Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I honestly don't think so.  I know many families who have large number
    of children and they are different from each other, some are tall, some
    are fat, or thin, or blonde and dark; some are generous while other is
    greedy or selfish and their parents brought them up all the same... 
    
    I don't think one can suit a person for the mistake or crime of other,
    but yes, in American you can suit for anything as far as I can see.
    (I've seen quite a few weird suits on TV, newspapers, etc...)

    I think parents most definately do have the responsibility to teach 
    their children to respect others.  This is not a case of the parents
    not *knowing* their child was like this.  He was flagrantly racist!
    Any parent who is unwilling to address an issue for fear s/he might
    drive their child away is responsible for acts that grow out of that
    issue.  
    
    "Oh. Well.  We didn't know he really *meant* it!"
    
    E Grace

    re .0 Ever read 'Starship Troopers' by Robert Heinlein ?
    If parents aren't responsible for their childrens' moral
    education, who is ?

    
    	This is a recent pet peeve of mine too.
    
    	I live in a townhouse complex which had been free of children for
    	three years. Just recently, many grade/high school age kids have
    	appeared all of a sudden from nowhere.
    
    	Now I know why apartment complexes can charge more for "Child-free"
    	buildings and zones.  It is a royal pain! Children playing in the
    	main driveway making it so you have the remove big wheels and such
    	just to drive into the complex, making lots of noise outside at
    	night, throwing spit-balls at cars, and generally just being a 
    	nuisance while the parents abdicate their responsibility by
    	keeping them outdoors and making them our problem instead of
    	theirs. 
    
    	If you're going to have kids, then take responsibility for them!
    	I'm tired of seeing parents with a seemlingly total lack of
    	interest in their children. If you do not want to raise them, then
    	don't have them. Grrrr....
    
    	-Erik     

    re .4, your attitude sickens me, too.  If you have decided not to have
    children, then you have no idea how difficult it can be for even the
    most well-meaning parent to raise children.  In apartment complexes
    there are often single parent families and two income families.  Many
    of these people can't afford houses anymore with the economy the way it
    is, and they have to live somewhere.  Perhaps you're the one who should
    move elsewhere?  Since you have no kids, you can probably afford it?
    
    It really pisses me off when people who don't have kids so casually
    criticize those of us who do have kids, when they don't know a damn
    thing about how difficult it is to be a parent!
    
    Kids have to live somewhere!!!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Re: .2
    
    I know that parents have a responsibility to teach their children to
    respect others, and try to give them some moral education.  What I'm
    saying is that havng done what they believe to be the best they can,
    they cannot then be held responsible for the way their child turns out. 
    
    I'm talking from some experience here - I have one brother and one
    sister.  We were all brought up in the same way, in a loving, caring
    family environment, and my parents have always stressed right from 
    wrong etc.  My brother turned in to a heroin addict who stole to feed 
    his addiction.  My sister and I have never touched drugs, wouldn't 
    dream of stealing and both have steady jobs. 
    
    Although my brother is not on drugs any more, my mother is still 
    asking herself where she went wrong.  I don't think she did - IMO my
    parents can't be held responsible for the things he did.
    
    Sam
    

    Parents have a responsibility to teach, yes, but no amount of
    teaching does any good if the child cannot or will not learn. 
    That's a two-way street.
    
    And once the child starts growing up and making his or her own
    decisions, it's out of your hands.  They have free choice, free
    will, the same as we do, and the parent can't control those
    choices.  
    
    All you can do is do your best to provide your children with the
    tools they need to make sensible, informed decisions.
    
    --bonnie

    
    
    While I don't think the parents in .0's example are responsible for the
    murder of the black youth by their racist son, I think they are
    responsible for a lesser charge - perhaps something like contributing
    to the delinquincy of a minor in their custody.   They knowingly
    permitted his racist youth meetings in their *home*.  While one
    certainly cannot control what a child does when s/he is away from home,
    I think that responsible parents need to set limits in terms of what is
    acceptable in their home and in their presence.  While their son may
    have been a racist in any case, the parents here gave implicit consent
    and approval to his behavior and attitudes.  That's wrong.
    
