Are parents morally responsible for their child's actions?

[GirlNextDoor15]

What do you think? :¬::¬::¬::¬::¬::¬::¬:

[buttons]

no not always, it's more about society/culture because they shape the sort of morals you believe and put onto your kids. a child in india will be brought up differently to a child in the uk so its not exactly the specific parent's fault. & in my opinion, we have free will and we can change ourselves through our experiences which doesn't just include how your parents brought you up. there is the education system and the way peers treat you to that will also shape a child's thoughts or actions. yes bad parenting can lead to destructive and anti social behaviour so of course a parent can be responsible for that but i know of people who use this sort of experiences as a reason to not turn out that way and to not take part in bad behaviours. then there are children who have everything in life and still, they take part in destructive behaviours. so to me its all down to the individual, they have the choice to do something or not.

dunno if i understood your question or not.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't think anyone can be 100% morally responsible for the actions of another, but if you have a duty of care over someone and fail to live up to that either through negligence or wilful conditioning then yes you assume some if not all of the responsibility for minors, depending on the situation. There's no set in stone yes/no answer as morals change from person to person and evolve over time, and of course free will is a huge factor, as is the effect of social conditioning that comes from sources other than the primary caregiver. It gets more and more complicated as the child gets older and is introduced to new and different ideas and respond according to the culmination of absolutely everything else that's ever happened in their lives, which is pretty impossible to calculate.

In short... kinda but kinda not

[Munex]

To an extent, yes. When children are young, they are the responsibility of their parents ... but that doesn't mean the parents can always be blamed. When I was younger, I was literally the spawn of Satan and it was absolutely not my mums fault - I just enjoyed causing chaos at school. My mum tried (and still tries) to get me in to school on time by threatening to punish me if I don't go, but when I don't go, it's entirely my own choosing.

When children become adults, the parents have no responsibility on their decisions.

[GommeInc]

Not 100%. I imagine Habbo is the reason this thread exists. Parents and teachers should teach children about using the internet safely, you would think they would do this givent he importance and accessibility of the internet in this day and age, but it seems like something that goes missed. Habbo have the responsibility for a user if they are in any amount of danger or faced with content they really shouldn't be seeing at their age. They do advertise themselves as a place for teenagers and their terms and conditions, the Habbo Way, underline what you shouldn't do and in turn what you wouldn't expect on Habbo.

Think of parents and teachers as a safety harness, and businesses like Habbo as a safety net if all else fails.

[lawrawrrr]

I agree with ma pokefriend! (munex)

The parent should be responsible for some things, and to an extent, educating them about morals is one of the jobs. In the drama with Habbo's case, I do blame parents for letting children have unsupervised internet and webcam access, but I know it's not fully their fault. They could at least try to instill some values so children know it's wrong to do certain things. Yes, of course, they're going to rebel and do exactly what you tell them not to, but if you explain to them in grown-up terms... I think they can figure out what's safe to try and what's just not right on their own.

[Metric1]

somebody has to accountable for their actions.

[Milarz]

Depends how old the kids are.

[Shar]

To a certain extent parents do have a responsibility but sometimes it is just out of their reach. They can try as hard as they want but sometimes all the environmental factors/society may take over and influence their child which is out of their control.
In short, yes but no..as long as they've given all they can it is not their fault

[CrazyLemurs]

Parents, although arguably the biggest influences on their child(ren)'s life, cannot be manipulated into blame-carriers for crimes they haven't committed.
The parent (or guardian) is only the carer for the child, and therefore haven't physically done anything wrong. Despite this, most governments have set maturity & responsibility ages. Scotland, for example, believes the age to be 10 (I think), which is much too low. Youths don't fully develop the moral concepts of right and wrong until after that age, and this figure should be raised a year to account for the mentally slow.
Personally, I feel that anyone over the age of 13 (so 14 and above) should be held accountable in a court of law for any crime they have committed. The judge and jurors can blame the parents, but at this age the influence of the carers often wanes and moral justice has likely been instilled to the child.

More on the side of the feelings of the guardian:
Mentally fit parents know if they have raised their child to their full ability, and if the child is to blame and the parents have not strove (past tense of strive) for this perfection, they should feel guilty about what has happened. Of course, if they have done their best to raise them well, yet the child still breaks the law, the parents should know they are excused.