Underage drinking and parental responsibility?
June 1, 2008 8:15 AM Subscribe
Under current proposals, parents to be fined or prosecuted if their children drink underage Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has proposed that parents of children caught drinking underage would be subject to prosecution. text of speech
The amount of drink consumed by youths, especially by girls, has been an ongoing point of discussion in UK politics, particularly in the light of recent stabbings, shootings, and general mayhem (perceived or actual) committed by under-18s.
Many milestones of growing up, such as the age of consent or age to voluntarily leave school in the UK are at 16. There has been some discussion about lowering the age of consent to 14 in some cases. The drinking age is currently 18. Given the different thresholds of adulthood, how much control does or should a parent have over their child's underage drinking? How much responsibility do the parents bear?
The amount of drink consumed by youths, especially by girls, has been an ongoing point of discussion in UK politics, particularly in the light of recent stabbings, shootings, and general mayhem (perceived or actual) committed by under-18s.
Many milestones of growing up, such as the age of consent or age to voluntarily leave school in the UK are at 16. There has been some discussion about lowering the age of consent to 14 in some cases. The drinking age is currently 18. Given the different thresholds of adulthood, how much control does or should a parent have over their child's underage drinking? How much responsibility do the parents bear?
How is this ever going to hold up? What kind of precedent would this set? If your 15-year old stabs someone, are you also responsible?
As someone who had been able to drink pints at 15 at my cousins' local in Yorkshire without any sort of parental supervision, I can say they brought this on themselves. Now they want to undo it not through legislation but through an ill-conceived self-monitoring system? Gimme a fucking break. You don't need a study, you just need a fucking brain in your nut to know that this will never fly, neither in implementation nor in practice. You can't just expect to change hundreds of years of cultural and societal norms just because someone decides that it's now wrong.
Hmm, let me see...we allow underage drinking in pubs, we give them sexy alcohol commercials, we force an unnatural 'teenage' limbo period on young people surging with hormones and tell them they're not adults but they're not kids either and then woah nelly! out of left field let's make their parents responsible if they drink the alcohol that's EVERYWHERE in the country.
Seriously, fuck them.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:42 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
As someone who had been able to drink pints at 15 at my cousins' local in Yorkshire without any sort of parental supervision, I can say they brought this on themselves. Now they want to undo it not through legislation but through an ill-conceived self-monitoring system? Gimme a fucking break. You don't need a study, you just need a fucking brain in your nut to know that this will never fly, neither in implementation nor in practice. You can't just expect to change hundreds of years of cultural and societal norms just because someone decides that it's now wrong.
Hmm, let me see...we allow underage drinking in pubs, we give them sexy alcohol commercials, we force an unnatural 'teenage' limbo period on young people surging with hormones and tell them they're not adults but they're not kids either and then woah nelly! out of left field let's make their parents responsible if they drink the alcohol that's EVERYWHERE in the country.
Seriously, fuck them.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:42 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
Thank God for the UK, doing its best to make the US not look like the frontrunner in the "I read 1984 and boy was it full of good ideas" sweepstakes.
posted by localroger at 8:46 AM on June 1, 2008 [24 favorites]
posted by localroger at 8:46 AM on June 1, 2008 [24 favorites]
This will just enlist parental support in concealing teen drinking from the law. I am going to start coding wiiSpeakeasy right away in order to capture the supervised underage home drinking market.
posted by srboisvert at 8:54 AM on June 1, 2008
posted by srboisvert at 8:54 AM on June 1, 2008
Wait! Back up a parsec!
I thought in Europe children could drink alcoholic beverages at any age so long as they were under adult supervision? Is this one of those fallacies about Europe that we stupid Americans learn from some unspecified source only to later be proven ignorant later? My rose-colored glasses illusion of The Other Side Of The Pond is so about to be destroyed if that's the case. Say it ain't so! I thought at least somewhere on this planet, things like alcohol were utilized with a little common sense. This should be a decision between the parent and the child, and government shouldn't butt in.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:57 AM on June 1, 2008
I thought in Europe children could drink alcoholic beverages at any age so long as they were under adult supervision? Is this one of those fallacies about Europe that we stupid Americans learn from some unspecified source only to later be proven ignorant later? My rose-colored glasses illusion of The Other Side Of The Pond is so about to be destroyed if that's the case. Say it ain't so! I thought at least somewhere on this planet, things like alcohol were utilized with a little common sense. This should be a decision between the parent and the child, and government shouldn't butt in.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:57 AM on June 1, 2008
You can't just expect to change hundreds of years of cultural and societal norms just because someone decides that it's now wrong.
I really wanna makes comparisons to that statement and the practice of slavery in the US or civil rights and stuff. But that would be silly, right?
I found it kind of amazing that you folks across the pond even have to worry about underage drinking when the age is so comparatively low.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:03 AM on June 1, 2008
I really wanna makes comparisons to that statement and the practice of slavery in the US or civil rights and stuff. But that would be silly, right?
I found it kind of amazing that you folks across the pond even have to worry about underage drinking when the age is so comparatively low.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:03 AM on June 1, 2008
parents to be fined or prosecuted if their children drink underage
That's a hard thing to tell a single parent who can't afford a constant babysitter for her little mistake, and when the kid is too old for a babysitter but too young to kick out.
So how about mandatory supervision of such children at some sort of non-prison? A youth center or whatever you want to call it. Daycare for oaves. Homework help, games, movies, lots of supervision, and, if you're still a dickhead, a good beat down with sticks out back. OK, maybe not the last part. But give some of the responsibility to the kid first: if he had to go there when his guardians were working and he had to submit to random breath tests while there, then maybe I could see holding his parents partly responsible for repeat offenses at other times.
Or maybe not even then. What's a mother supposed to do when her big teenager muscles his way out of the flat despite her honest efforts? Call the police and report a possible teen swilling in progress, even though she would be fined and the kid would get into more trouble?
posted by pracowity at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2008
That's a hard thing to tell a single parent who can't afford a constant babysitter for her little mistake, and when the kid is too old for a babysitter but too young to kick out.
