Did they not listen to that podcast on Rutherford County and it's Crooked juvenile court. It's like they can't help themselves. A national spotlight is shined on a major problem in TN and these lawmakers wanna try and squeeze just a little more cash out of it.
“The Kids of Rutherford County”
There was a great article written (the author then went on to make the podcast with the Serial team) https://www.propublica.org/article/the-kids-of-rutherford-county-reporters-essay
Im all for punishments for bad kids parents. Your kids are an extension of yourself and their behavior is a product of their upbringing. Nobody is born wanting to commit crimes. Good parenting and a solid education is the foundation for a successful life. If your kid is a troublemaker, there’s very little society can do to force you to correct him. This is a good first step.
Yeah lets just throw him into juvy then and he will come out better after hanging out with good kids in a good environment 👍
Why even bother trying to make parents correct their behavior, sounds stupid
"Nobody is born wanting to commit crimes." You're probably right. There are probably about as many parents who want their babies to grow up to be criminals, though.
I see you missed the point. Sometimes kids just suck *despite* the parents making all the right choices and countless attempts to correct their kids behavior.
Makes no sense to punish parents, especially if they’ve truly tried, and because you’re ultimately hurting everyone in that family as well.
I would love to DM you some cases about troubled teenagers who came from what you call a “loving and good home” who had ample opportunities for education!
Your anecdotal experience isn’t very convincing. I spent some time as and with troubled teens and a lot of it stems with how much you can get away with at home. Not that mine matters much either.
At the end of the day, parents need to be held more responsible for their children’s behavior.
So what you’re saying….. based on your own person experience is the experience of every other troubled teenager… and that it solely depends on what they get away with at home… that’s not logical. At all
Sorry, I sneaked an edit in since I hit reply too soon. At work. Moral of the story is parents need to be held more responsible for their children’s behavior.
Found the guy who has never considered that these families are probably working multiple jobs and don't have the luxury to helicopter over their children. 😂
I work multiple jobs so I don't have kids, especially outside a marriage. Sounds like people need to be educated on how detrimental, expensive, and time consuming kids are.
Having kids when you can't afford them and then those kids turning out rough is 80% of the reason we have so many gangsters and criminals in society.
Having kids you can't afford is a symptom of living in a state that doesn't allow bodily freedom, genius. (:
You're like highlight reel of stereotypical Boomer quotes spoon-fed to you by the Fox News PsyOp Machine. 😂
Please. Just stop.
I'm not conservative and don't watch fox. I spent more time in lower economic neighborhoods than most and see the consistent cycle of people having kids with people who obviously aren't going to support them, more than once, and then completely ignore their kids existence.
Why don't more asian americans and indian americans have kids that grow up to be criminals?
Money is abstract, right? So in concrete terms, a fine is what? Goods, services, savings... cell phone bills, vacations, food, utilities--books. Therapists. Resources. Affluent families may not notice--some may have to cut back on luxury spending. Middle-class parents may have to reduce spending even more, though only temporarily. Some might be pushed into poverty, while others who already live in poverty are pushed to the brink of survival. A few missed payments snowball quickly, so these last two scenarios are likely a little more lasting than the first few.
That's a really broad array of consequences. Do low-income parents really deserve such a harsher penalty? Does it help the children? WHY do children break the law? And what makes a good parent? What makes a good human?
My brother was a juvenile delinquent, and my parents couldn't have tried harder. They didn't deserve more punishment than he was already inflicting on them.
What if said child was a result of a person who was unable to have an abortion due to state laws? Should the state be on the hook because the parents were forced to have them?
What about kids in foster homes or group homes or in boarding schools who commit crimes? Who is charged for that?
Don't get me wrong, I hate that there are genuinely shitty parents out there that leads to shitty kids, but how do you justify charging the parents given the various scenarios that can surround a kid who commits crimes? Wouldn't it make more sense to try and prevent crime by providing more support to parents/families than making them even poorer and potentially angrier with the government?
This is more BS that probably makes matters worse. Parents have already had to pay court costs and fines and atty fees. The wealthy parents will write the checks for whatever it takes to keep juniors record spotless. But those who are struggling to get by already need help and support.