    To follow through on your example in .6 Sam: your brother became a
    heroin addict who stole for drugs.  He did so in a household where
    there was obviously caring and good parenting.  Your parents are not to
    blame for your brother's drug problem.  However, if they had bought
    drugs for him, permitted him to shoot up in the living room while the
    family watched the evening news, and drove him to neighborhood homes so
    that he could break&enter to steal, would you feel differently?  I
    think *that* is a situation closer to the one presented in .0.  Given
    that, I think there *is* some parental responsibility.
    
    					/Rita
    
                                        

    RE: .6
    
    My comments had to do with the following:
    
     >> The white boy had a history of racism, had Nazi posters up all
     >> over his room, held meetings with other such boys in his garage
     >> at home etc. 
    
     >> The murderer's parents defence was that they had no idea their
     >> son could be a murderer, and if they had they would have stopped
     >> him  -
    
    And most specifically the following:
    
    >>> they tolerated his racism because they didn't want to drive
    >>> him away.
    
    I don't see how this can be the best they could do.
    
    <flamelet on>
    
    I'm also tired of people who are birth parents telling people who are
    not that they don't know anything about raising kids.  
    
    <flamelet off>
    
    E Grace

    
    >It really pisses me off when people who don't have kids so casually
    >criticize those of us who do have kids, when they don't know a damn
    >thing about how difficult it is to be a parent!
    
    	My knee-jerk reaction was: "If someone finds being a responsible
    	parent so difficult, then why did they have kids?"
    
    	And the problem is not with people being single parents or having 
    	two income families. It is easy enough for a parent to teach their 
    	children to have basic respect for others. Also, how much would it
    	take to keep toddlers from riding tricycles unsupervised in the 
    	main parking lot. I'm in constant fear of these kids coming out 
    	from behind parked cars into someone driving home. Sometimes I 
    	feel more responsible for these kid's safety than their own
    	parents (who can be seen watching TV in their living rooms). 
    
    	We're not talking ideal quality time being spent here, we're
    	talking basic safety and childcare here. Sometimes it feels like I
    	spend more time with them just by talking to them as I come home
    	from work than their very own parents give them. Some of these
    	children are really nice kids. I think they deserve more care and
    	interest being paid to them.   
    
    	I think there are very few excuses for being a grossly irresponsible
    	parent (ie, letting 2-3 year old toddlers play in the street when 
    	*both* parents are home inside). I see it every day. I want to knock
    	on their door and scream in frustration "Then *why* did you have 
    	kids???"
    
    	Would you give them these excuses? Being a parent is a job, not a
    	luxury like watching TV. IMHO. (That's why I don't have kids, I
    	don't have the time they deserve to devote to them now).
                                       
        -Erik
                                                 

    Erik
    
    In re someone finding being a responsible parent so difficult...
    
    Well, a lot of people find them selves pregnant without having
    stopped to evaluate if they could be responsible parents. Many
    of them don't have access to birth control or abortion. Or should
    all of those who know or suspect they won't be responsible parents
    abstain from sex?
    
    Bonnie

    
    	Hi Bonnie, 
    
    	Yes, it is a double bind. Between the parent who deserves a fun
    	life and all choices with what s/he wants to do in it, and between
    	a child who deserves attention and the opportunity of having a 
    	basic upbringing.  
    
    > Many of them don't have access to birth control or abortion.
    
	I feel this is the major social problem right here. People should
    	have all the choices available to them in deciding to be a parent
    	or not. [I think relying on people to abstain from sex when they do
    	not have these options is unfair and terribly unrealistic].
    
    	I can't believe I'm sounding like a moral majority type of person
    	here, but my heart also goes out to these children that are born into
    	families that do not want them. Adoption is another solution, no?
     	At some base level I think parents should be held responsible for
    	their children after they have responsibly decided to have them.  
    
    	Education might help too. It pains me to hear young women and men
    	decide to have children just to get their mothers and fathers off
    	their backs from pressuring them for grandchildren. Or they have
    	kids just to give into endless "Why don't you have kids" (like "Why
    	aren't you married?") social pressure questions. 
    