So how about mandatory supervision of such children at some sort of non-prison? A youth center or whatever you want to call it. Daycare for oaves. Homework help, games, movies, lots of supervision, and, if you're still a dickhead, a good beat down with sticks out back. OK, maybe not the last part. But give some of the responsibility to the kid first: if he had to go there when his guardians were working and he had to submit to random breath tests while there, then maybe I could see holding his parents partly responsible for repeat offenses at other times.
Or maybe not even then. What's a mother supposed to do when her big teenager muscles his way out of the flat despite her honest efforts? Call the police and report a possible teen swilling in progress, even though she would be fined and the kid would get into more trouble?
posted by pracowity at 9:12 AM on June 1, 2008
I really wanna makes comparisons to that statement and the practice of slavery in the US or civil rights and stuff. But that would be silly, right?
It's not the same. They're not banning alcohol, or the consumption of alcohol, nor are they making the underage kids responsible for their actions. They're attempting to get rid of all this bad behaviour through the grass-roots self-monitoring approach of stringing up a third party for the behaviour of others.
Yeah, Johnny, all your friends are in their fields with their slaves, and we are too, but you can't have slaves until you're 18. Sorry!
A lot of the problem here stems from the simple fact that adults can do it legally, and do. That's a lousy prevention program for people who are really wanting to be adults.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:18 AM on June 1, 2008
It's not the same. They're not banning alcohol, or the consumption of alcohol, nor are they making the underage kids responsible for their actions. They're attempting to get rid of all this bad behaviour through the grass-roots self-monitoring approach of stringing up a third party for the behaviour of others.
Yeah, Johnny, all your friends are in their fields with their slaves, and we are too, but you can't have slaves until you're 18. Sorry!
A lot of the problem here stems from the simple fact that adults can do it legally, and do. That's a lousy prevention program for people who are really wanting to be adults.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:18 AM on June 1, 2008
Seriously, fuck them.
Really, that's about all that needs to be said.
posted by languagehat at 9:23 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Really, that's about all that needs to be said.
posted by languagehat at 9:23 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
ZachsMind - technically, the law says you can have a glass of beer, cider or perry (wine in Scotland) with a meal, in an eating establishment, at 16. You can't go to a bar or traditional pub (read: no food served) and order a drink, nor can you buy booze from a supermarket or off license. There's always been a drinking age of some sort in Europe, but the application of the law has been a bit haphazard and up to the personal choice of the server.
Jimmythefish - where on earth were you drinking? I live in Yorkshire, and I'm a little surprised by your story. Your cousin's local had to be indeed the family neighbourhood haunt, where they were known and could vouch for you, to be able to knock back more than one pint. I'm betting you didn't walk up to the counter to buy 'em, but rather had them bought for you by an adult. Some places do serve to under-18's, sure, but not too many of them would do it indiscreetly. Not if they want to stay in business for long...
I have to agree with Jimmythefish. People in the UK tend to drink heavily and often. It isn't uncommon to see not just uni kids but middle aged men and women staggering about, incoherent, on a Friday night. Binge Drink Britain is very real, at least from where I sit in West Yorkshire. If the gvt had a problem with binge drinking, why up the tax on beer, wine & cider but leave it low on alcopops?
It stinks to high heaven of class snobbery to me. I doubt very seriously middle class parents would be fined or put through parenting classes (or put in jail) if their kids were drunk and disorderly under 18. On the other hand, something really does have to be done... what say you, mefites?
posted by Grrlscout at 9:37 AM on June 1, 2008
Jimmythefish - where on earth were you drinking? I live in Yorkshire, and I'm a little surprised by your story. Your cousin's local had to be indeed the family neighbourhood haunt, where they were known and could vouch for you, to be able to knock back more than one pint. I'm betting you didn't walk up to the counter to buy 'em, but rather had them bought for you by an adult. Some places do serve to under-18's, sure, but not too many of them would do it indiscreetly. Not if they want to stay in business for long...
I have to agree with Jimmythefish. People in the UK tend to drink heavily and often. It isn't uncommon to see not just uni kids but middle aged men and women staggering about, incoherent, on a Friday night. Binge Drink Britain is very real, at least from where I sit in West Yorkshire. If the gvt had a problem with binge drinking, why up the tax on beer, wine & cider but leave it low on alcopops?
It stinks to high heaven of class snobbery to me. I doubt very seriously middle class parents would be fined or put through parenting classes (or put in jail) if their kids were drunk and disorderly under 18. On the other hand, something really does have to be done... what say you, mefites?
posted by Grrlscout at 9:37 AM on June 1, 2008
They should really be holding the grandparents responsible. I mean, after all, it's really their fault that their kids aren't preventing their kids from drinking, right?
posted by Aquaman at 9:54 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Aquaman at 9:54 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
Jimmythefish - where on earth were you drinking?
Uhh...that was close to 20 years ago in Scarborough. No recollection really. I just remember all of us piling into the car - nobody over 18 - and heading over to the pub where there was absolutely no question that we'd be served. I do recall that they knew the proprietor, though.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:59 AM on June 1, 2008
Uhh...that was close to 20 years ago in Scarborough. No recollection really. I just remember all of us piling into the car - nobody over 18 - and heading over to the pub where there was absolutely no question that we'd be served. I do recall that they knew the proprietor, though.
posted by jimmythefish at 9:59 AM on June 1, 2008
speakWiisy?
posted by sugarfish at 10:09 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by sugarfish at 10:09 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
The first half of your life you are tormented by your Parents. The second half by your Children.
This is a good law and would allow kids to dump on their parents! Now what can we offer the parents?
posted by Postroad at 10:13 AM on June 1, 2008
This is a good law and would allow kids to dump on their parents! Now what can we offer the parents?
posted by Postroad at 10:13 AM on June 1, 2008
Now what can we offer the parents?
Children will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if their parents can't browse for, and attach, a file and then email that file in an appropriately-titled, new email message to a person who has previously sent them an email but who isn't in their current address book.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:18 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
Children will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if their parents can't browse for, and attach, a file and then email that file in an appropriately-titled, new email message to a person who has previously sent them an email but who isn't in their current address book.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:18 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
Thank heavens this never made its way to the States as my parents would probably still be serving hard time.
