws - Research Paper Example

Furthermore, these liabilities do not intrude on the common law responsibilities of the parents that are connected to the failure of parents averting a child’s action that might be in any way harmful. Comparing the common law and the Parental responsibility laws, where the former does not put a parent responsible for their child’s actions by design, the latter acts as a medium where it puts the parent directly responsible for any minimum intentional damage caused by the child (Lehrer 2009).

Combining it with criminal justice, Sage (2009) mentions the ‘duty of control’ view in which parents are liable for their children’s action if they have not adequately controlled the child. That is, if the control was adequate, they cannot be answerable. In such an instance, controlling the life of a child is limited to only stopping them from engaging in any criminal behavior. If the dos and don’ts are effectively controlled by the parents, then they are not responsible for the crime.

According to Dr. Weatherburn (as cited in Loeber and Louber, 1986) in the US research, the criminal behavior is directly related to the parental control. This research stated that the parent factors that make way to such crime include the likes of neglect, conflict and discipline, deviant parental behaviors and attitudes, and family disruption. The research also stated that if the amount of neglected children rises to 1000, then the number of children involved in crime would increase to 256. Thus, with the positive relation revealed, it is eminent to control the above stated parental factors.

However, these laws are not implied on the parents until their child reaches the age of 8 and 10. Also, the laws are no more applicable once the child crosses the age of majority which may differ with each border. This law first originated in the forties in the state of Hawaii. After 1846, it became one of the most widely implemented laws; those parents who were responsible for the intentional crimes of their children ended up following the statutes of civil liability (Weatherburn, 2004). After it originated in Hawaii, the first state to add to the law was Colorado in 1903.

Since then, almost all of the states in the US have adopted such types of laws. The law divides the juvenile crime in two. One is the civil offense and the other is criminal in nature (Weatherburn, 2004). Considering the Australian courts, the Family Law Reform Act was applied in 1995 with several amendments. In 2006, a “friendly parent” provision was introduced that considered the overall relation each parent had with the other regarding the matters related to children (Benevolent society).

As for UK, the first legislation was imposed in 1933 in which those parents whose child made an offence became the subject of penalty. In Ireland, the willful ignorance of parents on the behalf of their children, thus, leading to criminal behavior, is taken into consideration under the Children Act 2001 (Roth 2006). Therefore, apart from the legislative measures in the above stated countries, it becomes evident that the significance of parent responsibility is becoming increasingly important (Roth 2006).

It also becomes apparent that these legislations have been a part of the above mentioned nations for long. However, there was one incident that really gave pace to fighting youth crime. In 1996, one Provenzino case caught the attention of the entire