Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The parent/child example is another one that disproves your contention.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The parent/child example is another one that disproves your contention.

No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

The USA isn't the only country in the world.

Crimes aren't the only thing people are responsible for.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The parent/child example is another one that disproves your contention.

No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

Not a lawyer, so I am not sure the accuracy of this site but...

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/juvenile/parents-responsibility-childs-criminal-actions

Bold emphasis mine.

Parental Rights, Parental Responsibilities

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right to rear their children without undue interference by the government. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925.) But, in the same decision, the Court upheld the power of states to force parents to ensure that their children attend school. So, parenting is by no means an unfettered right and, as with many rights, it carries significant legal responsibilities.

What Are Parental Responsibility Laws?

Each state imposes legal responsibility on parents and legal guardians for the delinquent and criminal acts of minors in their charge. Parental responsibility statutes have been in effect in the U.S. for at least 100 years. Many arose out of or supplemented laws that prohibit contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Such laws rest on the assumption that minors commit crimes because their parents have failed to exercise proper control and oversight, and that the way to inspire parents to exert the necessary control is to punish them if they don’t.

Public demand for parental responsibility laws has fluctuated over time. The Columbine High School shootings and other similar incidents have inspired state and local lawmakers to enact parental responsibility laws. In the late 1980s, California and other states passed laws aimed at reducing what the states saw as an epidemic of gang-related crime by youths.

Reading it further it sounds like parents wouldn't be charged with the same crime as their child committed, but rather charged with leading to the delinquency of a minor.

So, RAW you are right, Prestor, but RAI, nope. You are responsible legally for the criminal actions of your children in some fashion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA isn't the only country in the world.

Crimes aren't the only thing people are responsible for.

The only way you can dispute my assertion is to play semantic games with the definition of responsibility. Indviduals are responsible for their willful actions this has been accepted as truth throughout human history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The parent/child example is another one that disproves your contention.

No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

Not a lawyer, so I am not sure the accuracy of this site but...

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/juvenile/parents-responsibility-childs-criminal-actions

Bold emphasis mine.

Parental Rights, Parental Responsibilities

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that parents have a fundamental right to rear their children without undue interference by the government. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925.) But, in the same decision, the Court upheld the power of states to force parents to ensure that their children attend school. So, parenting is by no means an unfettered right and, as with many rights, it carries significant legal responsibilities.

What Are Parental Responsibility Laws?

Each state imposes legal responsibility on parents and legal guardians for the delinquent and criminal acts of minors in their charge. Parental responsibility statutes have been in effect in the U.S. for at least 100 years. Many arose out of or supplemented laws that prohibit contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Such laws rest on the assumption that minors commit crimes because their parents have failed to exercise proper control and oversight, and that the way to inspire parents to exert the necessary control is to punish them if they don’t.

Public demand for parental responsibility laws has fluctuated over time. The Columbine High School shootings and other similar incidents have inspired state and local lawmakers to enact parental responsibility laws. In the late 1980s, California and other states passed laws aimed at reducing what the states saw as an epidemic of gang-related crime by youths.

As I said, there are some exceptions in the parent/child relationship concerning individual responsiblity but those only apply when certain conditions are met, primarily the age of the child. Parental responsibility only extends for the duration in which their children are not mentally/emotionally capable of accepting responsiblity for their own actions. Once you become an adult nobody else is responsible for your chosen actions.

There is a difference between responsibility and liability.

For example, if a couple raises a child to be racist, when that child becomes an adult, who would you hold responsible for them being a racist? The parents? Their child grown to adulthood? Both?

If our hypothetical child commits a racist crime, do the parents hold no responsibility at all? Certainly they would not be liable. I'd argue that they do share in the responsibility.

 jasper76 wrote:
There is a difference between responsibility and liability.

For example, if a couple raises a child to be racist, when that child becomes an adult, who would you hold responsible for them being a racist? The parents? Their child grown to adulthood? Both?

If they commit a racist crime, do the parents hold no respinisbility at all? Certainly they would not be liable. I'd argue that they do share in the responsibility.

When the child becomes an adult that adult is now responsible for his/her own actions. A person can hold bigotted personal beliefs without breaking any laws or behaving in a malicious or uncivil manner. Merely holding racist thoughts/opinions isn't a punishable offense.

More importantly, once a child is an adult they are free to make their own choices and form their own opinions. The world is full of people who hold very different opinions on a whole host of issues than their parents even though they were raised in a manner meant to reinforce the parents' beliefs in their children.

 jasper76 wrote:
There is a difference between responsibility and liability.

For example, if a couple raises a child to be racist, when that child becomes an adult, who would you hold responsible for them being a racist? The parents? Their child grown to adulthood? Both?

If our hypothetical child commits a racist crime, do the parents hold no responsibility at all? Certainly they would not be liable. I'd argue that they do share in the responsibility.