Actually in some states parents can be prosecuted if their home is used as a venue for teenage drinking parties, or if they are around and teens are drinking.
posted by delmoi at 10:27 AM on June 1, 2008
Actually in some states parents can be prosecuted if their home is used as a venue for teenage drinking parties, or if they are around and teens are drinking.
posted by delmoi at 10:27 AM on June 1, 2008
The first half of your life you are tormented by your Parents. The second half by your Children.
The overlapping period is when most serial killers get their big breakthrough.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:27 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
The overlapping period is when most serial killers get their big breakthrough.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:27 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
It isn't unusual for parents to be ordered to pay for their children's offences, children being generally unable to afford compensation orders etc. However, this seems more like direct punishment on the parents, along the lines of the fines that UK parents can now receive for their children missing school. I guess the intention is similar to that, in that fines are intended to be a last resort after parenting orders and contracts etc, have been broken, rather than routinely imposed.
technically, the law says you can have a glass of beer, cider or perry (wine in Scotland) with a meal, in an eating establishment, at 16
You can drink it, but it must actually be bought by an adult. And in their own home an adult can give a child alcohol from age 5, though there may obviously be legal consequences if this is done irresponsibly. I think similar rules hold in other EU countries.
posted by wilko at 10:37 AM on June 1, 2008
technically, the law says you can have a glass of beer, cider or perry (wine in Scotland) with a meal, in an eating establishment, at 16
You can drink it, but it must actually be bought by an adult. And in their own home an adult can give a child alcohol from age 5, though there may obviously be legal consequences if this is done irresponsibly. I think similar rules hold in other EU countries.
posted by wilko at 10:37 AM on June 1, 2008
On the other hand, something really does have to be done
No. When authoritarian assholes are in power, having them do anything is the very last thing you want, especially when they've aptly demonstrated that they care more about looking good in the Daily Mail than actually producing sound policies.
posted by Freaky at 10:40 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
No. When authoritarian assholes are in power, having them do anything is the very last thing you want, especially when they've aptly demonstrated that they care more about looking good in the Daily Mail than actually producing sound policies.
posted by Freaky at 10:40 AM on June 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
This top-down approach is probably not the way to go about it, but there's some value here. In sociological, collective efficacy terms, the more grassroots the enforcement of social norms is, the more effective the enforcement is.
posted by dhartung at 11:18 AM on June 1, 2008
posted by dhartung at 11:18 AM on June 1, 2008
I'm generally on the anti-authoritarian side, but I do agree with this more or less. There's a ongoing and increasing problem in England of crimes committed by young drunk males, more or less at random. Because they're juveniles, locking them up just because they're drunk is hard and probably a bad idea (it seems like a lark if you're a young crazy and just introduces you to real criminals).
I think it's very reasonable for a police officer to be able say, "Look, Mrs. Jones, this is the second time we've brought your Fred home drunk. You know we could run you in for this, make sure he doesn't do it again."
I'm all for responsible enjoyment but there are too many people in England who have been beaten or set on fire by yobbos and killed or permanently injured over nothing at all.
When authoritarian assholes are in power, having them do anything is the very last thing you want,
I sort of agree with this, but there is a real problem here, and this isn't actually making anything illegal that wasn't before. If your 15-year old child or even your 12-year old (yes, it happens) is out drunk on a Saturday night, you really do have a lot of responsibility for it, don't you? If the kid isn't legally responsible, and you aren't either, exactly who is?
This isn't something abstract like "loitering" or "suss" - it's very specific, "having a drunken under-age child".
Let's save our battles for more important things, where we really want to win: getting rid of video cameras for surveillance and adding them to every encounter between police and civilians, for example off the top of my head, or better civilian review of police misconduct in general.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:37 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think it's very reasonable for a police officer to be able say, "Look, Mrs. Jones, this is the second time we've brought your Fred home drunk. You know we could run you in for this, make sure he doesn't do it again."
I'm all for responsible enjoyment but there are too many people in England who have been beaten or set on fire by yobbos and killed or permanently injured over nothing at all.
When authoritarian assholes are in power, having them do anything is the very last thing you want,
I sort of agree with this, but there is a real problem here, and this isn't actually making anything illegal that wasn't before. If your 15-year old child or even your 12-year old (yes, it happens) is out drunk on a Saturday night, you really do have a lot of responsibility for it, don't you? If the kid isn't legally responsible, and you aren't either, exactly who is?
This isn't something abstract like "loitering" or "suss" - it's very specific, "having a drunken under-age child".
Let's save our battles for more important things, where we really want to win: getting rid of video cameras for surveillance and adding them to every encounter between police and civilians, for example off the top of my head, or better civilian review of police misconduct in general.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:37 AM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm generally on the anti-authoritarian side, but I do agree with this more or less.
Heh. "I believe in free speech, but this is beyond the pale!" "I love you, baby, but that gal was just smokin' hot!" Ah, cognitive dissonance.
Let's save our battles for more important things
This is as important as it gets. Punishing people for other people's acts is straight-up authoritarian bullshit and makes any kind of autonomy a laughingstock. Brits need to change their culture of drunkenness, not start locking up parents.
posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2008
Heh. "I believe in free speech, but this is beyond the pale!" "I love you, baby, but that gal was just smokin' hot!" Ah, cognitive dissonance.
Let's save our battles for more important things
This is as important as it gets. Punishing people for other people's acts is straight-up authoritarian bullshit and makes any kind of autonomy a laughingstock. Brits need to change their culture of drunkenness, not start locking up parents.
posted by languagehat at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2008
LH - Punishing people for other people's acts is straight-up authoritarian bullshit
Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a binary concept. Anyway, it's different when those people are your children. Your point would only really apply if your children had full rights (to give consent, to buy alcohol, to make decisions about their education, etc), and also the concomitant responsibilities. Much of the onus for those falls ("naturally", and legally) on the relevant parent or guardian. Argiung against that is arguing for a huge change in how young people are treated in society.