	I'll drop out of this discussion if I'm being obtuse here and
    	am offending any current parents. My heart just goes out to these
    	kids in our 'neighborhood' who are basically good kids who have to
    	resort to negative attention to get any attention at all.
    
    	-Erik (not a parent, but not only parents have raised children)

    dear knee jerk:
    
    I'm a good parent.  I know it's true because my MOTHER-IN-LAW says so.
    
    It's difficult.  Take my word for it.  I enjoy it anyway (most of the
    time).
    
    It's just a whole lot easier to be patient, understanding, and friendly
    with a kid who is a stranger, than with one who feels so safe with you,
    the good parent, that it's safe to show you all their worst behavior. 
    This is the source of the famous daycare provider's line:
    	Gee, she wasn't crying until you came to pick her up!
    
    Didn't you ever commit to something that was harder than you expected
    it to be when you first made the committment?  What did you do?
    
    There are bad parents out there, no doubt.  But: birth control methods
    can fail.  Not everyone can/will have an abortion.  Some people just
    try to do their best in the world they get/get dealt.
    
    So, the answers to "then why did they have kids?" is, you can't know
    everything in advance.  You do the best to make the right choice for
    yourself with what you know.  There's no guarantee things won't change. 
    And some things are beyond your control - for ex, kids have their own
    natures and personalities, and you can't control the world to control
    the things that influence them, not completely.
    
    And finally, outside of quantum mechanics time is unidirectional. 
    There's no such thing as "I've changed my mind, make it didn't happen"
    and there's no returning a kid if you change your mind.
    
    to return to the original discussion:
    
    Were Hitler's parents to blame for WWII?

    re .13, thank you for saying that.
    
    Lorna
    

    	To return to the original discussion:
    
    	Are parents never to be held responsible for anything their <18 age
    	children do? 
    
    	Or is being a parent such a terrible duty that we absolve them of
    	all responsibility. How does your answer align when dealing with
    	bad parents or child abuse? The poor parent 'victims' are never to
    	blame... Is it always 'the little monster's fault'?
    

    
    > dear knee jerk:
    
    	And that was uncalled for by the way... I'd expect that in SOAPBOX
    	but not in -wm-. :-(
    
    	-Erik

    re .15, I don't think that anything is ever always the fault of one
    person.  I think there are some circumstances that could be blamed on
    parents and other circumstances that couldn't.  I think life is too
    complicated to assign blame easily.  I, also, think that sometimes
    there is little to be gained from blame, unless it's just to try to do
    things differently yourself.  For example, I could easily "blame" my
    parents for the financial/career situation I find myself in now.  My
    parents raised me in a very traditionally female way.  They put no
    importance on college, or good grades, and had no confidence in my
    ability to achieve career or financial success.  In other ways, though,
    they were wonderful parents.  They raised me to be a good, decent, fair
    minded person.  They did not raise me to self-confident and have a
    successful, high paid career.  They assumed I would be a housewife. 
    Now, my father is dead and my mother is completely senile.  What good
    would it be for me to sit around and have negative thoughts about them
    at this point?  They did the best that they knew how to do at the time. 
    They were nice people.  Instead of blaming them, I have tried to raise
    my daughter in a very different manner than I was raised.  She is an A
    student, plans to go to college, and knows that getting a good paying
    job that she enjoys is more important than getting a husband.
    
    This reminds me of the line from "Wild At Heart" where Nicolas Cage's
    character says, "I didn't get much parental guidance."  That excuse can
    go just so far, in my opinion.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    I think it depends on what type of action the child had taken.  For
    example,  I can remember my brother hitting a baseball through
    a neighbor's window.  He was 10 at the time, and was told not to
    play ball in the back yard.  Of course the neighbor was upset and
    wanted damages to be paid.  My mom did pay for the broken window.
    Sure it was an accident, but it resulted in a loss for the neighbor.
    