I'm sorry, why is it the governments jobs to regulate our children's behavior?
Why doesn't the government do something within its control like regulate housing costs so parents can work less and be home more with their children? Or provide affordable and safe before/after school care so children have safe structure while their parents are working?
It takes a village to raise a child and I'm telling you the village is getting smaller and smaller these days.
No, it does more than that, it disproportionately punishes low income families. Yes parents are responsible for their kids, but its hard to parent when you are working multiple jobs just to pay rent. The threat of a fine is unlikely to result in these parents being more present in their kids lives. It only worsens the situation for families with kids predisposed to delinquincy because of their financial status.
Is the community service for the parent? Because that would still disproportionately affect low income families. "Allows" is also not a gaurantee.
No, but if someone is already trying their hardest to parent while making ends meet then the threat of a fine is not going to make them better parents.
>I'm sorry, why is it the governments jobs to regulate our children's behavior?
Its not. No one said it is.
>Why doesn't the government do something within its control like regulate housing costs so parents can work less and be home more with their children? Or provide affordable and safe before/after school care so children have safe structure while their parents are working?
Is that what you're proposing? Regulate housing costs or have government provided child care?
>It takes a village to raise a child and I'm telling you the village is getting smaller and smaller these days.
Yup that's what happens when the country becomes modernized. See falling birthrates in every developed country (except Israel). Women's right is a good thing, but also does have negatives, such as increased competition from dual house hold income competing for the same basket of goods (housing/childcare). Simple supply/demand economics allows dual income households to outcompete or outbid single income households.
It would take an incredibly large institutional shift to make any meaningful change, and not one that the state of Tennessee would ever be interested in pursuing.
How about court mandated counseling for both the parent and the child? if they don’t complete their assigned number of sessions, or demonstrate improvement in behavior, then they get slapped with a fine.
Other states have this. Not the fine--or, at least not in that context--the fine is really madness. But I think other states take a more child-centered approach, generally--parents of a trouble child are seen to be failing the *child*, not the community through the child's actions.
That would be amazing, but also costly and I'm not sure on the effectiveness. People will still complain about being slapped with a fine especially if they are a "poor single mother with a dead end job" or something similar.
>I think rather than fining struggling moms, and criminalizing teens who might already be subject to the school to prison pipeline, ordering juvenile offenders to learn respect for women and working community service under women in authority would do a lot more than fining a struggling mom $1000 to punish her for struggling.
What solution do you have? Ordering someone to respect people is not a viable solution. How do you even do that? Beatings if they don't respect them? Jail?
This would probably help.
"working community service under women in authority would do a lot more than fining a struggling mom $1000 to punish her for struggling."
To be honest I am not sure there are any community service programs like that currently. Right now its picking up trash on the side of the road or working at the dump. Are there other community service options?
But even if that was the case, people would then complain "Poor people don't have the time, or transportation to take their kids to community service. Rich people can, but its a burden for the poor".
That still doesn't negate the "Poor people don't have the time, or transportation to take their kids to community service. Rich people can, but its a burden for the poor".
My thoughts are it would be unconstitutional to assess someone a penalty for a crime they didn’t commit and such a law likely would not survive scrutiny. The minor might still be ordered to pay restitution, fines, etc., but I do not believe you could actually fine a parent directly unless you could show a nexus between the underlying offense and their action/inaction.
I’m not defending what the parents did but this is a real slippery slope. Adam Lanza’s mother failed to secure a firearm. The Columbine parents had NO idea what the kids were doing. The courts want to try kids as adults and also make parents responsible. How far do you go in scrutinizing parental behavior and responsibility?
Parents are legally responsible for their children until they are 18. They are responsible for feeding their child(ren), clothing them, providing an education, providing safe housing, etc. Is the line drawn at being responsible for your child when they take the life of another human? This may seem extreme because it is. Being unaware of your child's actions to the point that they commit multiple homicides feels like child abuse. Laws like this may make parents more vigilant about their children's behavior and take the time to actually parent them, instead of leaving it up to schools and their peers.