Brits need to change their culture of drunkenness, not start locking up parents.</I
I'm agreed on the need to address the causes. Prosecuting the symptom will have little effect.
posted by wilko at 12:33 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a binary concept. Anyway, it's different when those people are your children. Your point would only really apply if your children had full rights (to give consent, to buy alcohol, to make decisions about their education, etc), and also the concomitant responsibilities. Much of the onus for those falls ("naturally", and legally) on the relevant parent or guardian. Argiung against that is arguing for a huge change in how young people are treated in society.
Brits need to change their culture of drunkenness, not start locking up parents.</I
I'm agreed on the need to address the causes. Prosecuting the symptom will have little effect.
posted by wilko at 12:33 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
If your 15-year old child or even your 12-year old (yes, it happens) is out drunk on a Saturday night, you really do have a lot of responsibility for it, don't you? If the kid isn't legally responsible, and you aren't either, exactly who is?
Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is legally responsible, because nobody is culpable. I think it's a mistake to look at a social problem and conclude that we must punish someone, anyone.
A parent isn't actually allowed to take whatever means necessary to control their child (as a pet owner can to control a pet), so it strikes me as unfair to hold parents responsible for their children's choices. If we allowed parents to lock their children in a room until they were 18, or destroy them if they were excessively unruly, it might make sense to hold parents responsible for failing to control a problematic child.
As things stand, though, we rightly treat children as autonomous human beings with human rights (albeit with temporarily limited rights). We recognize that children (particular children 12 and older) are capable of making choices, and although they might not be legally responsible for all of their choices, their choices are still ultimately theirs.
There's nothing wrong with criminalizing parental abuse or neglect, which may in turn manifest itself in misbehavior by a child, but such a prosecution must ultimately rest on the parent's, not the child's, actions.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:34 PM on June 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is legally responsible, because nobody is culpable. I think it's a mistake to look at a social problem and conclude that we must punish someone, anyone.
A parent isn't actually allowed to take whatever means necessary to control their child (as a pet owner can to control a pet), so it strikes me as unfair to hold parents responsible for their children's choices. If we allowed parents to lock their children in a room until they were 18, or destroy them if they were excessively unruly, it might make sense to hold parents responsible for failing to control a problematic child.
As things stand, though, we rightly treat children as autonomous human beings with human rights (albeit with temporarily limited rights). We recognize that children (particular children 12 and older) are capable of making choices, and although they might not be legally responsible for all of their choices, their choices are still ultimately theirs.
There's nothing wrong with criminalizing parental abuse or neglect, which may in turn manifest itself in misbehavior by a child, but such a prosecution must ultimately rest on the parent's, not the child's, actions.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:34 PM on June 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
Punishing people for other people's acts is straight-up authoritarian bullshit and makes any kind of autonomy a laughingstock.
speaking as a childfree individual, and one who's not yet to the age of get-off-my-lawn:
personally, i'm all for rules which will increasingly hold parents responsible for their kids' actions. i think there is entirely too much unthoughtful breeding going on in this world, and it really pisses me off (not to mention depressing me). unwanted and unloved children grow up to be menaces to society. since it seems to be an unpopular idea to require some kind of permit before childbearing, at least we could do a better job of requiring that parents maintain responsibility for the rugrats that they never really wanted to begin with.
i strongly believe that parents SHOULD be held responsible for their childrens' actions and misdeeds. perhaps if this was the case, people would think twice before bringing more unwanted children into this world.
posted by CitizenD at 12:39 PM on June 1, 2008
speaking as a childfree individual, and one who's not yet to the age of get-off-my-lawn:
personally, i'm all for rules which will increasingly hold parents responsible for their kids' actions. i think there is entirely too much unthoughtful breeding going on in this world, and it really pisses me off (not to mention depressing me). unwanted and unloved children grow up to be menaces to society. since it seems to be an unpopular idea to require some kind of permit before childbearing, at least we could do a better job of requiring that parents maintain responsibility for the rugrats that they never really wanted to begin with.
i strongly believe that parents SHOULD be held responsible for their childrens' actions and misdeeds. perhaps if this was the case, people would think twice before bringing more unwanted children into this world.
posted by CitizenD at 12:39 PM on June 1, 2008
i strongly believe that parents SHOULD be held responsible for their childrens' actions and misdeeds. perhaps if this was the case, people would think twice before bringing more unwanted children into this world.
"Held responsible" can mean a couple of different things. If you're talking about making parents liable (e.g. in tort) for the pecuniary harms caused by their children, I don't necessarily disagree. The harm is done, and somebody has to bear it. The child cannot afford to, and it seems unfair to require the innocent victim to.
However, imposing criminal liability on a parent for their child's actions is quite a different matter. Criminal liability is supposed to require individual culpability, and merely having a child is clearly not in itself a culpable action.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:55 PM on June 1, 2008
"Held responsible" can mean a couple of different things. If you're talking about making parents liable (e.g. in tort) for the pecuniary harms caused by their children, I don't necessarily disagree. The harm is done, and somebody has to bear it. The child cannot afford to, and it seems unfair to require the innocent victim to.
However, imposing criminal liability on a parent for their child's actions is quite a different matter. Criminal liability is supposed to require individual culpability, and merely having a child is clearly not in itself a culpable action.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:55 PM on June 1, 2008
Sometimes bad things happen and nobody is legally responsible, because nobody is culpable.
That's a truism, yes? But the question is specific: "Are parents culpable if their underage kids are drinking, or breaking the law in general?" And the answer, I believe should be, "Yes, it should be possible for parents to be culpable if their underage kids break the law."
Like every law, it wouldn't just be as simple as, "Your kid commits a crime, you go to jail," but rather a trail of specific evidence about intent and the facts.
If you own a dog, you are responsible if it savages a child. If you have an underage child, one who is not legally responsible, it's at least partly your responsibility to either make sure that they more or less stay out of trouble, or that in the last resort you turn them over to someone else who can more or less guarantee that.
This is no "solution in search of a problem". Violent crime by drunken youths is a serious issue in England. People are scared at night in London even in pretty good sections in a way you'd never be in huge parts of New York City any more. Everyone's had a couple of frightening experiences, and recently.