    
    I am currently awaiting restitution for a broken windshield and
    window which were broken by three 16 and 17 year old jerks who
    decided to throw beer bottles at my car.  I brought them up on
    charges of malicious destruction of property.  They knew what
    they were doing was wrong.  They did it under their own free
    will.  It clearly was not an accident.  
    
    We went to court and I was awarded restituion.  However, they
    have 6 months to pay it.  The judge assured me that if I did
    not get my money (which I had to shell out of  my pocket due
    to the fact that this occurred on a Sunday morning and I was
    not going to wait for the insurance company to make a claim
    to get the glass replaced), the case will go to trial.  This
    is a criminal charge, and their is the strong possibility of
    jail time for these kids.  The judge also told me that there
    is a law in Mass that in this case would hold the parents 
    liable for the damages.
    
    
    My point in taking this to court was not so much to get the money
    back as I could have easily made a claim to the insurance company.
    It was more to prove to these kids that this behavior is just
    not acceptable.  I firmly believe that parent's must be held 
    responsible for the actions of their kids.  However, it depends
    on the actions.  If a child willingly does something to hurt
    another person or their property, the parents should be held
    responsible.  The key word here is willingly.  This is assuming
    the child knows the difference between right and wrong which
    was taught to them by the parents.  Also, this is only until the
    child reaches 18.  
    
    After 18 the child is legally responsible for their actions.
    
    Michele

    re .18, I also think there is a difference between being held
    responsible and being to blame for the action in the first place.  If a
    16 yr. old boy causes damage to property then I can understand that the
    parent should be held financially responsible.  However, I do not think
    this is the same as saying that the parent is to blame for the fact
    that their child destroyed property.  If my daughter should happen to
    destroy someone else's property I understand that my ex-husband and I
    are financially responsible.  But, at the same time, I certainly did
    not raise my daughter to believe that it is okay to destroy other
    people's property, and if she suddenly took it into her head to do it I
    wouldn't feel I was to blame.  I tried to raise her to respect other
    people's property.  The fact is, as others have pointed out, children
    are not extensions of their parents.  They are separate, individual
    human beings with minds of there own, and cannot be controlled by their
    parents at all times.
    
    Lorna
    

I have stated previously my strong opinion that "kids are people" - 
real people with ideas, emotions, ideas, etc, that have validity outside
of the child's relationships with her parents.  As a self-identified
"child advocate" I feel that children should be treated with a lot more
respect.

My view is consistent, however, and the flip side of this view is that
a child can also have *negative* things that are independent of the
parents.  If children are *allowed* to take a significant amount of 
responsibility for themselves (and I believe they should) then they also
*must* take responsibility for themselves.

Frankly, I am at a total loss to understand how a parent of a 
prejudiced child are "responsible" for a racial murder of the child.
They might be responsible for hir attitudes, but not for hir actions.
(I am assuming that the child was at least a teenager in the LA Law
episode.  I didn't see it.)

Yes, morally, I think the parents should tried to have put a stop to
racist attitudes in their children.  But if they fail?  Are they to be
responsible for the every action of their kid?  Har far does this
extend?  Are all of *your* parents responsible for the acts you commit
every day?

Rita seys...
>I think they are
>    responsible for a lesser charge - perhaps something like contributing
>    to the delinquincy of a minor in their custody.   They knowingly
>    permitted his racist youth meetings in their *home*.  

So?  Having meetings is not delinquent.  In fact, having racist youth
meetings isn't illegal.  IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO BE A RACIST!  Hell, even if
his parents *condoned* his racist attitudes, even if his parents *drove*
him to his neo-nazi meetings, even if his parents cheered him on when he
made racist statements, they are not responsible for the *murder*.  And
they have done nothing illegal.  Freedom of speech still exists, which means
that if a parent wants to allow their child to hold meetings for neo-nazis,
they have every right.  They can even attend.

The racism is not illegal.  It might be the parent's fault.  The murder
was *not* legal, and was not the parent's fault; and even while the murder
may have been *motivated* by the kid's racism, it was not a *result* of 
it (there are plenty of racist people who don't murder.)  The kid owns his
actions.

