|
|
May 21, 1996
ARE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S' CRIMES?When the latest crime statistics were released by the FBI earlier this month, they showed crime dropping in almost every sector except for one : juvenile crime. The increase in crimes committed by minors has sparked debate in communities, Congress and the courts about how best to deal with these young criminals. Several communities have decided that one way to address this problem is to punish the parents of juveniles who commit crimes.
One community, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, adopted what they called a "Parental Responsibility Ordinance" in 1994. While not alone in passing such local laws, the city of St. Clair Shores is the first to charge and try parents. The case, which came to trial earlier in May, focused national attention on the issue of parental responsibility and was seen as a test case by both advocates and detractors.
Although the son of the parents charged in the St. Clair Shores case testified that his family had tried to straighten him out, the jury found Anthony and Susan Provenzino guilty of violating the law.
Will holding parents legally and financially responsible for their child's actions strengthen parental roles in controlling children? Or does such an approach unfairly punish parents for the misdeeds of teens? Here are your questions and comments to Robert Ihrie, the author of the city of St. Clair Shores parental responsibility ordinance and the prosecutor who convicted the Provenzinos.
Click here for coverage of the trial and the verdict by the Detroit News.
A question from Sharon Kaya of Gettysburg, PA:I most wholeheartedly agree that parents should bear the responsibility of children who commit crime. However, the problem is not going to be resolved by working with parents after the child has committed the crime.
Is there a program in place somewhere of early intervention that successfully helps parents with nurturing skills that produce children who will not commit crimes?
Robert Ihrie responds:
In the Metropolitan Detroit area there are numerous parental intervention programs that would assist parents with developing needed parenting and nurturing skills. I wholeheartedly agree that the problem of parental supervision is best addressed in preventive terms. I can certainly attest that any parent who had the foresight and incentive to become involved in parenting classes would, in all likelihood, never be prosecuted under the St. Clair Shores Parental Responsibility Ordinance.
_______________________________________
A question from Jenny Myer of Richmond, VA:
How has your community reacted to the passing of this ordinance and to the trial?
Robert Ihrie responds:
The local community in St. Clair Shores has reacted quite positively to the Parental Responsibility Ordinance and to the trial results. St. Clair Shores is a middle to upper middle class community with relatively moderate or middle of the road opinions on most social issues. While there are some who believe that the ordinance unduly invades the province of individual parenting decisions, most have applauded the imposition of consequences to parents who abdicate even their most basic parental obligations. Most of the letters and phone calls I have received have been supportive.
_______________________________________
A question from John Fracaro of Kendallville, IN:
Currently there are several children across this country under the age of 10, charged with murder. Should we execute the parents?
Robert Ihrie responds:
Your question evidences a basic misunderstanding of the St. Clair Shores Parental Responsibility Ordinance. Even though the media has chosen to phrase the issue as making parents responsible for the crimes of their children, the issue is quite the contrary. Parents are held responsible for their own conduct under our ordinance. This means that regardless of the conduct of their child, parents will be judged on their own conduct as defined by the ordinance. If parents exercise even the most minimal parental supervision, it is unlikely they would ever be charged with an ordinance violation.
_______________________________________
A question from Frederick H. Bartlett of Mercerville, NJ:
A friend of mine had a delinquent child; she found that, while she was legally responsible for all debts incurred and damage caused by that child, she did not have any legal authority to control the child's behavior.
...It is all but impossible for a parent to impose meaningful discipline on an unruly child without becoming liable to legal action brought either by the child or by local child welfare agencies.
Is it fair to make people responsible for that which they have [limited] authority over?
Robert Ihrie responds:
Certainly every parent must abide by their particular state's child discipline laws. If a parent exercises or attempts to exercise reasonable discipline or supervision within their state's legal guidelines, no such prosecution under our ordinance would ever take place. While you indicate that it is "all but impossible for a parent to impose meaningful discipline on an unruly child without becoming liable to legal action," I believe this is a serious exaggeration and, quite frankly, an excuse for the parent who chooses to impose no discipline or supervision. In addition, each parental circumstance is different and would be judged accordingly by a jury of the parents' peers. Parents have total responsibility for their own conduct, and it is only their conduct which is judged pursuant to our ordinance.
_______________________________________
A question from Lillian Tong of Madison, WI:
Where's the data?