People should take care of their kids. As the world gets more crowded, this will become more of a legal responsibility and that's a Good Thing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:57 PM on June 1, 2008
That's a truism, yes? But the question is specific: "Are parents culpable if their underage kids are drinking, or breaking the law in general?" And the answer, I believe should be, "Yes, it should be possible for parents to be culpable if their underage kids break the law."
Like every law, it wouldn't just be as simple as, "Your kid commits a crime, you go to jail," but rather a trail of specific evidence about intent and the facts.
If you own a dog, you are responsible if it savages a child. If you have an underage child, one who is not legally responsible, it's at least partly your responsibility to either make sure that they more or less stay out of trouble, or that in the last resort you turn them over to someone else who can more or less guarantee that.
This is no "solution in search of a problem". Violent crime by drunken youths is a serious issue in England. People are scared at night in London even in pretty good sections in a way you'd never be in huge parts of New York City any more. Everyone's had a couple of frightening experiences, and recently.
People should take care of their kids. As the world gets more crowded, this will become more of a legal responsibility and that's a Good Thing.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:57 PM on June 1, 2008
Criminal liability is supposed to require individual culpability, and merely having a child is clearly not in itself a culpable action.
This is a straw man: no one suggests that you should be jailed for merely having a child.
It is a crime to provide an environment to a child that's so awful that it results in physical or mental harm: it's called "criminal neglect". No one disputes that this should be so.
In the same way, it should be a crime to provide an environment for a child that's so awful that the child commits crimes. Frankly, they should just widen "criminal neglect".
We're not talking about, "Your son ran away from home two years ago, and today he broke into a store," but, "Your son who lives in your house keeps beating up old people."
Again, in an actual case you'd have to establish culpability as you say but in many cases it'd be easy to show that the parent hadn't lived up to very minimal responsibilities under the law, ignoring evidence of or even abetting criminal activity, providing the child with alcohol or drugs, or even more common, providing a terrible example by having a violent home.
If you are going to use legal terms, please don't use them to snow us. There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2008
This is a straw man: no one suggests that you should be jailed for merely having a child.
It is a crime to provide an environment to a child that's so awful that it results in physical or mental harm: it's called "criminal neglect". No one disputes that this should be so.
In the same way, it should be a crime to provide an environment for a child that's so awful that the child commits crimes. Frankly, they should just widen "criminal neglect".
We're not talking about, "Your son ran away from home two years ago, and today he broke into a store," but, "Your son who lives in your house keeps beating up old people."
Again, in an actual case you'd have to establish culpability as you say but in many cases it'd be easy to show that the parent hadn't lived up to very minimal responsibilities under the law, ignoring evidence of or even abetting criminal activity, providing the child with alcohol or drugs, or even more common, providing a terrible example by having a violent home.
If you are going to use legal terms, please don't use them to snow us. There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2008
Heh. "I believe in free speech, but this is beyond the pale!"
Let me explain "nuance" to you. Nuance means that I can absolutely say things like "I strongly believe in free speech but this is beyond the pale!"
Why? Because the speech is [ defamatory | creates a climate of fear and a reasonable expectation of violence | some other argument ].
This doesn't require any "cognitive dissonance". I see nothing wrong with believing in free speech and then, for example, suggesting to a friend that they call the cops on an ex- that's sending threatening letters.
I can absolutely be anti-authoritarian in general and still be in favour of some new laws restricting human behaviour.
In this example, we're talking about a real issue. There's a gap in time where these kids are physically mature and capable of violence but aren't legally responsible. People, society, want some sort of solution. As you can imagine, I'd suggest they start diverting far more help and care to poor kids really early, but there's a permanent underclass in England that's been in the same position for so long that it would take a long time to fix it; there needs to be a fix in law as well.
Society isn't doing well by these kids and on a purely selfish economic level they could be doing so much better out of them if they actually had some stake in the whole game. That's undeniable but at the same time something needs to be done that will have results fairly soon, not twenty years from now.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2008
Let me explain "nuance" to you. Nuance means that I can absolutely say things like "I strongly believe in free speech but this is beyond the pale!"
Why? Because the speech is [ defamatory | creates a climate of fear and a reasonable expectation of violence | some other argument ].
This doesn't require any "cognitive dissonance". I see nothing wrong with believing in free speech and then, for example, suggesting to a friend that they call the cops on an ex- that's sending threatening letters.
I can absolutely be anti-authoritarian in general and still be in favour of some new laws restricting human behaviour.
In this example, we're talking about a real issue. There's a gap in time where these kids are physically mature and capable of violence but aren't legally responsible. People, society, want some sort of solution. As you can imagine, I'd suggest they start diverting far more help and care to poor kids really early, but there's a permanent underclass in England that's been in the same position for so long that it would take a long time to fix it; there needs to be a fix in law as well.
Society isn't doing well by these kids and on a purely selfish economic level they could be doing so much better out of them if they actually had some stake in the whole game. That's undeniable but at the same time something needs to be done that will have results fairly soon, not twenty years from now.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2008
It sounds like the UK forgot that parents can vote, while teens can't. The people who are pushing this will soon be known as 'former politicians.'
posted by mullingitover at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2008
posted by mullingitover at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2008
Parents whose high-school age kids are sitting out on the street drinking buckfast or whatever, and making anti-social menaces of themselves have already lost control, so I cant see what good prosecuting them will do. There already is legislation to stop underage drinkers buying drink, which if it was better enforced would cut a lot of the trouble. Recently this initiative was tried in West Lothian banning under 21s from buying in off-licences on Friday and Saturday nights. It seemed to be quite effective - perhaps that's the way to go.
posted by Flitcraft at 1:48 PM on June 1, 2008
posted by Flitcraft at 1:48 PM on June 1, 2008
I can absolutely be anti-authoritarian in general and still be in favour of some new laws restricting human behaviour.