>Your parents are not to
>    blame for your brother's drug problem.  However, if they had bought
>    drugs for him, permitted him to shoot up in the living room while the
>    family watched the evening news, and drove him to neighborhood homes so
>    that he could break&enter to steal, would you feel differently?  

In this case, the parents *would* be repsonsible for contributing to the
delinquency of a minor, because shooting up heroin is illegal.  Spouting
neo-nazi racist garbage isn't.

D!

    
    i agree with erik (and i think his remarks are not inconsistent
    with lorna's in .19)
    

>However, it depends
>    on the actions.  If a child willingly does something to hurt
>    another person or their property, the parents should be held
>    responsible.  The key word here is willingly.  This is assuming
>    the child knows the difference between right and wrong which
>    was taught to them by the parents.  

??????

Michele, this doesn't make sense.  If they child *willingly* committed
the crime, and the child knows the different between right and wrong,
then it was the child that *chose* to do wrong.  How can that be
the parents responsibility?  A parent can teach right and wrong, but
a parent cannot force a child to *choose* right.

I think the claim in the first case wasn't that the parents didn't
make their child choose "right" (ie: not to hate blacks) but that
they didn't teach their child what *was* write (ie: through inaction
implicitly condoned hating blacks.)

From what you said, it is the child's independence and ability to make
decisions that makes someone else reponsible for their decisions.
What if it was *unwilling* (ie; child had not understanding of right
and wrong.)  Should then the parents be considered *not* responsible?

D!

    Definition of responsibility in these cases can be important.

    A child who willfully does wrong should be held morally responsible for
    those actions.

    A child who willfully does wrong and causes property damage may not be
    in a financial position to pay for the damage. Would you then suggest
    that the victims should absorb the loss? Or should the child's parents
    pay for the damage?

    Having the parents pay for the damage gives them that *extra* incentive
    to reinforce the difference between right and wrong in the child.

    The idea that a parent is legally liable for the actions of an almost
    grown child, in this case murder, is ridiculous.  Raising a child is
    not like raising a dog, where you can control his movements with a sit,
    come, speak, lie down command!!  And I'm sorry, I think until you've
    been a parent, you can't know what it's like trying to do right by a
    child and having him spit it back in your face.  Kids do not treat
    their parents like they treat other adults, it's a unique relationship,
    be it good or bad.
    
    Furthermore (slightly tongue in cheek here) whatever happened to
    valuing differences here?  While I certainly cannot condone racism, how
    many of you remember getting into philosophical arguments with your
    parents over subjects where you just totally disagree?  If you had
    gotten into trouble over some of these differences, say gotten arrested
    for blowing up an abortion clinic, would your parents then be
    responsible for it??  Not in my mind.
    
    This subject really troubles me.  I try to teach my kids to be
    responsible for their actions.  What society is saying to me is, as I
    relinquish control over my children as they grow and become responsible
    adults over a period of years, I'd better carry a damn huge insurance
    policy covering potential suit damages for somethings they MIGHT get
    into, over which I have no DIRECT control.  I don't buy it.
    
    A baseball through a window, an accident by a ten year old - yes of
    course i'd feel responsible for paying to fix it.  Being sued for
    millions because a child of mine did something foolishly, yet of her
    own free will, no I don't think so.
    
    

    The whole point here is that the parents DIDN'T teach the kid that
    racism is bad, simply because they didn't want to drive him away!
    
    I've been a step-mother, I took an active role in "teaching" my
    step-sons, and you had better believe that if either one of them
    had tried to put up that kind of poster and had tried to hold 
    racism meetings, I would not have worried that I would drive them
    away if I told them that it was wrong!  Anymore than I would have if
    they had wanted posters of women in bondage, and talked about harming
    women.
    
    E Grace

    
    	Unfortunately the basenote didn't specify the child's age, but I
    	assumed that 'child' refers to someone under 18 years old and 'adult'
    	refers to someone 18 years old and over.
    
    	I don't think anyone here is suggesting that grown adults [legally
    	over 18 years old] may put the responsibility of their actions onto
    	their parents.
    