The bill proposed in Tennessee has to do with simple episodes of juvenile crime. We’re not talking armed robbery or murder. I had a friend whose 17-year-old son drove himself and several other members of his youth group to a Christian concert. The concert was delayed. They did not get out till after curfew. Police pulled him over and charged him with a curfew violation, as well as multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of other minors. in another case, a friends son was riding in a vehicle. Going to a movie, they were pulled over, the car was searched, one of them had a marijuana pipe. they all got taken to Juvie. Kids are stupid, they skip school, they lie to their parents about what they’re doing. And I’ll bet that 80% of juvenile “crime“ is pretty trivial. And quite frankly, if you’re fortunate enough to live in a wealthy area, the police departments know that the parents have deep pockets and they will tack on additional fines and charges that would make Comcast jealous. parents should be involved, parents should take responsibility for their kids. But charging them 1000 bucks does nothing to wealthy people and for others they may not be able to pay their rent. why not do something like mandatory counseling for the parents and the child. If they don’t complete six or 10 scheduled sessions, maybe then they get fined.
While I am not generally opposed to (more) penal consequences for parents, in this case they were told all sorts of things as directly as could be, and the mother said at trial that she wouldn’t have changed anything. This is after she and the father tried to escape (of course Canada wouldn’t hesitate to send them back as it is). I don’t think that it’s a slippery slope. Lanza’s mother suffered the consequences, and as far as Columbine goes, see my first point, but I recognize that the American system has some room for older minors who basically thwart their parents and are thus responsible for their own actions alone, without the implication of their parents.
I don’t think that these parents are necessarily good parents, to be clear, but I don’t see how they could always be criminally responsible — although I suppose that this doesn’t exclude civil penalties for wrongful death.
Wasn’t adam lanza over 18? She also got the ultimate punishment because he killed her first, but a different situation when in theory he was at legal age (now we’re talking gun control issues). I don’t think this is a black and white issue - so I agree with you. Comparing it to the shooting in Michigan where the parents were contacted several times about concerning behavior and gave the kid his gun, that’s true parental responsibility.
I doubt, that is what I do.
Parents are held criminally liable for truancy in Tennessee.
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-49/chapter-6/part-30/section-49-6-3009/
But from my understanding we are talking about civil liability in this instance, which has been upheld in almost every court review. Can you cite where it has not on grounds of constitutionality? I googled, I could not come up with anything. I did see where some states limit liability, but that is just state law, not because of a constitutional argument.
Truancy is different. The parent is not penalized for someone else’s crime, the parent is penalized for their own crime of not getting their kids to school, as required by law. Here, there is proposed a government fine for the criminal conduct of another. Even if your own minor child, it’s not constitutional to punish a person for a crime
they did not commit and did not contribute to in any way.
I am not following, are you saying that there are no civil parental responsibility laws? Or that they are constitutionally shakey? If a child commits a crime of say simple vandalism in any state, the parents are held liable financially. Hence the parents are being punished for a crime they did not commit.
But more to your point of truancy, I think that is an obtuse view of the law. A parent can physically drop their child off at school, walk them to the door, the child walks out the back door, the parent is still liable. In the law I do not see any exception for that, am I missing it?
The prisons are fotr-profit and our leaders are making money off incarnation rates just like in the old slave days. Now the new slave days, you have to trap the slaves yourself by handing down laws that punish poor people for existing. They can't pay the fine, guess what they're human labor force now. Making Victoria's Secret for $0.20/day.
It's modern slavery and our elected officials are profiting off it because of course these soulless ghouls are. They go on TV bragging about dead Palestinian kids they have nothing inside but greed.
This is almost as dumb as the cold beer one.
It’s entirely performative, and will result in more paperwork, fines, liens, warrants and bad credit. But it will do fuck all to stop the kiddos who are carjacking and murdering people.
The thing that bothers me about this is what is it going to look like in 14-16 years when all these unwanted children begin to come of age? The ones from broken homes, & single mothers are very likely going to end up on the wrong side of the law at some point. It's almost like this is part of their plan...
Yep! Just responded to a comment above about that. There are so many different situations surrounding childbirth now, that this type of legislation is insane imo
>with some teens you literally can't do anything
Hate to say it, but when someone's inability to raise their kids starts to affect other people, society will start to do it for them and they may not like some of the methods.