I believe you believe you are anti-authoritarian, but I do not believe you are anti-authoritarian. Don't worry, I don't expect you to lose any sleep over it.
posted by languagehat at 1:53 PM on June 1, 2008
I believe you believe you are anti-authoritarian, but I do not believe you are anti-authoritarian. Don't worry, I don't expect you to lose any sleep over it.
posted by languagehat at 1:53 PM on June 1, 2008
There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
Like what?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:55 PM on June 1, 2008
Like what?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:55 PM on June 1, 2008
There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
Like what?
OJ. (runs away quickly)
posted by Aquaman at 2:02 PM on June 1, 2008
Like what?
OJ. (runs away quickly)
posted by Aquaman at 2:02 PM on June 1, 2008
I've serious doubts but I don't buy the arguments that this idea sucks a priori, so the U.K. sounds like a fine test case. I imagine it'll lead to rich parents exercising more control while little change for poor parents who don't have options but do have little thugs.
But seriously, why not just apply some sort of house arrest system for juvenile thugs? If your convicted, you get bright pink GPS collar that forces you to be in school or at home at the appropriate times.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2008
But seriously, why not just apply some sort of house arrest system for juvenile thugs? If your convicted, you get bright pink GPS collar that forces you to be in school or at home at the appropriate times.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2008
This is a straw man: no one suggests that you should be jailed for merely having a child.
Speaking of straw men, I didn't say "jailed." Anyway, it's not at all clear to me that this wasn't basically what CitizenD was suggesting. He said, "i strongly believe that parents SHOULD be held responsible for their childrens' actions and misdeeds." If by "held responsible" he means criminal liability, he didn't identify any action on the part of the parents necessary to make this liability attach other than merely having a child.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:08 PM on June 1, 2008
Speaking of straw men, I didn't say "jailed." Anyway, it's not at all clear to me that this wasn't basically what CitizenD was suggesting. He said, "i strongly believe that parents SHOULD be held responsible for their childrens' actions and misdeeds." If by "held responsible" he means criminal liability, he didn't identify any action on the part of the parents necessary to make this liability attach other than merely having a child.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 2:08 PM on June 1, 2008
The problem, and this kind of idiocy is a specific manifestation of it, is with the concept of individually-owned children. You are responsible for your child, and by implication, not responsible for anyone else's child. The question Daily Mail readers should be asking themselves (not that Daily Mail readers are in the habit of asking themselves questions) is not "why aren't the parents ...", but "why aren't we ..."
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:34 PM on June 1, 2008
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:34 PM on June 1, 2008
Let's amend this proposal thusly and see what happens:
Parents Government officials will be fined or prosecuted if their children subordinates drink underage commit criminal acts in the line of duty.
We could bet on how long it would last before it was dropped from discussion. Dibs on 5 minutes.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:45 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
We could bet on how long it would last before it was dropped from discussion. Dibs on 5 minutes.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:45 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
So if orphans under care of the state get drunk, can we put the Queen in jail?
posted by blue_beetle at 3:03 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 3:03 PM on June 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
As usual, it would help if people actually RTFA before dialing the outrage up to 11. From the article:
Those who fail to get their children to "change their ways" and stop abusing alcohol could be required to attend parenting courses. Ultimately, they could be prosecuted.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said professionals would be called in where parents were unable to handle their offspring. She added: "Parents must play their role. I want to see greater use of parenting orders and parenting contracts and anti-social behaviour orders when young people are caught persistently drinking in public. If parents and children need to meet a trained worker to get them back on the right track then so be it."
So criminal prosecution of parents would clearly be the last step in an escalating process that includes parenting contracts and meetings with social workers.
Also, if you take the time to read the speech, you'll see that the bit about parenting is only a small part. The bulk of the speech talks about the responsibility of the community, the alcohol industry, retailers, and kids themselves. From the speech:
"When I talk of taking personal responsibility, nearly half of the alcohol obtained by young people appears to come from the family home. It’s clear that parents have to hear the message as well."
"We will support parents who find it difficult to fulfil their responsibilities. But where they are unwilling or unable to fulfil their parental responsibilities, others should not have to suffer If poor parenting is identified as an issue when alcohol is confiscated from underage drinkers, I want to see a greater use of Parenting Contracts. If there is more we can do to strengthen these procedures, and if we can do more to bring home to parents the implications of giving children drink straight from the fridge or the cupboard, I want to see that happen."
This doesn't seem to me to be some authoritarian plot to round up poor single mothers who are working two jobs and don't have the time to supervise their kids and throw them all in the slammer. Its part of a comprehensive plan that emphasizes the responsibility of multiple stakeholders, but also establishes repercussions for those parents who knowingly provide alcohol to children who then become public nuiscances.
Its fine to debate whether the government should play such an intrusive role in parenting (I, for one, am dubious about 'parenting contracts'). But turning this into OMGBIGBROTHER! doesn't do justice to what is, as lupus-yonderboy has pointed out, a pretty complex problem.
posted by googly at 3:04 PM on June 1, 2008
Those who fail to get their children to "change their ways" and stop abusing alcohol could be required to attend parenting courses. Ultimately, they could be prosecuted.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said professionals would be called in where parents were unable to handle their offspring. She added: "Parents must play their role. I want to see greater use of parenting orders and parenting contracts and anti-social behaviour orders when young people are caught persistently drinking in public. If parents and children need to meet a trained worker to get them back on the right track then so be it."
So criminal prosecution of parents would clearly be the last step in an escalating process that includes parenting contracts and meetings with social workers.
Also, if you take the time to read the speech, you'll see that the bit about parenting is only a small part. The bulk of the speech talks about the responsibility of the community, the alcohol industry, retailers, and kids themselves. From the speech:
"When I talk of taking personal responsibility, nearly half of the alcohol obtained by young people appears to come from the family home. It’s clear that parents have to hear the message as well."
"We will support parents who find it difficult to fulfil their responsibilities. But where they are unwilling or unable to fulfil their parental responsibilities, others should not have to suffer If poor parenting is identified as an issue when alcohol is confiscated from underage drinkers, I want to see a greater use of Parenting Contracts. If there is more we can do to strengthen these procedures, and if we can do more to bring home to parents the implications of giving children drink straight from the fridge or the cupboard, I want to see that happen."