    	This topic is focussed on *children* I believe, so the Hitler and
   	other examples don't really apply here. I don't think anyone was
    	discussing grown (over 18 yrs old) adults or 'young adults' (still
    	over 18, no?).
    
    	Otherwise I'd have some choice Mastercard bills that I'd like to make
    	my parents (or anyone else for that matter) responsible for... :-) 
    
    	-Erik   

    
    re 22
    
    I should have added the type of responsibilities.  The content
    of .23 basically sums up what I feel.  
    
    Of course the child should be held responsible in some manner.
    They should not be allowed to just do something and get away
    with it.  A lesson should be learned.  
    
    I guess I was gearing the note more towards the financial
    responsiblity.  Most children do not have any money to pay for
    damages.  This is what I feel is the responsibility of the parents.
    When my brother broke the window and mom paid to replace it, he
    felt it in his allowance for quite some time.  He was not allowed
    to just let mom pay for it and not take any responsibility for it.
    In fact, he was also made to walk the neighbor's dog for two months
    as part of paying for the window.  So he did indeed learn a lesson.
    
    
    Michele
    
    

    
    D!,
    
>So?  Having meetings is not delinquent.  In fact, having racist youth
>meetings isn't illegal.  IT ISN'T ILLEGAL TO BE A RACIST!  Hell, even if
>his parents *condoned* his racist attitudes, even if his parents *drove*
>him to his neo-nazi meetings, even if his parents cheered him on when he
>made racist statements, they are not responsible for the *murder*.  And
>they have done nothing illegal.  Freedom of speech still exists, which means
>that if a parent wants to allow their child to hold meetings for neo-nazis,
>they have every right.  They can even attend.
    
    Ok, D!, you called me on this one.  Given my position on first
    ammendment rights (that the first ammendment exists to protect the
    unpopular view) I have to concede here.  I guess I couldn't really
    justify any legal charges or actions against the parents.  I reserve
    the right to hold them morally responsible, however, and find their
    attitudes in this matter morally reprehensible.
    
    Thanks for pointing out my inconsistancies here; it really got me to
    rethink my position.  Geesh, I *hate* it when that happens. :-)
    
    						/Rita
    
    

    
    I think its unfortunate that the basenote author asked that the racism
    factor not be considered. I think its KEY.
    
    There was a joke I heard once about a South African man who came home
    very upset. His wife asked him what the problem was and he replied that
    he had killed a man with his car on the road. The woman was shocked...
    until she asked what race the man on the road was. When the driver
    replied that the man he had killed was black, the woman sighed with
    relief and said told her husband not to worry - someone would scoop the
    body up eventually, but he'd committed no offense.
    
    The message here is that blacks are lesser beings to such an extent
    that killing one is not a crime. This is an extreme viewpoint BUT,
    consider what message a parents send when pass on racist attitudes.
    They are actually teaching a child that his life is more valuable than
    that of his black counterpart. That his thoughts, his goals, his
    dreams, are more valuable. That the black person is inferior and if a
    choice must be made, the life of the white person takes precedence.
    
    If this isn't condoning murder, I don't know what is. 
    
    So lets say the parents are racist, but would not murder. Have they
    truly taught the child that killing black people is WRONG? Could they
    have taught the child that killing black people is GOOD? "One less
    n!gger..." 
    
    I did not see the show, but I cannot help but think that the parents of
    the white child were probably NOT pained by their child's action.
    Racism is so abhorrent to see in others, that I find it unbelieveable
    that a parent would permit it to go uncorrected unless they actually
    condoned it.
    
    LA Law is not a real show. But if such suits could be filed, I'd say
    the courts have some serious catching up to do. Parents who plant the
    seeds of intolerance in their children should certainly held
    responsible if the seed bears deadly fruit. I think a civil suit is
    definitely reasonable in such a case.
    
    Now, if you have a hard time accepting my perspective, think of a man
    who raises a son alone. Who beats women. Who shows his son that women
    should be beaten, abused, mistreated. That they are inferior. The son
    kills a woman.
    
    Do you really believe that the father did not have anything to do with
    how the crime occured?
    
