Parental Responsibility Laws : A Burden On Society

This suggests the law is successful in meeting society’s needs for children not to be perceived as, “commodities.” However, this logic is disputed; why would one pay for a “commodity,” which will reap no financial gain? The only reason seems to be the personal reward of bonding with a child. Thus, the legislation can spawn

| Moral development is limited in the first 2 years and does not really have much bearing. Even if a child had significant moral views/tendencies, they would find it hard to convey these, except maybe for tantrums

As a future teacher, it will be part of my job to increase my students’ moral reasoning. Moral reasoning deals with how individuals think about moral issues. Lawrence Kohlberg developed stages of moral reasoning which researchers use to assess an individual. According to Steinberg (2014), the adults in an adolescent’s life can impact their moral development. Therefore, as their teacher, I will conduct activities in my classroom, such as Collaborative Reasoning, Think-Pair-Share, a line activity, and an online discussion board, which will foster my students’ moral development. In addition, I will monitor my students’ growth by conducting a pre-assessment as well as a final assessment. Through my classroom activities, I expect my students to

Often kids have little to no education at all and poor home environment that would increase the likelihood of a crime being committed. Courts should factor this in more when deciding on the punishment for

Lawrence Kohlberg is known for his theory of moral development developed in 1958. His theory was dependent on the thinking of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and American philosopher John Dewey. It consists of three levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. These levels are based on the degree to which an individual accommodates to the conventional standards of society. Each level aquires two stages that serve as different standards of sophistication in moral reasoning. Overall, Kohlberg affirms that moral development is a process of maturing that emerges from thinking about about moral issues (“Kohlberg’s Moral Development”).

Lafollette pinpoints two criterions for regulatory licensing which can be applied to parents; first that parenting is an activity which can be potentially harmful to a child and second, that parents must be competent in order to avoid damaging their child. He argues this proves parenting fulfils both criterions as an activity subject to regulation.

Parental monitoring is vital for an individual’s development because it teaches him/her how to make decisions, learn from right from wrong, and (a benefit) how to not get into trouble with the law. Without that monitoring, s/he has to make decisions and guide themselves. However, s/he can make poor judgements and can potentially land themselves having to deal with the criminal justice system. Ryan conducted a study to measure the relationship between child neglect and recidivism on early adulthood (2013). Recidivism is a concept in which an already convicted criminal has a likelier chance of committing another offense (Ryan, 2013). The relationship showed that those who had a history of neglect were more likely to re-offend (Ryan, 2013). If the individual is living in a household with a heavy dysfunctional relationship with other family members, it can lead to the child to rebel and run away from the home (Hildyard, 2002). Those who suffer from child neglect have a likelihood of running away from home. This relates to the constant rejection received at home, and by not living in that household anymore, can have the individual develop a more juvenile and rebellious behavior. Through the acts of child neglect, an individual is at-risk for developing a more delinquent behavior and can potentially place themselves in more trouble with the

One afternoon last december, in Washington, DC, police was alerted by a person to pick up a brother and sister, who were walking a mile heading home, and take them to their parents. After the police took the kids home, he warned the kids’ father of potential dangers that his kids could have faced while walking unsupervised. (Griffin) These days, there are many other cases similar to this where kids walking home unsupervised are reported to authority and taken into supervision with their parents being warned in some ways as a consequence. So what makes kids walking home unsupervised such a nation-wide controversy? Free-range parenting. Nowadays, free-range parenting is quite a big issue as the world is changing so rapidly and is no longer the same world that parents in this generation could freely roam around in their own childhood. Some argue that free-range parenting is nothing more than a mere negligence over their children in that the world is now simply too dangerous for the children to explore on their own. They say that the world is no longer safe for a child to be outside alone and that so-called free-range parenting is just being irresponsible parents. However, they are wrong. Although free-range parenting may look so dangerous and unnecessarily risky, it, in fact, has far more advantages than disadvantages and is and has been an enormous necessity when raising children for a number of reasons: it makes

If the child commits other criminal acts such as, robbery, damaging property, driving tickets, and etc. Parents are held responsible for their children’s actions. But in the case of a horrendous act, such in the case of massive school shootings. In most cases parents are not held legally liable.

This dialogue will express the differences between traditional parental responsibility statues and vicarious liability. Parental responsibility statues are based on the parent’s actions and mistakes while vicarious liability statues are based off of the parent child relationship with each other.[1] Vicarious liability statues generate from the public anxiety, frustration, and rage over juvenile crime and parent’s failure to have paternal control over their children in our society.[1] Furthermore, there are only a few appellate courts cases regarding vicarious liability statues that held parents accountable for their children criminal behavior due to parent child relationship {Difonzo 2001}.[1] For example, in 1979 the State v. Akers, the

“Assess the effectiveness of current legal and non-legal responses in achieving justice for TWO contemporary issues concerning family law.”

In Hugh Lafollette’s paper “Licensing Parents” he talks about the need for government licensing of parents. His argument states that for any activity that is harmful to others, requires competence, and has a reliable procedure for determining competence, should require licensing by the government. This argument relates to parenting because it can be harmful to children, requires competence to raise children, and we can assume that a reliable procedure can be formulated. Therefore, parenting should require licensing by the government. I agree with Lafollette and shall focus on supporting him by addressing the most practical objections: “There is no reliable procedure for identifying competent

I know that people make mistakes and nobody is perfect but everyone has to be held accountable for their actions including minors although their underage but right and wrong has been instilled into us minors since pre-school over and over, even before then. Adults and minors both should equally have the same amount of discipline when wrong is done. Minors shouldn’t just get off so easily because when an adult does the same crime their punishment is harsh and most of the time when the adult offender gets of jail or prison from serving their time they are a change person and ready to continue on with their life the right way. But when minors get a slap on the wrist for the crime they have committed most of the time the lesson has not been learned

Other parents argue that they should not be responsible because children should be the ones having consequences for their own actions and learning from their mistakes. (“Should Parents Be Held Morally Responsible for the Actions of Their Children?”, www.debate.org/opinions/should-parents-be-held-morally-and-legally-responsible-for-the-actions-of-their-children. Accessed 27 Apr. 2017.) Say the kids do get blamed and the excuse of the parent is that they did not raise their kid like that, is the parent going to keep teaching the child the lesson? Is the parent going to quit trying because their children’s crimes do not affect them? The truth is that after a certain amount of time that a minor does a certain crime, the parent stops teaching them and just lets them do what they want because the parent has nothing to do with

The complexity of this area and the concepts involved necessitates a rather expansive look at the perspectives on Moral Development in order to develop contextual