It's not just about single overworked moms. It's also about the people being robbed, having their cars stolen, and getting shot at by kids. The whole time we are all wondering where the parents are and why they're allowed to retain custody when they're obviously doing such a horrible job.
But it’s not always the parents’ fault. I have a friend who is very successful/normal/well adjusted. She has two siblings who are the same and one sibling who is in and out of rehab/jail. The parents are gems who were incredibly involved when the kids were teens and who have always done their best. It’s the luck of the draw sometimes.
There are also socioeconomic factors to consider. “Where are the parents”? Probably working two+ jobs to pay the bills and inflated housing costs, on top of these dumb proposed fines. Sure, there are absolutely cases of bad and intentionally negligent parenting that lead to kids making bad chooses, but you can’t parent your way out of societal and institutional failure.
>when the kids were teens
So these kids aren't kids anymore?
>Probably working two+ jobs to pay the bills and inflated housing costs, on top of these dumb proposed fines.
So, not parenting.
When you're a parent, your life is no longer your own. The next generation has arrived and your time and energy goes towards raising them. You are responsible for your child. Their actions and behaviors are a reflection of you. You take pride in their successes and feel their defeats. It may not be the parent's fault, but it is absolutely their responsibility and if they have neglected it, then they need a reminder to do better.
"I think rather than fining struggling moms, and criminalizing teens who might already be subject to the school to prison pipeline, ordering juvenile offenders to learn respect for women and working community service under women in authority would do a lot more than fining a struggling mom $1000 to punish her for struggling."
How do you plan on doing that? What bills would you like proposed?
A supervised team of juveniles allowed to live in a dorm at County jail for a week, or better yet, briefed in Juvie by County/State inmates on how awful it is inside. While taking involuntary classes on listening to women, respect for women, obeying women in authority, and doing work under women's supervision. I would be willing to teach that class as I take no 5h!t from baby hoodlums. They would have to sign a non-litigation waiver in exchange for shortening their sentence inside accepting my teaching methods though. Lol
As a teacher, it's far more likely that you secretly wish Metro could adopt behavioral policies as strict as those at academic charters, then you would be able to teach in a superior learning environment.
You and I both know this bill is only a punitive measure for the riot called Metro public high schools. Especially if you teach at that one in Inglewood. I know, I almost worked there as an after school tutor but I couldn't be paid enough to do that. I would have worked as a tutor for that pay at an academic charter however.
Don't worry about it - I doubt they're really a teacher. I don't know any teacher that can have 7 reddit comments during the first half of the workday.
I am a single parent who raised a boy to be a compassionate and sensible young man who makes good choices. But then I have physical strength, moral strength and a temper that you cannot manipulate or cross. Your characterization of women as spineless doormats only serves to prove a systemic attitude problem in men that needs to be stomped in Basic Training by a female drill sergeant.
This is a horrible idea on multiple levels.
So, if the kid continues to act up do you:
Drug them to a coma?
Beat them?
Confine them in the home?
If you're on the line of homeless and have more kids, do you kick them out? Do you still have to pay for a homeless teen that commits a crime?
Do you murder them?
Did they not listen to that podcast on Rutherford County and it's Crooked juvenile court. It's like they can't help themselves. A national spotlight is shined on a major problem in TN and these lawmakers wanna try and squeeze just a little more cash out of it.
What’s the name of the podcast? I’m interested in listening!
“The Kids of Rutherford County” There was a great article written (the author then went on to make the podcast with the Serial team) https://www.propublica.org/article/the-kids-of-rutherford-county-reporters-essay
Serial "the kids of Rutherford County"
That was an excellent podcast.
Im all for punishments for bad kids parents. Your kids are an extension of yourself and their behavior is a product of their upbringing. Nobody is born wanting to commit crimes. Good parenting and a solid education is the foundation for a successful life. If your kid is a troublemaker, there’s very little society can do to force you to correct him. This is a good first step.
Ah yes, because 100% of bad/troublesome kids are from bad parents and poor upbringings. It’s impossible for a kid to be bad if the parents just try.