This doesn't seem to me to be some authoritarian plot to round up poor single mothers who are working two jobs and don't have the time to supervise their kids and throw them all in the slammer. Its part of a comprehensive plan that emphasizes the responsibility of multiple stakeholders, but also establishes repercussions for those parents who knowingly provide alcohol to children who then become public nuiscances.
Its fine to debate whether the government should play such an intrusive role in parenting (I, for one, am dubious about 'parenting contracts'). But turning this into OMGBIGBROTHER! doesn't do justice to what is, as lupus-yonderboy has pointed out, a pretty complex problem.
posted by googly at 3:04 PM on June 1, 2008
So many of society's problems would be solved if everyone just stopped having children.
posted by mullingitover at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2008
posted by mullingitover at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2008
The discursus on "authoritarianism" seems to be a sidetrack - there are inevitably going to be degrees of control, unless one is an absolue anarchist. The real issue seems to be just on the fair assignment of liability.
>>There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
Like what?
"Doing something" includes acts of neglect, eg not carrying out a safety audit, not providing proper levels of care, not acting to stop your 12-year-old go out drinking all hours...
MPDSE - However, imposing criminal liability on a parent for their child's actions is quite a different matter. Criminal liability is supposed to require individual culpability, and merely having a child is clearly not in itself a culpable action.
The purported culpable act is not merely having a child, it is letting that child (repeatedly?) break the law. By poor analogy, regularly driving a car is not in itself a culpable action, but it does provide an added responsibililty on when you can choose to get drunk. I can see that deciding on when a parent has "let" a child break the law, up to the degree of criminal negligence, is contentious. But I don't agree that it should be an impossible conclusion.
Now as for reducing the UK's undoubted problem with young people and binge-drinking, I don't reckon going after the parents is a great answer; but it may at least address a portion of the problem.
CD - since it seems to be an unpopular idea to require some kind of permit before childbearing, at least we could do a better job of requiring that parents maintain responsibility for the rugrats that they never really wanted to begin with.
I sincerely hope that the discussed laws are not a slippery slope towards "permits for childbearing", though your attitude has given me pause.
posted by wilko at 3:43 PM on June 1, 2008
>>There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
Like what?
"Doing something" includes acts of neglect, eg not carrying out a safety audit, not providing proper levels of care, not acting to stop your 12-year-old go out drinking all hours...
MPDSE - However, imposing criminal liability on a parent for their child's actions is quite a different matter. Criminal liability is supposed to require individual culpability, and merely having a child is clearly not in itself a culpable action.
The purported culpable act is not merely having a child, it is letting that child (repeatedly?) break the law. By poor analogy, regularly driving a car is not in itself a culpable action, but it does provide an added responsibililty on when you can choose to get drunk. I can see that deciding on when a parent has "let" a child break the law, up to the degree of criminal negligence, is contentious. But I don't agree that it should be an impossible conclusion.
Now as for reducing the UK's undoubted problem with young people and binge-drinking, I don't reckon going after the parents is a great answer; but it may at least address a portion of the problem.
CD - since it seems to be an unpopular idea to require some kind of permit before childbearing, at least we could do a better job of requiring that parents maintain responsibility for the rugrats that they never really wanted to begin with.
I sincerely hope that the discussed laws are not a slippery slope towards "permits for childbearing", though your attitude has given me pause.
posted by wilko at 3:43 PM on June 1, 2008
But seriously, why not just apply some sort of house arrest system for juvenile thugs? If your convicted, you get bright pink GPS collar that forces you to be in school or at home at the appropriate times.
Here in Texas, the Dallas Independent School District had a trial program for chronic truants wearing GPS devices.
I'm not completely sold on the program because it is so new but it seems a better and more effective alternative than incarcerating the teen or citing the parent for chronic truancy. Seems like the application could extend to chronic underage drinkers who are out and about wreaking havoc on the weekends.
Though I'm curious if our UK friends would find this to be part of an appropriate solution.
posted by blessedlyndie at 5:12 PM on June 1, 2008
Here in Texas, the Dallas Independent School District had a trial program for chronic truants wearing GPS devices.
I'm not completely sold on the program because it is so new but it seems a better and more effective alternative than incarcerating the teen or citing the parent for chronic truancy. Seems like the application could extend to chronic underage drinkers who are out and about wreaking havoc on the weekends.
Though I'm curious if our UK friends would find this to be part of an appropriate solution.
posted by blessedlyndie at 5:12 PM on June 1, 2008
If your 15-year old child or even your 12-year old (yes, it happens) is out drunk on a Saturday night, you really do have a lot of responsibility for it, don't you? If the kid isn't legally responsible, and you aren't either, exactly who is?
The person who provided them with the alcohol here in CA. If you provide a minor with alcohol and said minor gets into an accident or commits a crime you can be sued or charged over and above the charge of providing alcohol to a minor. They started tagging and registering kegs about 10 years ago which really put a crimp in the college kegger black market , I can tell you. No more buying two kegs for your little brothers freshman crew team, pocketing $20 in profit and telling them to have a good time.
posted by fshgrl at 5:32 PM on June 1, 2008
The person who provided them with the alcohol here in CA. If you provide a minor with alcohol and said minor gets into an accident or commits a crime you can be sued or charged over and above the charge of providing alcohol to a minor. They started tagging and registering kegs about 10 years ago which really put a crimp in the college kegger black market , I can tell you. No more buying two kegs for your little brothers freshman crew team, pocketing $20 in profit and telling them to have a good time.
posted by fshgrl at 5:32 PM on June 1, 2008
There are innumerable cases in law where people are held culpable for things that they didn't personally do.
Like what?
Take murder: if someone is killed during the commission of a crime you're involved in, or if you pay a hitman to kill someone, you can be charged with murder even though you pulled no trigger.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:14 PM on June 1, 2008
Like what?
Take murder: if someone is killed during the commission of a crime you're involved in, or if you pay a hitman to kill someone, you can be charged with murder even though you pulled no trigger.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:14 PM on June 1, 2008
The purported culpable act is not merely having a child, it is letting that child (repeatedly?) break the law.
Is that an act at all? Do you feel that you're acting in a criminally culpable manner right now, since you're presumably not preventing other people from committing crimes?