People who feel that parents should be made responsible for the behavior of their children must also feel that they know how to ensure that children behave. To my knowledge, the data are not available about the most effective parenting methods. Throughout history, different styles of parenting have been in fashion. What worked in the past may not be suitable for today. As we become more and more horrified with child abuse, we should think about how this parental responsibility law will force parents to try desperate means. Friends have mentioned that they would think twice about having children if this law remains.
Robert Ihrie responds:
This ordinance does not make parents responsible for the behavior of their children nor does it require parents to "ensure" that their children behave. The ordinance merely requires parents to exercise the most basic minimal parenting supervision such as forbidding their children to keep and possess illegal weapons, drugs, etc. While we may disagree on what particular parenting style ought to be used in a given situation, there certainly can be no disagreement on a parent's responsibility to require such basic supervisory control as above stated.
_______________________________________
A question from John S. Hahn of Las Vegas, NV:
[I had tried] unsuccessfully for several months to get the Anne Arundel County (Maryland) Juvenile Services to help with my 12 year old juvenile delinquent. The advice I got repeatedly from the authorities was, get him some counseling. At the same time, my kid was smart enough to realize that there really wasn't anything I could do to him. So, in the context you're discussing, for a court to convict me of failing to control my kid would be the ultimate insult! Please comment.
Robert Ihrie responds:
I applaud you on your attempts to seek help for your 12 year old son. I am sorry that you have been unable to secure counseling or other assistance. Your actions alone as stated in your comments would preclude you from ever seeing the inside of a courthouse in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Your attempts at seeking assistance (even though failed) would eliminate you from consideration for prosecution. Good luck.
_______________________________________
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Shaku Krishnamurthi, Bellbrook, OH:I come from a different background and culture where it is the parents who shape the behavior and destiny of the child when young so that, as an adult, he will be good citizen, carrying on responsibilities and duties properly. This may include a strict, disciplined regime which (allows for an) occasional spanking.
(In the United States) a child dominates the scene even from a young age. Violence and sex is the order of the day in the media, and it is very hard even for some decent people to raise the children in the same moral code that they themselves have been brought up. How do you control a teenager who smokes, drinks, uses obscene language, knows how to use a gun, and is physically stronger than his parents (whose hard earned money was spent to build the strength the kid possesses) ?
Unless the parents start to take control back there is no solution to the problem. It is time for the parents to make the teens responsible for their actions. _______________________________________
John Caruso, Stone Mtn., GA:
Just exactly what was available to the Provenzinos to help them with Alex? The ordinance St.Charles passed was simply a cop-out to avoid its responsibilities. Nothing was said about Alex being in school. Why weren't the truancy laws enforced - maybe there aren't any?
The Provenzinos had a right to be tried by a jury of their peers which to my mind are present or past parents of teenagers - a group I belong to. I would never have found them guilty because parents' influence declines exponentially after the age of 11 or 12. If the parent and child do not have it together by that time it's too late. Do you honestly think Alex gives a damn about what his parents think? How then, can you expect them to control him?
One of the jurors was particularly smug saying that "you don't ask your son - you tell him what to do." Oh, if it were only that easy! And what happens if he/she still refuses? Do you resort to physical means and risk death/injury? Imagine what the police would have done if they got a call from the Provezinos complaining that their son refused counseling.
Now that you've patted yourself on the back for a job well done, are the Provenzinos better off for this experience? Is Alex better off because of his parents' conviction? Are all the incorrigible teenagers in St. Charles now going to turn their lives around since their parents are suddenly empowered? Finally, does Alex bear any responsibility for his actions?
_______________________________________
Marjorie Parent Greenman, Ann Arbor, MI:
The Provenzino's have three other children, who by all accounts, are fine young people. That only one was out of control is significant. Our children do not come to us with easy to follow directions on how to raise them. We muddle through as best we can hoping against hope that we are doing a good job and praying they don't "fall in with a bad crowd," knowing as we do how very strong peer pressure can be.
Children are not little clones of one another. What works for one may not work for another. At times it boils down to a battle of wills (as many mothers of four year olds can testify). How do parents force a young man into counseling? Do they drag him kicking and screaming? Well yeah, if he's six or seven. But if he is 16 and has hit his mother and has attacked his father with a baseball bat, that's not an option. Alex Provenzino is a young adult with free will and well beyond the age of reason. He, and only he, is responsible for his actions.
