Manitoba has a parental responsibility law, but it is not one that sets up a presumption that the damage done by the child was intentional. And it should be noted that Ontario has had a law that declares that in “damage to property or for personal injury or death caused by the fault or neglect of a child who is a minor … the onus [burden] of establishing that the parent exercised reasonable supervision and control over the child rests with the parent” [emphasis added].
Of the law, the Globe and Mail concluded, editorially:
The parent must show that he or she made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage the child from engaging in the kind of activity that resulted in the loss or damage. And, what are reasonable efforts? The law offers hints: attending courses to prove parenting skills, and seeking professional assistance for the child designed to discourage activity of the kind that resulted in the loss or damage.… Does this mean the usual advice and remonstrations of parenthood will count for little if parents haven’t been to courses or sought professional assistance? …
The Ontario government clearly hopes to kill two birds with one stone: to make it easier and faster for victims of malicious damage to receive compensation, and to force willfully negligent parents of young terrors to more actively monitor and address their children’s misbehaviour. But the wording of the new law appears to put a greater, vaguer and unfair onus on all parents of children who damage property, and to encourage judicial inconsistency as the already overburdened courts try to figure out where to draw the new dividing line of liability (“Who’s a Bad Parent, Then?” 2000).
The reality of parental control was noted by Anthony Doob, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, and Jennifer Jenkins, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto:
Canadian survey evidence from a representative sample of 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds suggests that it is a minority of parents who know about the misbehaviour of their children. In one study, only 30 percent knew their children had been questioned by police. As for children who reported that they had skipped school, only 20 percent of the parents knew this. Adolescents work hard at keeping their parents ignorant of certain aspects of their lives (Doob and Jenkins 2000).
Other Approaches: The United States
Truancy Control
Public school officials and prosecutors in a number of states are working together to fight truancy by holding parents criminally responsible through a fine and/or jail. The problem of truancy is often seen as acute. In 1998, for example, 63,000 of Detroit’s 180,000 public school students missed more than a month of classes. Parents of sixty-seven of the worst offenders were called in by officials and warned that they could be jailed if they did not get their children to school. In February 1999, six mothers in Springfield, Illinois, were charged with a misdemeanour for improperly allowing their children to miss school. They were liable for $500 fines and thirty days in jail (Meredith 1999).
Criminal Responsibility
Oregon enacted a law in 1995 allowing parents to be held criminally liable for the delinquency of their children. This could mean fines, jail time, or mandatory parenting courses. The law resulted from experience with an ordinance of Silverton, Oregon, where a curfew for young people had been in effect. The Silverton police chief, Randy Lunsford, said of the ordinance, “I don’t think we’re telling people how to parent. We’re just giving them a tool to become better parents, trying to get at some of the parental apathy and neglect” (Egan 1995).
Crime Data on Young Offenders
The individual stories of violent youth crime can be alarming. The Reena Virk story was one that remained in the media for the better part of a decade. But, there are other stories that go beyond the young preying on each other.
Residents of a Montreal North community, long seen as safe, were jolted when a sixty-seven-year-old woman was assaulted at a bus shelter late on a May night in 2009. She was attacked by three boys aged fifteen to sixteen. They beat here savagely — all apparently only for the purpose of taking her purse. Two of the three assailants were later captured by police. They faced possible aggravated assault charges.
Many residents of the area were frightened. They questioned whether they should change their pattern of living — whether it was safe to go out at night (Marotte 2009).
Yet, youth crime is not on the rise — at least according to 2006 Statistics Canada data. The homicide rate for those twelve to seventeen was three per 100,000 in 2006. This broke down to eighty-four young people charged in fifty-four killings. Statistics Canada noted homicides were responsible for just .05 percent of overall youth crime and less than one percent of all violent crimes in which a weapon was present in 2006.
This is not to say that youth crime is at minimal levels. It is only to say that, relative to years past, youth crime has not shown any significant increase. Putting aside traffic offences, about 180,000 young people were involved in some Criminal Code violation in 2006. Youth violent crime increased 30 percent from 1991. About 80 percent of such crimes involved common assault, the least serious of that kind of offence.
Does the data warrant laws that toughen the criminal sentencing provisions for youth? Nicholas Bala, professor of Youth Justice Law at Queen’s University, said youth crime must be taken seriously. He added, however, that there are other approaches that might be more effective, such as improving access to mental health programs and youth employment programs. Professor Bala said that, “these kinds of programs are actually changing the lives of young people” (Bala 2009).
The overall rate of youth crime was down 6 percent compared to a decade earlier and 25 percent since the peak year of 1991. The rate climbed 3 percent between 2005 and 2006 (Lawrence 2008).
YOU BE THE JUDGE
A Matter of Sentencing: Deterrence?
The Facts
John, age sixteen, had been found guilty of aggravated assault. He had been tried before a judge alone. The facts seemed clear. John had been a gang member since he was twelve.
To be initiated as a gang member, John had to rough up two seniors. It didn’t matter that they gave him whatever valuables they had without resistance; they had to be beaten up. No mercy was to be shown. That was the gang’s mandate for membership.
John met the gang’s requirements. In a period of three years, he had assaulted and seriously injured seven seniors. His net cash return was slightly more than $85, but from his point of view, the minimal return didn’t matter. He had done what was expected of him. He rose in the ranks of the gang. He was held up as a “model” for incoming gang recruits.
Police eventually caught up with John. His seventh victim, a ninety-year-old retired teacher, was able to describe him as her assailant. At John’s trial, a number of his fellow gang members turned out in support.
At the time of sentencing, the judge stated:
I have a range of sentencing I can impose for your crimes.… But, I must centre the fact that you are a gang member and that your crimes were designed to further your gang’s activities.… I think it necessary to consider the need to impose a sentence that falls at the more severe end of the sentencing scale.… Your sentence hopefully will serve to deter others, including your gang, and yourself from ever committing such crimes in the future.
The Issue
Can deterrence be a factor in sentencing?
Points to Consider