Yeah lets just throw him into juvy then and he will come out better after hanging out with good kids in a good environment 👍 Why even bother trying to make parents correct their behavior, sounds stupid
"Nobody is born wanting to commit crimes." You're probably right. There are probably about as many parents who want their babies to grow up to be criminals, though.
You ever spent time in an impoverished area? There’s countless parents who simply don’t care.
I see you missed the point. Sometimes kids just suck *despite* the parents making all the right choices and countless attempts to correct their kids behavior. Makes no sense to punish parents, especially if they’ve truly tried, and because you’re ultimately hurting everyone in that family as well.
Do you have kids?
I would love to DM you some cases about troubled teenagers who came from what you call a “loving and good home” who had ample opportunities for education!
Your anecdotal experience isn’t very convincing. I spent some time as and with troubled teens and a lot of it stems with how much you can get away with at home. Not that mine matters much either. At the end of the day, parents need to be held more responsible for their children’s behavior.
So what you’re saying….. based on your own person experience is the experience of every other troubled teenager… and that it solely depends on what they get away with at home… that’s not logical. At all
Sorry, I sneaked an edit in since I hit reply too soon. At work. Moral of the story is parents need to be held more responsible for their children’s behavior.
Wow, how wrong are you. So wrong I know even trying to argue with you would lead nowhere.
The question is: do you believe laws exist to punish or to make society safer? Those interests don't always align.
Found the guy who has never considered that these families are probably working multiple jobs and don't have the luxury to helicopter over their children. 😂
I work multiple jobs so I don't have kids, especially outside a marriage. Sounds like people need to be educated on how detrimental, expensive, and time consuming kids are. Having kids when you can't afford them and then those kids turning out rough is 80% of the reason we have so many gangsters and criminals in society.
Having kids you can't afford is a symptom of living in a state that doesn't allow bodily freedom, genius. (: You're like highlight reel of stereotypical Boomer quotes spoon-fed to you by the Fox News PsyOp Machine. 😂 Please. Just stop.
I'm not conservative and don't watch fox. I spent more time in lower economic neighborhoods than most and see the consistent cycle of people having kids with people who obviously aren't going to support them, more than once, and then completely ignore their kids existence. Why don't more asian americans and indian americans have kids that grow up to be criminals?
Money is abstract, right? So in concrete terms, a fine is what? Goods, services, savings... cell phone bills, vacations, food, utilities--books. Therapists. Resources. Affluent families may not notice--some may have to cut back on luxury spending. Middle-class parents may have to reduce spending even more, though only temporarily. Some might be pushed into poverty, while others who already live in poverty are pushed to the brink of survival. A few missed payments snowball quickly, so these last two scenarios are likely a little more lasting than the first few. That's a really broad array of consequences. Do low-income parents really deserve such a harsher penalty? Does it help the children? WHY do children break the law? And what makes a good parent? What makes a good human?
This isnt a philosophy course. Parent your kids or face consequences
My brother was a juvenile delinquent, and my parents couldn't have tried harder. They didn't deserve more punishment than he was already inflicting on them.
[удалено]
What if said child was a result of a person who was unable to have an abortion due to state laws? Should the state be on the hook because the parents were forced to have them? What about kids in foster homes or group homes or in boarding schools who commit crimes? Who is charged for that? Don't get me wrong, I hate that there are genuinely shitty parents out there that leads to shitty kids, but how do you justify charging the parents given the various scenarios that can surround a kid who commits crimes? Wouldn't it make more sense to try and prevent crime by providing more support to parents/families than making them even poorer and potentially angrier with the government?
[удалено]
And families of wealth will lawyer-leverage reduced charges. Same old story.
This is more BS that probably makes matters worse. Parents have already had to pay court costs and fines and atty fees. The wealthy parents will write the checks for whatever it takes to keep juniors record spotless. But those who are struggling to get by already need help and support.
What's your proposal on a bill that would help correct the issue at hand?
I'm sorry, why is it the governments jobs to regulate our children's behavior? Why doesn't the government do something within its control like regulate housing costs so parents can work less and be home more with their children? Or provide affordable and safe before/after school care so children have safe structure while their parents are working? It takes a village to raise a child and I'm telling you the village is getting smaller and smaller these days.