_______________________________________
Cynthia Gray, Monroe, MI:
Surely, parents already can be held financially responsible for the actions of their pre-adult children -- even without the St. Clair Shores' law. This is reasonable. But, even in the case of minors, the only person truly responsible for a crime is the person who commits it. Therefore, any incarceration should apply only to the lawbreaker. Yes, you can convict someone of murder even if they don't pull the trigger. But if you can't show that a parent somehow contributed to the actual crime, that parent should not be liable in any way except financially, where actual property damage is shown.
If we go down the road of holding parents responsible in all cases, the time will come when the only recourse some well-meaning parents will have, is to find a way to abandon their children completely -- to divorce them -- for the sake of their own survival. Perhaps we can require such parents to attend training in how to deal with such difficult young people. That might be a true service even on a voluntary basis.
_______________________________________
Gary Haines, Dayton, OH:
As a law enforcement professional I support charging the parents for violations by their children.
Juvenile courts who hold the parents responsible for their child's non-attendance in school (have had a positive effect.) For example, the Dayton Public Schools - where 10% of their 27,000 students skip each day - have found that attendance increases when the parent is responsible for the child.
Each situation should be judged by it's merits, but a child is our responsibility until they become 18, and we are account- able for their actions.
_______________________________________
Michelle Lemmon, Studio City, CA:
We can't forget that there are good parents out there who just have children who are no better than demons. However, there are also parents who let their children run wild and never punish them.
Is there a happy medium between the two? I don't know. Like many other problems we face as a society, there isn't just one solution. Parental responsibility coupled with societal intervention may be the answer. As far as punishment is concerned, I'd really like to see a strict "boot camp" for juvenile offenders. Make it military-style learning and hard work for them. No questions asked (even for first-time offenders).
_______________________________________
Daniel L. Mc Garvey, Du Bois, PA:
This law is sending a conflicting message to people who are parents.
Our federal government for instance, holds the view that a Mother or Father have no right to know whether or not their child has an abortion. However this law tells a parent they are financially and/or legally responsible for laws broken by their child. It would seem to be the government wants it both ways. Parents either have parental responsibility for children in all areas of their lives or not. No "lukewarm" or half way measures.
_______________________________________
Ron Duplantis, Anaheim, CA:
I favor these kinds of laws and, from the accounts I've read about the Provenzinos, I approve of the guilty verdict in their case.
Parental responsibility laws, as I see them currently enforced, are not in place to tell parents how to parent. There is great latitude allowed. But, when a parent ignores drugs, weapons, stolen goods, and alcohol (as the Provenzinos did) for an extended period of time, and they are warned repeatedly to get control of their kids ... and they don't, that is when parental responsibility laws should be brought to bear with force.
_______________________________________
Joel Christal, Jakarta, Indonesia:
Tough problems call for tough measures, and the U.S. as a country in the middle of a decaying moral situation must be willing to try any measures necessary to regain the family, and restore the country to where it should be.
As a U.S. citizen living outside our country, I can without a doubt say, even with our problems, we are still the greatest country in the world. We are facing some difficult times now with "family values" - or should I say, the lack of them. I agree with the decision of the courts to hold the parents of this teen responsible even to the point of administering the punishment on them.
As a parent of two children, I find it hard to accept that the parents are unable to control the actions of their child. Bottom line - we must as humans learn that every action has a consequence and we must be willing to live by our decisions.
_______________________________________
Tim Tucker, Tecumseh, MI:
Parental liability a farce
Holding parents liable for their children's actions is setting up more problems than it would cure. It is just another attack on the middle income family who has enough struggles. What about the ghetto gangs? Do we find their parents to take to court? What about the wealthy? They can afford to buy their way out! What an irresponsible waste of time to take these parents to court for a child who should have been put into a boot camp. I am ashamed of St Clair Shores, MI for doing this!
_______________________________________
Rod Rippon, Ogden, Utah:
I've been an educator for over 14 years. I've seen first hand the results of parental involvement, or the lack of it, in the lives of young people. Though there are always exceptions, children, whose parents (or guardians) take an active role in rearing their children, almost always do better in school and have fewer problems with school and local authorities.
I feel very strongly that if parents knew that they'd be held responsible for damages caused by their children, they'd spend more time and effort in monitoring the activities of their children.
Who pays for damages caused by delinquent youth? I feel that it is certainly more fair to have the youth or his parents and/or family pay for his crimes than it is for the taxpayers to pick up the tab. In our school district, there is a considerable amount of money budgeted every year for vandalism. That money could be much better spent on the children in the schools.
Bottom line: When parents and guardians begin paying for the delinquency of their children, they will increase their efforts to control their children and/or seek outside help to do so.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