Honestly once the kid is an adult I put ALL responsibility on him. There comes a point where you can and should evaluate what your parents taught you and base your life and actions on what YOU feel is best. Plenty of kids have grown up with racist parents and are not racists.

@Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.

I've got two adult sons. They are 11 months different in age. One has made 'good' choices in life for the most part and is doing well as a productive member of society. One has made 'very bad' choices that eventually got him some time in a Fed pen. Trust me when I say I feel ZERO responsibility for his actions. Even raised decently kids grow up and make their own choices. Holding parents 'responsible but not liable' for actions (not thoughts) of adults seems very silly to me. Unless the parents are in some way enabling poor behavior (which I have seen) I just don't get how the parents can be 'responsible but not liable' for actions of an adult.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Prestor Jon: Again, I think you are arguing about liability, not responsibility. When a kid turns 18, the mistakes of their parents, pastors, teachers, etc don't magically wash away. Nor would I argue does it alleviate them from responsibility, though I agree it does alleviate them from liability.

They don't magically wash away but they don't magically compel the adult to commit bad acts either. Parents can pass on all kinds of beliefs and opinions to their children but when those children are grown up, they know hat is legal and what is illegal, what is civil and what is uncivil and they can choose to act as they wish.

We can just agree to disagree at what constitutes responsibility. Im not familiar with the details of your own sons situation. If you intentionally raised him in such a way that led him to his poor life decisions (which hopefully you did not), then I would say that you would be partially responsible for those choices.

Note that I am not at all saying that parents are responsible for every action their adult children make. They're only responsible if, well, they are responsible.

To go back to my question: if parents raise a child to be racist, and a child grows up and commits a crime with racist motives, would you really believe that the parents bear no responsibility for the crime? None at all?

If you would not, ill just tell you that I would, and I would not be alone. Liable? No. Partially responsible? Yes.

 jasper76 wrote:
We can just agree to disagree at what constitutes responsibility. Im not familiar with the details of your own sons situation. If you intentionally raised him in such a way that led him to his poor life decisions (which hopefully you did not), then I would say that you would be partially responsible for those choices.

Note that I am not at all saying that parents are responsible for every action their adult children make. They're only responsible if, well, they are responsible.

To go back to my question: if parents raise a child to be racist, and a child grows up and commits a crime with racist motives, would you really believe that the parents bear no responsibility for the crime? None at all?

If you would not, ill just tell you that I would, and I would not be alone. Liable? No. Partially responsible? Yes.

The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.

Ok , then I guess we just disagree. I do agree with you that people are capable of changing their beliefs, worldviews, etc.

Prestor Jon wrote:
.

The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.

ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world

people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.

how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
.

The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.

ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world

people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.

how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.

Sins of the father are the sins of the son

lonestarr777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.

I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.

I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.

Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.

I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.

I wonder why you question him, though.

Perhaps it has something to do with lonestarr777's lack of faith and your perception of his trustworthiness?

 Alex C wrote:
Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?

It seems to have gone in that direction.

The guy also identified as a woman. Does this mean transsexuals and transvestites need to be discussed as menaces here? Never mind, I was see it was a clerical error on a voter registration or some such.

Relapse wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?

It seems to have gone in that direction.

The guy also identified as a woman. Does this mean transsexuals and transvestites need to be discussed as menaces here?

Except that has been proven to be false, but try again.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.

I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.

Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.

I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.

I wonder why you question him, though.

Perhaps it has something to do with lonestarr777's lack of faith and your perception of his trustworthiness?

I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.

Relapse wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
I am just amazed at some of this thread.

Yes, wether you folks want to admit or not. There are terrible christians. Personally, most christians I have encountered are horrendous people, but thats my own personal bias.

I'm amazed that a guy stating most Christians he has "encountered are horrendous people" believes he should be taken seriously.

When I was in highschool in the confines of a small rural town, I was taking a psycology class. While covering the chapter on religion I was questioned on my faith.

I explained personally that I do not believe in church and view god in nature and science.

By the end of the day the majority christian school had labled me a satan whorshipping psycho. I then had to attend pysch evaluations to determine if I was a danger.

So feel free to dismiss me because of my stated personal bias.

If that's the entirety of the story, then that's bad. That being said, It seems a bit hard for me to believe that one sentence, as you laid it out, initiated all of the events that followed. I believe it would be enlightening to speak with other people at your school to get a more complete picture.

Yeah, because kids are never dicks when it comes to pointing out and obsessing over the differences of their peers.

I am sure there are a few things left out of lonestarr777's story, but that doesn't change the outcome of his younger experience. He was outed as a non-believer in high school and was harassed as a result.

I wonder why you question him, though.

Perhaps it has something to do with lonestarr777's lack of faith and your perception of his trustworthiness?

I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.