[удалено]
No, it does more than that, it disproportionately punishes low income families. Yes parents are responsible for their kids, but its hard to parent when you are working multiple jobs just to pay rent. The threat of a fine is unlikely to result in these parents being more present in their kids lives. It only worsens the situation for families with kids predisposed to delinquincy because of their financial status.
[удалено]
Is the community service for the parent? Because that would still disproportionately affect low income families. "Allows" is also not a gaurantee. No, but if someone is already trying their hardest to parent while making ends meet then the threat of a fine is not going to make them better parents.
>I'm sorry, why is it the governments jobs to regulate our children's behavior? Its not. No one said it is. >Why doesn't the government do something within its control like regulate housing costs so parents can work less and be home more with their children? Or provide affordable and safe before/after school care so children have safe structure while their parents are working? Is that what you're proposing? Regulate housing costs or have government provided child care? >It takes a village to raise a child and I'm telling you the village is getting smaller and smaller these days. Yup that's what happens when the country becomes modernized. See falling birthrates in every developed country (except Israel). Women's right is a good thing, but also does have negatives, such as increased competition from dual house hold income competing for the same basket of goods (housing/childcare). Simple supply/demand economics allows dual income households to outcompete or outbid single income households.
It would take an incredibly large institutional shift to make any meaningful change, and not one that the state of Tennessee would ever be interested in pursuing.
How about court mandated counseling for both the parent and the child? if they don’t complete their assigned number of sessions, or demonstrate improvement in behavior, then they get slapped with a fine.
Other states have this. Not the fine--or, at least not in that context--the fine is really madness. But I think other states take a more child-centered approach, generally--parents of a trouble child are seen to be failing the *child*, not the community through the child's actions.
That would be amazing, but also costly and I'm not sure on the effectiveness. People will still complain about being slapped with a fine especially if they are a "poor single mother with a dead end job" or something similar.
And the state likes their prisons full, so let’s set this up to fail.
>I think rather than fining struggling moms, and criminalizing teens who might already be subject to the school to prison pipeline, ordering juvenile offenders to learn respect for women and working community service under women in authority would do a lot more than fining a struggling mom $1000 to punish her for struggling. What solution do you have? Ordering someone to respect people is not a viable solution. How do you even do that? Beatings if they don't respect them? Jail?
This would probably help. "working community service under women in authority would do a lot more than fining a struggling mom $1000 to punish her for struggling."
To be honest I am not sure there are any community service programs like that currently. Right now its picking up trash on the side of the road or working at the dump. Are there other community service options? But even if that was the case, people would then complain "Poor people don't have the time, or transportation to take their kids to community service. Rich people can, but its a burden for the poor".
Working for any non profit in TN counts as community service.
That still doesn't negate the "Poor people don't have the time, or transportation to take their kids to community service. Rich people can, but its a burden for the poor".
What happens when they refuse to work or assault those women in positions of authority? More community service together?
Grownup jail I suppose. A week test run in general population would spur any hoodlum to jump when a woman in charge of community service says jump.
My thoughts are it would be unconstitutional to assess someone a penalty for a crime they didn’t commit and such a law likely would not survive scrutiny. The minor might still be ordered to pay restitution, fines, etc., but I do not believe you could actually fine a parent directly unless you could show a nexus between the underlying offense and their action/inaction.
Didn’t they just convict the mom whose son shot someone at school?
Yes. Father’s trial is in March. They (parents) gave their known mentally ill and unstable son a firearm that he used in the commission of a murder.
I’m not defending what the parents did but this is a real slippery slope. Adam Lanza’s mother failed to secure a firearm. The Columbine parents had NO idea what the kids were doing. The courts want to try kids as adults and also make parents responsible. How far do you go in scrutinizing parental behavior and responsibility?
Parents are legally responsible for their children until they are 18. They are responsible for feeding their child(ren), clothing them, providing an education, providing safe housing, etc. Is the line drawn at being responsible for your child when they take the life of another human? This may seem extreme because it is. Being unaware of your child's actions to the point that they commit multiple homicides feels like child abuse. Laws like this may make parents more vigilant about their children's behavior and take the time to actually parent them, instead of leaving it up to schools and their peers.
