Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of their children
Section G. Crime and punishment

This is a policy that sits ill with the long-held legal doctrine that for most crimes, a person must have the relevant mens rea (state of mind) for that crime; it is hard to see how parents can have the state of mind for a crime committed by someone else. But it is easy to borrow from other areas of law, such as the doctrine of ’vicarious liability’ which holds employers civilly liable for the actions of their employees, to make this work. While there are no examples of this policy being enacted in a complete way, there are some smallerscale examples of it, such as punishing parents for their children playing truant from school or bullying other children (the former in Florida, the latter in Michigan).

Pros

[1] Parents are responsible for giving their children a sense of morality and bringing them up from an early age to have good moral habits. Committing a crime is a violation of those moral norms and attitudes that parents should have instilled in their children from a young age, so it is perfectly reasonable to hold them responsible.

[2] Influence is not just about moral values, but about practical control. Parents have substantial control over their children’s lives; they control their money, when they can go out, etc. Parents should know where their children are, and if they are with the kind of people who might influence them to commit crimes. If they are, then they should stop them; this is the duty of a parent, which they ought to be given serious incentives to fulfil.

[3] This will act as a powerful deterrent against children committing crimes. If children love their parents, they will think twice before committing crimes, knowing that they could not only land themselves in prison, but potentially leave themselves and their siblings parentless. It is thus highly useful to manipulate potential criminals into behaving themselves.

Cons

[1] It is wrong to punish somebody for something they could not have prevented. Even if parents instil sound values in their children, there are numerous other sources of influence that mean that could go wrong: peers, schools, a social culture of violence, etc. It is ridiculous to say that bad parenting is the only cause of criminal behaviour; as such, it is wrong to punish parents for it.

[2] This is a romanticised view of parenting. Some parents may have that control, but many do not; a single mother who is substantially weaker than her violent son might have little control over him, physically or mentally. Moreover, it is not practical for parents to have total control over their children’s lives; children have a degree of autonomy which they can use to sneak out, work for or steal money, etc. It would be undesirable for this autonomy to be shut down.

[3] This will not deter children from crimes; the reason that children commit crimes is not because of a rational costbenefit analysis, but because they believe they will not get caught. Moreover, some children may not love their parents, but will see this as an opportunity for revenge, especially if they themselves are too young to be sent to prison for the crime as well; that is a win-win scenario for a child criminal.

Possible motions

This House would punish parents for their children’s crimes.

This House would visit the sins of the son upon the father.

Related topics

Smacking, remove parents’ right to

Child curfews