Take murder: if someone is killed during the commission of a crime you're involved in, or if you pay a hitman to kill someone, you can be charged with murder even though you pulled no trigger.
Sure, but you yourself still have to do something bad. It's quite different than holding you criminally culpable simply because of your relationship with someone else.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:17 PM on June 1, 2008
Is that an act at all? Do you feel that you're acting in a criminally culpable manner right now, since you're presumably not preventing other people from committing crimes?
Take murder: if someone is killed during the commission of a crime you're involved in, or if you pay a hitman to kill someone, you can be charged with murder even though you pulled no trigger.
Sure, but you yourself still have to do something bad. It's quite different than holding you criminally culpable simply because of your relationship with someone else.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:17 PM on June 1, 2008
lupus_yonderboy: There's a ongoing and increasing problem in England of crimes committed by young drunk males, more or less at random.
Proof or STFU.
I know that this is an "increasing problem" in Daily Mail land, but back in the real world, violent crime continues its year-on-year decrease. Yes, young people commit sometimes lurid crimes under the influence of alcohol, but those are isolated instances.
I for one would like to see some evidence that a problem exists and that the proposed solution might actually be effective, before we start talking about criminalising a whole section of society.
posted by mr. strange at 1:12 AM on June 2, 2008
Proof or STFU.
I know that this is an "increasing problem" in Daily Mail land, but back in the real world, violent crime continues its year-on-year decrease. Yes, young people commit sometimes lurid crimes under the influence of alcohol, but those are isolated instances.
I for one would like to see some evidence that a problem exists and that the proposed solution might actually be effective, before we start talking about criminalising a whole section of society.
posted by mr. strange at 1:12 AM on June 2, 2008
The current new Labour government is acting like a scared rattlesnake for several months. It's in free-fall panic mode, and every decision it undertakes reeks of fear. The cannabis thing, in particular.
Brown and Co are bricking it.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:31 AM on June 2, 2008
Brown and Co are bricking it.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:31 AM on June 2, 2008
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?" (Plato, 4th century BC)
posted by so_necessary at 3:33 AM on June 2, 2008
posted by so_necessary at 3:33 AM on June 2, 2008
mrdrsteveelvisetc: Criminal liability is supposed to require individual culpability, and merely having a child is clearly not in itself a culpable action.
i disagree. i'm not a lawyer, so there may be legalese-style implications of the word "culpable" that i'm unaware of: but, i still argue that, goddammit, as a parent YOU brought that kid into this world -- you are, at least partially, culpable for what that kid does.
ashenkarnos: You are responsible for your child, and by implication, not responsible for anyone else's child. The question Daily Mail readers should be asking themselves (not that Daily Mail readers are in the habit of asking themselves questions) is not "why aren't the parents ...", but "why aren't we..."
i strongly disagree with the "implication" you assume here. unless, and until, parents are held responsible, why on earth should anyone ELSE be held responsible? yeesh.
posted by CitizenD at 8:43 AM on June 2, 2008
i disagree. i'm not a lawyer, so there may be legalese-style implications of the word "culpable" that i'm unaware of: but, i still argue that, goddammit, as a parent YOU brought that kid into this world -- you are, at least partially, culpable for what that kid does.
ashenkarnos: You are responsible for your child, and by implication, not responsible for anyone else's child. The question Daily Mail readers should be asking themselves (not that Daily Mail readers are in the habit of asking themselves questions) is not "why aren't the parents ...", but "why aren't we..."
i strongly disagree with the "implication" you assume here. unless, and until, parents are held responsible, why on earth should anyone ELSE be held responsible? yeesh.
posted by CitizenD at 8:43 AM on June 2, 2008
wilko: CD - since it seems to be an unpopular idea to require some kind of permit before childbearing, at least we could do a better job of requiring that parents maintain responsibility for the rugrats that they never really wanted to begin with.
I sincerely hope that the discussed laws are not a slippery slope towards "permits for childbearing", though your attitude has given me pause.
the suggestion of permits before childbearing is indeed just outta my own head, and not anything that had to do with the article. (just to be clear)
why has my attitude given you pause? i'm curious.
posted by CitizenD at 8:48 AM on June 2, 2008
I sincerely hope that the discussed laws are not a slippery slope towards "permits for childbearing", though your attitude has given me pause.
the suggestion of permits before childbearing is indeed just outta my own head, and not anything that had to do with the article. (just to be clear)
why has my attitude given you pause? i'm curious.
posted by CitizenD at 8:48 AM on June 2, 2008
>> The purported culpable act is not merely having a child, it is letting that child (repeatedly?) break the law.
MPDS - Is that an act at all? Do you feel that you're acting in a criminally culpable manner right now, since you're presumably not preventing other people from committing crimes?
Yes, it is an act (in law, and morally I reckon). I act to prevent negligence in my job all the time, and if I fail in my supervisory role I will rightly be held responsible. The parental role isn't exactly equivalent, but I find it odd to argue to that there can be no responsibility there at all.
CitizenD - why has my attitude given you pause? i'm curious.
Because I'm not all that authoritarian? The state deciding on who may and may not have children strikes me as sinister. I can't imagine I'm alone in this, but anyway it's probably straying off topic.
posted by wilko at 4:27 PM on June 2, 2008
MPDS - Is that an act at all? Do you feel that you're acting in a criminally culpable manner right now, since you're presumably not preventing other people from committing crimes?
Yes, it is an act (in law, and morally I reckon). I act to prevent negligence in my job all the time, and if I fail in my supervisory role I will rightly be held responsible. The parental role isn't exactly equivalent, but I find it odd to argue to that there can be no responsibility there at all.
CitizenD - why has my attitude given you pause? i'm curious.
Because I'm not all that authoritarian? The state deciding on who may and may not have children strikes me as sinister. I can't imagine I'm alone in this, but anyway it's probably straying off topic.
posted by wilko at 4:27 PM on June 2, 2008
« Older Being depressed (or gay) is not all in your genes. | Chinese democracy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Gooch at 8:35 AM on June 1, 2008 [2 favorites]