At what point should a parent leave a criminal child in the hands of the law? Say a child steals something valuable (like a car or a woman’s purse)? Should the parent do what he/she can to defend him? Should he/she transgress the law him/herself in doing so? Say the child murders? What then? What things would it depend on? Age? Severity of the crime? Past criminal history? What is the parent’s responsibility in these matters?
When a crime is committed by a child circumstances must be looked at very closely. Age, homelife, education level, comprehension level. And now a days does the child take prescription drugs or recreational drugs. the responsibility of the parent/s has to be looked at just as closely
Are the parent/s forced to work constantly, How many kids in the house, any outside caregivers,
Do the parent/s understand how to raise a kid.
These all should be looked at when deciding the fate of a criminal child and the responsibility of the parent/s
A one parent household is far different than a two parent, unless one parent is never around or does not give a crap.
Up to the age of 21 the parents should be responsible for fines and make reperations to the injured parties. Should the parents go to jail for any crime the kid commits? No. I am different then my parents, there was no predicting my behavior and reactions. No parent can honestly predict behavior or reactions of their offspring. So the system cannot justly punish the parent in such away unless true negligence is discovered. But is the negligence from pure uncaring or from not understanding? I should add that if there is negligence found should the primary caregiver be held in prison? Such as the babysitter thatspends more time with the kid then parent or could the teacher at school also be held to blame since they spend around 8 hours with the kid. I would say yes , not across the board yes but a yes.
Ahh,then true but, love for all the family must come first. If the child in question endangers the family, then the parent/s caregiver must put the family before the child.
That can be tricky can’t it? I mean, the child can’t be seperated out from the family.
Another point I didn’t quite get out of your first post was whether a parent, under certain circumstances, should put his/her love for his/her child ahead of the law. We all have an obligation to respect the law (assuming the laws are fair), and we all have an obligation to care for our children. What happens when they conflict? Should a parent rise above the law? Suppose there was no question that the child was guilty - that is, he/she knew what he/she was doing, he/she could have done otherwise, he/she knew the consequences, knew it was wrong, and the evidence for all this was in. In the eyes of the law, the child is unambiguously guilt and deserves the standard punishment. But the parent might be in a special position nevertheless - the parent might understand that the child is troubled by confusion or frustration, and really he/she’s not a bad kid, and that given the chance and the right amount of nurturing and love, the child can be turned around. I’m not saying the parent ought to break the child out of jail or kidnap him/her and run across the border (or should he/she?), but maybe they ought to tell a few lies to the authorities, or bribe the victoms to drop the charges, or push for rehabilitation rather than jail sentencing.
Well forget the laws are fair they are not. They only set guidelines. There is a lot of gray when it comes to laws. I think its fair to say under certain circumstance I would condone and encourage a parent to break laws on behalf of the child. Even up to breaking the child out. The bond of love is part of the crimes of passions. Each circumstance will be different. If the parent knows that the child deliberately commited the crime without any mitigating circumstance that troubled the child then, the parent should not help that child. That child holds a potential danger for the family if there is more family. If helping an innocent child creates a danger to the family then the parent should not do it.
The parent can only sacrifice themselves not the family. If that child is the only child then it is understandable to protect that child.
What’s the difference between this and the parent posing a danger to him/herself in helping an innocent child out? I mean, I would think that if the bonds of love are strong within the family through-and-through, then any danger the family as a whole faces in helping the child would be a risk the family as a whole would be willing to put themselves through. It wouldn’t just be the parent him/herself putting the family in danger - it would be the family as a unit making a unanimous decision to do so. No?
That would be true if all of the family were legal aged adults and can make such a hard decision. Parents cannot endanger other children for one. A parent’s first duty is to the whole. Emotions must be set aside. Even love. It is the same as a parent that has five kids one is stuck in a burning building , if the parent goes in after that child and it is a very good possiblity that parent will in all likelyhood die, leaving the other children without the parent, that parent should not try to save that child. Its not an easy decision but, one that must be made.
No. I was put through a series of psychologically intrusive tests, then released three days later. The place refused to keep me. It was mostly my pill-addicted mom, you know, the same lady who threw out my dad’s will and screwed me out of my part of the insurance. She’s going to die alone, sometime in the next ten years.
Smears, your mom may have not seen reason clearly , but clearly she had reasons, What did she see, that caused her to do what she did?
gib, we may have the same conclusions. A clean car, but did we clean that car the same way?
probably not.
What is a family? is it an extension of yourself? something akin to possesion? Is it a moral imperative to defend the family or is it an inate need or something eles or all of the above???
How we view the family is most likely different even though it comes to the same conclusions. Those differences are the philosphical part. That is the reason for this thread , right?
By the time a child reaches an age that they are capable of consciously committing a crime, they should well know what the parent’s moral boundaries and guidelines are. If these boundaries are blatantly clear, then the child really shouldn’t be surprised if their parents do not condone their actions.
That being said, I think a parent can be supportive, regardless of what decision their child makes. If the child steals a purse, the parents should be clear that they aren’t going to stop loving them, but they don’t condone their decision and won’t bail them out for making such decisions.
So you mean we use the same words but might have different concepts behind them? This is very similar to the theme of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. It sounds like we’re speaking the same language, and indeed the language seems functional, but we aren’t necessarily talking about the same thing.
PS - let’s carry this discussion back over to the female philosophers thread.