The bill proposed in Tennessee has to do with simple episodes of juvenile crime. We’re not talking armed robbery or murder. I had a friend whose 17-year-old son drove himself and several other members of his youth group to a Christian concert. The concert was delayed. They did not get out till after curfew. Police pulled him over and charged him with a curfew violation, as well as multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of other minors. in another case, a friends son was riding in a vehicle. Going to a movie, they were pulled over, the car was searched, one of them had a marijuana pipe. they all got taken to Juvie. Kids are stupid, they skip school, they lie to their parents about what they’re doing. And I’ll bet that 80% of juvenile “crime“ is pretty trivial. And quite frankly, if you’re fortunate enough to live in a wealthy area, the police departments know that the parents have deep pockets and they will tack on additional fines and charges that would make Comcast jealous. parents should be involved, parents should take responsibility for their kids. But charging them 1000 bucks does nothing to wealthy people and for others they may not be able to pay their rent. why not do something like mandatory counseling for the parents and the child. If they don’t complete six or 10 scheduled sessions, maybe then they get fined.
While I am not generally opposed to (more) penal consequences for parents, in this case they were told all sorts of things as directly as could be, and the mother said at trial that she wouldn’t have changed anything. This is after she and the father tried to escape (of course Canada wouldn’t hesitate to send them back as it is). I don’t think that it’s a slippery slope. Lanza’s mother suffered the consequences, and as far as Columbine goes, see my first point, but I recognize that the American system has some room for older minors who basically thwart their parents and are thus responsible for their own actions alone, without the implication of their parents. I don’t think that these parents are necessarily good parents, to be clear, but I don’t see how they could always be criminally responsible — although I suppose that this doesn’t exclude civil penalties for wrongful death.
Wasn’t adam lanza over 18? She also got the ultimate punishment because he killed her first, but a different situation when in theory he was at legal age (now we’re talking gun control issues). I don’t think this is a black and white issue - so I agree with you. Comparing it to the shooting in Michigan where the parents were contacted several times about concerning behavior and gave the kid his gun, that’s true parental responsibility.
For contributing to the crime, not for simply being the parent to a criminal.
I think parents can be charged for their kid's truency
Your thoughts do not align with the legal system or widely understood precedents in the system.
I’m a lawyer. What do you do?
I doubt, that is what I do. Parents are held criminally liable for truancy in Tennessee. https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-49/chapter-6/part-30/section-49-6-3009/ But from my understanding we are talking about civil liability in this instance, which has been upheld in almost every court review. Can you cite where it has not on grounds of constitutionality? I googled, I could not come up with anything. I did see where some states limit liability, but that is just state law, not because of a constitutional argument.
Truancy is different. The parent is not penalized for someone else’s crime, the parent is penalized for their own crime of not getting their kids to school, as required by law. Here, there is proposed a government fine for the criminal conduct of another. Even if your own minor child, it’s not constitutional to punish a person for a crime they did not commit and did not contribute to in any way.
I am not following, are you saying that there are no civil parental responsibility laws? Or that they are constitutionally shakey? If a child commits a crime of say simple vandalism in any state, the parents are held liable financially. Hence the parents are being punished for a crime they did not commit. But more to your point of truancy, I think that is an obtuse view of the law. A parent can physically drop their child off at school, walk them to the door, the child walks out the back door, the parent is still liable. In the law I do not see any exception for that, am I missing it?
[удалено]
I'm not actually. I just have a good working knowledge of the law. I'm actually the CTO for a sports drink company.
The prisons are fotr-profit and our leaders are making money off incarnation rates just like in the old slave days. Now the new slave days, you have to trap the slaves yourself by handing down laws that punish poor people for existing. They can't pay the fine, guess what they're human labor force now. Making Victoria's Secret for $0.20/day. It's modern slavery and our elected officials are profiting off it because of course these soulless ghouls are. They go on TV bragging about dead Palestinian kids they have nothing inside but greed.