    Not a case of the "sins of the children". It is the sins of the parents
    being passed to the children. You can talk about the difficulties of
    parenting all you want, but when children learn racism and mysogyny
    from their parents, the parents ARE partially to blame if the child
    acts on what he's been taught.
    
    I'd LOVE to see civil suits against parents who teach their
    children racism. 

    
    In regards to the thought that its not illegal to be racist. Please
    remember that *conspiring* to violate a person's constitutional rights is
    against the law. The only way that the KKK members who do the planning
    behind the lynchings and bombings are ever brought to trial is because
    of this "loophole".
    
    If you are privy to details of a group who is planning to violate the
    rights of others, to not disclose this to authorities is a civil
    offense.
    
    It unnerves me to hear women who are so quick to advocate the new "hate
    laws" asking for stiffer punishment for gender related crimes, being so
    silent or accepting about crimes motivated by race.

    Wasn't it just a few months ago that a woman in Los Angles was arrested
    for gang activity her sons were involved in? liesl

    If a parent was not neglectful in teaching his son the proper place to
    throw a ball, I can not see why he has to pay? Honestly. If there was
    no enticement or encouragement by the parents it is not their fault. I
    would certainly pay if my son broke the neighbors window because I am
    a good neighbor but if he burned a house or a car I wouldn't pay a penny 
    unless I was first found guilty of something in criminal court. Kids 
    don't live in a vacuum.
    
    There should be a law that says the parents have to be at fault in some
    way or another in order to have to pay restitution.
    
    Kate                                                       

    
    Sorry I haven't cleared some questions up here, but my network went
    down!  The child in .0 was 16 or 17, therefore a minor.  In this
    "make-believe" case the parents weren't racist and had never shown any
    racist tendencies - this was something their son picked up from
    friends.
    
    The reason I said that I didn't want to discuss racism is that it
    deserves a topic of it's own if it is to be discussed.  I wanted to
    talk about parent's responsibility for the actions/crimes of their
    children - the case I stated was by way of an example.
    
    I agree that morally they were wrong for not telling their son that his
    behaviour was wrong.  However, in the programme the judge's summing up
    directed the jury that they were not deciding whether the parents
    should have been firmer with their son in the past, whether they were
    weak in not prohibiting these meetings etc, but whether they could be
    held responsible for *this particular action of violence*.  The
    decision was "yes" they were, which is what I don't agree with.
    
    Thanks for all the replies so far - it's interesting to hear your
    views.
    
    Sam

There are two seperate issues here, I believe.  One is financial responsibility.
I believe that when a parent has a child, they (implicitly or explicitly)
agree to take full financial responsibility for the child.  Regardless of
whose fault anything is, the parent must pay, and that's the way things go.
That's what you incur when you have a child.  you are then free to demand
that your child pay you pack, or be punished or not get an allowance or
whatever, but *you* are responsible for the debts of your child.  The
same way if you co-sign on a loan, you are responsible for payments - it
doesn't matter what the reasons for the primary borrowers not paying is, it
doesn't matter if it is your fault - you agreed to take responsibility for
the debt if the person couldn't pay (in the form of your credit rating) and
you have to.  Having a kid is co-signed an open-ended 18 year loan.  C'est
la vie.

Moral responsibility is something different.  If you kid breaks a window,
you pay for the window.  But that doesn't mean that you are morally
responsible for the window, or that you should go to jail for breaking
a window (if jail were appropriate for breaking windows).  You can't
be charged with a crime, because it isn't your problem.  (In the case
of young kids, who wouldn't know any better, I see a charge of negligence
being levelled at the parent.  That makes sense.  but in the case of a
16 kid, the parent can't be expected to always know where the kid is and
what he is doing, therefore it isn't negligence to *not* know.)

I get really uncomfortable when i hear about the law trying to force
parents to parent in a particular way.  Certainly children should have
*rights* - but requiring parents to pass on certain moral values opens 
the door for all sorts of horrors - like arresting parents whose kids
view don't agree with government ideas.  A tool of conformity, and a dangerous
one.

D!