Must've been one hell of a sentence

Relapse wrote:


I find it odd that an idle sentence in a class led to him having psycological evaluations. That's quite a leap in my world, if not yours. What he believes or not has nothing to do with it.

I had a friend in high school jokingly tell a teacher I was part of the Trench Coat Mafia. This was about 2 years pre-Columbine (so Trench Coat Mafia wasn't the buzz word it later became), and I still got hauled into the principal's office and questioned for an hour about my apparel, my friends, and my social activities. Point is, school staff react stupidly sometimes.

Did one class lead to psych evaluations? Maybe. If it was a conservative, religious school and staff were "concerned" then I could see something like that happening. Maybe not, too. Maybe the class led to confrontations with other students that led to psych evals. Or something else happened. You are right that details are missing.

But nitpicking a detail in a follow explanation that has no bearing on the original point (that lonestarr777's bias towards Christians has context based on his personal experiences) seems captious.

I find the level of grief given to lonestarr's post interesting given that he deliberately used precise language not to broad stroke Christians, made it clear that he was expressing personal opinion, and still he gets trounced. People say much worse gak on here everyday and it gets ignored. But point out that your experiences with Christians have been anything but peachy and you get the book thrown at you.

 Ustrello wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Is discussing the merits and morals of Christians considered on-topic in a thread about a nutjob who shot some people?

It seems to have gone in that direction.

The guy also identified as a woman. Does this mean transsexuals and transvestites need to be discussed as menaces here?

Except that has been proven to be false, but try again.

n

Ah, yes. I see now it was a clerical error on a voting form. Ok, I was mistaken.

 jasper76 wrote:
because many Christians in the US (the majority of them?) are Pro -Choice

I think both sides of the abortion debate are pro-choice. They just disagree on when the choice occurs/should occur.

Prestor Jon wrote:
No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.

You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.

Prestor Jon wrote:
[No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.

 Grey Templar wrote:


I think both sides of the abortion debate are pro-choice. They just disagree on when the choice occurs/should occur.

Well, you do have some nutters going "No, never, not even for the life of the mother!", but they a rightly called nutters by most people.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
No they're not. Officers in the military are responsible for the orders they give and they are beholden by the UCMJ to issue lawful orders. If a soldier violates the UCMJ that soldier is tried for the crime under UCMJ law, not his officer. The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad.

You appear to be ignorant of the concept of command responsibility. You most certainly can be court martialed for the actions of troops under your command per the Medina standard.

Prestor Jon wrote:
[No it doesn't. Please show me where in the US I can be charged and put on trial for a crime willfully committed by one of my children.

There are at least 2 states in the US where parents can be criminally charged due to their children's school truancy. Here is a case in North Carolina.

Neither example proves the point you are trying to make, in the case the Medina standard is named for he was charged because he did not take action after the fact, (in other words he became an accomplice after the fact). Similarly the NC mother isn't being charged simply because her daughter missed school but because, as is clear from the article you linked she was an active accomplice in the truancy.

So as Prestor John said "The officer doesn't face a court martial just because somebody under his command did something bad" There's an incredibly high standard before you get there and its not simply your troops misbehaved (although that is sometimes enough to get you relieved of command)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


I think both sides of the abortion debate are pro-choice. They just disagree on when the choice occurs/should occur.

Well, you do have some nutters going "No, never, not even for the life of the mother!", but they a rightly called nutters by most people.

Indeed. I think Abortions can sometimes be medically necessary, and I think that is the only acceptable time to have one.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
.

The parent would be responsible for his/her own racist beliefs. As an adult the former child would be free to change his/her beliefs as many children do when they grow up. People can change what they believe, it happens all the time. The racist parent can one day see the error of his/her ways and choose not to be racist anymore, so can the child.

ya because adults change their beliefs daily, it's like turning on a light switch, it's just the easiest thing in the world

people don't change what they believe without a catalyst, usually called "rock bottom"
Parents shape the way kids think starting day 1. Parents dump their thinking methodology and biases onto their kids. kids of abusive parents become abusive to their kids, children of alcoholics become alcoholics. The ones that break the cycle are the rare exception.

how a person is as an adult is a direct reflection on his parents.

People change all the time for lots of different reasons without ever having to hit "rock bottom." I know people that switched from never wanting to be married to getting married, from not wanting kids to having kids, from being Christian to becoming atheist, converting to a different religion just to get married, switching political parties, economic beliefs and policy positions, from being against gun ownership to being an avid shooter, from believing motorcycles are dangerous death traps to being enthusiastic riders etc.

People aren't hard wired carbon copies of their parents. When my parents were in elementary school the schools were segregated, now they're not and my son has multiple minority teachers and school faculty.

Parenting is important in developing children into well adjusted adults but it doesn't trap people into narrow viewpoints they're unable to change without undergoing traumatic catalysts.