I'm not religious so I love to rub this shit in their faces since they are so addicted to the bible in some states. Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Is this the same religion as Exodus 11:5? Didn't the whole thing start when a couple and all their descendants were exiled for eating a fruit? They're trained in doublethink, they don't care what their book says or doesn't say.
That's what happens when you take dozens of gods that never agreed with other and collapse them into a single all knowing god. None of your stories make sense anymore, and any moral lesson they taught is lost.
Thanks for sharing some knowledge and for quoting it!
Oh awesome. Then you’re also going to charge the parents if their kid shoots up a school too, right? Right Tennessee?
They did in Michigan and didn't need extra laws to do it.
Dumb af
Even the best parents are not responsible for their kids crimes. Some teenagers have bad ideas, some kids are narcissists, and parents can't always be near them to assert full control. You can not jail someone for the crimes of someone else, unless there is involvement, period.
That's why the punishment is a fine.
And what happens when you can't afford the fine? This bill hurts poor people while rich parents won't be affected at all.
RTFA. The bill proposes that they will be required to perform community service in lieu of paying the fine.
I don't approve of this bill, but I do wish community service were a more common form of "punishment".
Yeah the parent who works 60 hours a week who clearly needs more time with their child as they are having problems now needs to somehow find more time away from their child to do community service.
Not sure why you seem to be blaming this bill on me. I don't approve of it. I just explained it.
And why is that better? If my argument stands, that doesn't change that it's bad and that it might not be in conformity with existing law.
The person you're replying to didn't defend fining parents; they clarified what this bill proposes.
What happens when the parents cannot pay? Is it still a fine?
Read. They get community service if they can't pay.
Understand. There are people that cannot take time off from work to do community service AND watch their shit head kid.
I'm not defending it, just clarifying.
While I can see the merits of this idea, I feel that this is missing the mark.
Take money from the poor while fixing nothing. Business as usual 🤷🏻♀️
Why is it that the States that'd force you to have a child are the same ones who make it harder to raise one?
The amount of government intervention in parent's lives is crazy. It's easier to take your kid than to take your gun.
The ONLY time I think this is even remotely appropriate is if the parents are grossly negligent ... like those ones that were convinced because they bought their kid with all kinds of issues a gun and didn't take like any measures to ensure he only had supervised access ... and then he went and shot a school up with the gun they bought him.
Hard disagree. If a child is committing crimes it's is 100% the parent's fault. Charging the kid is actually fucked up. I don't think it should just be a fine. If a kid does something jailable, they parents should be jailed.
What if a kid murders one of their parents? Should the other parent be jailed for bad parenting? Should the parent's parents be jailed (if still living) for parenting a bad parent?
I think it's an extremely flawed world view that parents have ultimate control over their child. A child is a person and a person can do some bad things no matter what the parents may have taught them.
Here's the thing. You're sometimes right. There's definitely negligent parenting that leads to juvenile crime. There's also circumstances outside of the parent's control.... The community, the schools, the other children they interact with outside of the home, any mental illness or problems the child might have.
The common theory here is that the parent should be more involved. But two things:
Children NEED some level of freedom. I'm so fucking sick and tired of the people who believe children should be monitored at all times. When you see it in practice, you immediately recognize it as a problem. Those children are stunted socially, emotionally, and in terms of their abilities. A parent who can 100% ensure their child does no wrong is 100% ensuring their child becomes a neurotic or entitled mess.
Available time and resources are not split evenly. Before someone says, "but someone who can't raise a child shouldn't have had a child" please keep in mind that peoples circumstances change. Ignoring the whole abortion debate, access to birth control, etc, a person who has a child with a loving partner with plenty of money can end up destitute and alone and still have that child. A person who has a support network of siblings and parents can lose them. A person with a reasonable amount of money for having kids can be financially overwhelmed caring for a child that has unexpected difficulties in life.
Yeah, there's shit parents in the world. But the law is a hammer that lacks the ability to discern a terrible parent from one who is just unlucky. It's not the right tool for this job.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.