    The parents are responsible for the childs moral education. At some
    point the child is capable of making moral decisions for him/her
    self.  How old is that?  I would say at about age 12. As in most
    things in life there is a gray areas here. How can one say at age
    X any child is morally responsible?  Because legally there has to
    be a number one can attach to it. How can one say that a teenager
    is not capable of determining whether he/she is ready for sex with
    an adult until he or she is 18 years old?  The same reasoning applies.
    
    If we take this to an extreme we could say that since I am the child
    of my parents (even though I am 47 years old) they are responsible
    for my moral behavior, obserd right!?  There has to be a point where
    a person is assumed responsible for their actions. 
    
    I think the parents were responsible for their sons moral education,
    but unless he was younger than 16 or so I don't see how they could
    be held partially responsible for the murder unless they had
    foreknowledge of it or encouraged it.
    
    Its time we stopped passing the buck for our own behavior off on other
    people. 
    
    Jeff 
    

    .4 has a point.  (I have a kid).  The childless people have a right
    to expect that the parents of the children who live near than will
    'exercise reasonable control' over them in my opinion.  I would not
    be incensed if a neighbor complained that my son left his big wheel
    in her parking space.  I would teach my son not to do it. Some people
    don't like kids... they don't have to do they?  The complaintant
    should move out? Who was there first? I do like kids but I understand
    how others have a right to expect that neighbor kids don't throw spit
    balls at their cars or cause other unnecessary problems. If more kids
    were taught to respect the rights of others we would't HAVE the extreme
    vandalism problems this society experiences.  And, its the PARENTS
    job to teach the kids to respect the rights of others. 
    
    Jeff

	I ran across this article in the Greenville news the other day. 
    (Sorry I can't give you a date. I clipped it intending to type it in
    immediately, waited a while to type it and a while longer to enter it.)
    I found this fascinating and thought it was apropos to the subject of
    this note.
    
    	(I'm also posting this in Parenting.)
    
    Tracey
    
    
                     Study: Personality in place from start

                         Genetics edges out environment


        A  landmark    study  on  identical  twins  reared  apart  offers  new
reassurance to parents  who  worry  about the adequacy of their child-reaering
efoort and rekindles the age-old debate of nature vs. nurture.

        The long-awaited study, the  most definitive in a lng series trying to
separate the effects of genetics  and  environment  in  a child's devleopment,
comes down heavily on the side  of  genetics.    It  indicates  that the broad
outlines of personality and behavior are put  in  place  in  the brief instant
when the mother's and father's genes mix during  conception,  establishing the
basic route the child will take during the rest of its life.

        Nurture  --  the  family  environment  -- plays a much  smaller  role,
according to the study, published Friday in the journal Science.

        "For  most  every  behavioral trait so far investigated, from reaction
time to religiosity, an important fraction of the variation among people turns
out  to  be  associated  with  genetic  variation,"  wrote  the  university if
Minnesota researchers, led by psychologist Thomas J.  Bouchard, Jr.  This work
"does not show  that  parents  cannot  influence those traits, but simply that
this does not tend to happen in most families."

        Psychlogist Robert Plomin of  the  Pennsylvaia State University called
the Minnesota twin study "the  single  most  important  finding  in behavioril
genetics in the last decade." The  results in general agree with many previous
studies of the role os genetics in producing behavior.

        But the new research finds a stronger  connection between genetics and
behavior  than  the previous studies, said Norman Krasnegor  of  the  National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.  "It's a powerful statement
and one which people will debate for a long time," he said.  "It will cause 
some  good  controversy  and make people work to come  up  with  new  data  or
alternate explanations."

        Psychologist  David  Rowe of the University of Arizona agreed heartily
with the new study.  "Parents probably deserve less credit for  when things go
well, and much less blame for problems," he said.

        But  the  study  "does  not  imply  that  parenting is without lasting
effects," the  group wrote.  "Parents can produce ...  effects if they grossly
deprive  or  mistreat    all   their  children.    It  seems  reasonable  that
charasmatic,dedicated parents determined to  make  all  their  children  share
certain personal qualties, interests, or values, may sometimes succeed."