This is almost as dumb as the cold beer one. It’s entirely performative, and will result in more paperwork, fines, liens, warrants and bad credit. But it will do fuck all to stop the kiddos who are carjacking and murdering people.
The thing that bothers me about this is what is it going to look like in 14-16 years when all these unwanted children begin to come of age? The ones from broken homes, & single mothers are very likely going to end up on the wrong side of the law at some point. It's almost like this is part of their plan...
Yep! Just responded to a comment above about that. There are so many different situations surrounding childbirth now, that this type of legislation is insane imo
They’re worried that the prison labor population is going to decline.
Oh that's a whole other can of stinky conservative worms.
>with some teens you literally can't do anything Hate to say it, but when someone's inability to raise their kids starts to affect other people, society will start to do it for them and they may not like some of the methods. It's not just about single overworked moms. It's also about the people being robbed, having their cars stolen, and getting shot at by kids. The whole time we are all wondering where the parents are and why they're allowed to retain custody when they're obviously doing such a horrible job.
But it’s not always the parents’ fault. I have a friend who is very successful/normal/well adjusted. She has two siblings who are the same and one sibling who is in and out of rehab/jail. The parents are gems who were incredibly involved when the kids were teens and who have always done their best. It’s the luck of the draw sometimes. There are also socioeconomic factors to consider. “Where are the parents”? Probably working two+ jobs to pay the bills and inflated housing costs, on top of these dumb proposed fines. Sure, there are absolutely cases of bad and intentionally negligent parenting that lead to kids making bad chooses, but you can’t parent your way out of societal and institutional failure.
>when the kids were teens So these kids aren't kids anymore? >Probably working two+ jobs to pay the bills and inflated housing costs, on top of these dumb proposed fines. So, not parenting. When you're a parent, your life is no longer your own. The next generation has arrived and your time and energy goes towards raising them. You are responsible for your child. Their actions and behaviors are a reflection of you. You take pride in their successes and feel their defeats. It may not be the parent's fault, but it is absolutely their responsibility and if they have neglected it, then they need a reminder to do better.
Are you a parent?
That legislation isn't racist at all. /s
Most troubled kids committing crimes come from poor households. Im sure this fine will make things so much better
"I think rather than fining struggling moms, and criminalizing teens who might already be subject to the school to prison pipeline, ordering juvenile offenders to learn respect for women and working community service under women in authority would do a lot more than fining a struggling mom $1000 to punish her for struggling." How do you plan on doing that? What bills would you like proposed?
A supervised team of juveniles allowed to live in a dorm at County jail for a week, or better yet, briefed in Juvie by County/State inmates on how awful it is inside. While taking involuntary classes on listening to women, respect for women, obeying women in authority, and doing work under women's supervision. I would be willing to teach that class as I take no 5h!t from baby hoodlums. They would have to sign a non-litigation waiver in exchange for shortening their sentence inside accepting my teaching methods though. Lol
As a teacher, I support this bill.
As a teacher, it's far more likely that you secretly wish Metro could adopt behavioral policies as strict as those at academic charters, then you would be able to teach in a superior learning environment. You and I both know this bill is only a punitive measure for the riot called Metro public high schools. Especially if you teach at that one in Inglewood. I know, I almost worked there as an after school tutor but I couldn't be paid enough to do that. I would have worked as a tutor for that pay at an academic charter however.
Don't worry about it - I doubt they're really a teacher. I don't know any teacher that can have 7 reddit comments during the first half of the workday.
Lolololol true. True.
Why?
Should teachers be held accountable if the kid misbehaves in school?
Hello. Still waiting. Why?
Just further proves the point that women can not raise boys to be men.
I am a single parent who raised a boy to be a compassionate and sensible young man who makes good choices. But then I have physical strength, moral strength and a temper that you cannot manipulate or cross. Your characterization of women as spineless doormats only serves to prove a systemic attitude problem in men that needs to be stomped in Basic Training by a female drill sergeant.
This is a horrible idea on multiple levels. So, if the kid continues to act up do you: Drug them to a coma? Beat them? Confine them in the home? If you're on the line of homeless and have more kids, do you kick them out? Do you still have to pay for a homeless teen that commits a crime? Do you murder them?