Quote:
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
It shouldn't be.
As a secondary question, should parents be held accountable for their children's (under 18 and living with them) actions?
|
That one's a toughie. On the one hand, if you're talking about a six-year-old who runs amok in a china store, yes, I think the parents should be held responsible. However, when it comes to things like murder and rape, criminal acts that a "child" does deliberately, then no, I don't think the parents should be held accountable unless they instigated the action.
(I'm using the term "child" to mean little people 10 and up but under 21. I believe that in some cases, younger children commit crimes, but in those cases, I believe, not that they may not know what they're doing is wrong, but that they're still young enough to be rehabilitated)
If the government would chill out about what is considered abuse and what is considered discipline, and if first-time offenses were punished more severely, I don't think this problem would have gone so far. Leaving bruises/scars/breaking bones/skin is abuse. Slapping a hand, withholding a privilege, or taking the kid who deserves it out to the woodshed isn't.
My grandparents got disciplined when they did something wrong, and none of them have lasting psychological scars. They're proud that their parents cared enough about them to let them know the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and none of them have ever been in trouble with the law. Coddling our kids too much is what warps their little personalities, not smacking them on the bottom when they need it.
If you don't let the parents discipline their kids, then you can't hold them responsible when the lil heathens do something wrong.