George and his best friend robbed a gas station and fatally shot a clerk before fleeing on foot. Unbeknownst to them, their activities were captured on the store’s closed-circuit camera, which led to their identification and arrests. You retained an attorney to represent George. Just before his trial begins, you are charged with Violating Your Parental Duty to Supervise a Child. You are baffled. You were clueless about this crime up until the time George was arrested. Can you be tried and convicted for George’s actions?
Yes, you can. Will you be convicted? It depends on the state’s court, as each state’s laws vary. Parents exercising reasonable control over their children may not be as easy as it sounds, thereby painting a convoluted perspective. Just as the juvenile court laws vary by state, every juvenile case also bears its own variations.
In 1925, The U.S. Supreme Court passed a decision 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). Interestingly enough, that same decision upholds each state’s autonomy to force the responsibility on parents to ensure that their children attend school. When children are absent from school for unexcused reasons, this is commonly known as truancy.
Granted power by the United States Supreme Court, each state is autonomous in how they exercise compulsory school attendance laws. For example, in Kentucky, according to the Kentucky Revised Statute 159.010, the parent or guardian is responsible for ensuring their children attend school between the ages of six (6) and eighteen (18). However, according to the Education Commission of the States (www.ecs.org), the states of Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming, children are exempted from compulsory attendance requirements upon completion of the 10th grade.
Each state has devised their definitions of truancy and punishment. Truancy charges in most states are classed as a misdemeanor crime. A parent’s punishment for truancy may include assessing a fine, imposing jail time, required to attend parenting classes or a combination of all three.
Why are parents jailed for truancy but not for juvenile criminal homicide? Why are the parent responsibility laws not mandated in all 52 states in the U.S.? Are juveniles solely responsible for their crimes when they are below the legal age of consent? Many juveniles serve their sentences in residential placement or adult facilities; shouldn’t the parents be held equally responsible? Why are some parents convicted when others are free to walk away?
According to the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the first juvenile court in the U.S. was established around the turn of the 20th century. Each state’s statutes exercise their own power for a number of key factors, such as basic age criteria and definition of upper age. Basic age criteria means each state determines the age range a juvenile is under the jurisdiction of their juvenile court system. Again, that age varies from state to state.
Upper age represents the age that a state juvenile court loses jurisdiction over a juvenile offender. For example, if a juvenile commits criminal homicide at the age of 15, the juvenile court system loses jurisdiction over that juvenile when they turn 16, meaning the juvenile’s case is transferred to adult court where they will be tried as an adult. In addition, there are a number of states that practice statutory exclusion, where the state court can exercise statutory exceptions based on the juvenile’s age, criminal history and other mitigating factors. The upper age distinguishes juvenile crimes committed under the age of 15 as offenses and criminal acts over the age of 15 as crimes. When regarded as an offense, the juvenile’s identity is withheld to the public. Also, as a juvenile offense, there is the possibility of the offense not being recorded in court records. When an act is considered as criminal, the offense, the defendant, witnesses and others involved in the case becomes a matter of public record, as those cases are being tried in adult court.
Of the 1,058,500 serious-offense crimes committed in 2013, there were 900 criminal homicides committed by juvenile offenders. 28% of the offenders were female, 62% were Caucasian as 35% were Black or African-American and 53% were under the age of 16.
Parents that have been convicted for juvenile crimes have been extended punishments that are parallel to the punishment of a parent convicted of truancy. For example, the New York Times reported in 1995 that a married couple was convicted of violating a St. Clair Shores, MI ordinance that held them responsible for the juvenile offenses of burglary, drinking alcohol, smoking and selling marijuana committed by their 16-year-old son. In California, per Penal Code 270.1, maximum punishment can include imprisonment, however, imprisonment is only used if the case is deemed to be extreme.
In England and Wales, The Criminal Justice Act of 1991 was developed to imprison parents for their juvenile children’s offenses. Many argued that the punishment was both too harsh and ineffective. It was agreed that there needed to be more services provided to improve the behavior of the child as well as the family dynamic, i.e. parenting classes, psychotherapy, etc. Juvenile offenders are divided into two categories. First, the age of criminal responsibility when a child can be arrested and taken to court is age ten (10) and second, there are other punishments that can be given to children under ten (10) years of age who break the law.
Juvenile criminal homicide is a problem that continues to be on the rise. Unfortunately, the number of juvenile offenders also continues to escalate. Whether it is a juvenile homicide or an adult homicide – the end result for both is the loss of a victim’s life. The court systems imprison parents for not ensuring their children go to school, yet there is little responsibility placed on the parent of a child who kills another human being. Would holding parents accountable for their child’s criminal acts make a difference? It’s not impossible. Imprisoning the parents does not have to be the only option.
With ample development and implementation of court-appointed services/resources, the potential of effecting child/family recovery is not totally non-existent. Furthermore, when proven to be successful, there’s room to impact a decrease in both juvenile criminal homicides and the number of juvenile offenders.
