The recent call by Dr John Irvine to consider charging parents for crimes committed by children under the age of 10 highlights a fundamental social challenge.
Juvenile crime and delinquency is a growing problem within our schools and the wider community – costing millions of dollars each year. Recent Bureau of Crime and Statistics research indicates a 44% rise in juvenile offences since 2001.
Dr Irvine thinks that the ability to charge parents for the crimes their offspring commit “would help” and therefore it’s certainly worthy of debate and discussion. It’s hard to dispute his assertion that the Labor Government is too soft when it comes to dealing with the guardians of troubled children under 10.
The fact is, however, that many of these parents or guardians are not being held accountable for their own actions – let alone those of their children. Dr Irvine himself outlined the case of a child who was trouble from the day he enrolled at school, presumably at around 5 years of age - “Mum was on drugs, there was no father on the scene”.
So Dad had bolted – how do you force him to accept his parental duties? Or pin a rap on him?
And hang on. Mum’s on drugs. She’s obviously not being held to account for her own illegal activities, why would she fear being held accountable for her son? In fact, it’s likely she has avoided any penalties for her drug habit because she has “parental responsibilities” (However poorly executed).
Part of the problem is Labor’s “soft on crime” approach generally, which puts more stock in individual rights than personal responsibilities. Where laws are constantly bent, rehabilitation is not enforceable and where there is a real reluctance to put the needs of children first. (As the sad failures we’ve seen in Children’s Services across the nation attest).
The fact is, especially with children under 10, the problem comes back to a lack of parental guidance and responsibility. So if the removal of children from such a dysfunctional household is an absolute last resort - the fundamental question is, how do you force someone to “parent”?
Many of these parents face their own personal challenges and many have never had a proper role model themselves on which to base their parenting.
The answer is pretty clear – early intervention. And lots of it. These parents and their children need plenty of practical support and hands-on direction to learn the skills of parenting that so many of us know instinctively as a result of the way we were raised.
And as a society, we’ve got to put a premium on the role of being a parent. All parents need to know the importance of raising happy, healthy kids with respect for authority. It’s the most vital job in the world – but it is so under-valued by those who think it “old-fashioned” to talk about family and the traditional institutions and values that under-pin our society.
There is certainly more column space and social discourse these days on the merits of gourmet food preparation and how to be a masterchef, than there is on the vital and challenging job of being a parent.
The vast majority of parents love their children dearly and strive to provide them with not only the material things they need, but with a value code to live by that will help them succeed. Their kids aren’t the ones beating teachers for fun or vandalising buildings in the middle of the night. These parents don’t need big brother government looking in their children’s lunchboxes or making them feel guilty about a half hour spent in front of the telly during the most hectic part of the day.
But a small minority of parents need very serious intervention. They need to be held to account. Most importantly, their children need to be protected and properly cared for – even if that means removing them from their biological parent - and that is where we need to direct our resources. It’s time we got serious about setting basic standards and ensuring they are met. No excuses.
Dr Irvine’s comment that “I’m yet to meet a child in serious difficulty who has a loving parent” is probably the most telling and heart-breaking in the whole debate. For how does the Government legislate for “loving behaviour”? And how do you expect children who grow up in a loveless and lawless household to know any different when it comes their turn to parent?
The key is breaking the cycle through early intervention. Research like that of US sociologist James Heckman (who Mr Rudd is fond of quoting) clearly points to the value of intensive, carefully-targeted, community-based intervention. But Labor does Australian families a disservice in continuing to ignore the central premise of Heckman’s work – that resources need to be carefully targeted to those who need it most. A one size fits all approach doesn’t work.
Juvenile crime (and fundamental family breakdown) is a complex issue that we can begin to tackle. But it will take some serious resources and an end to excuses and moral relativism. I’m not sure our current Federal or State Governments have the stomach for it.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
@joekiely an Irish ghost called a mist fairy comes on dark road and pushes you into the ditch. nothing to do with six pints
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Would you kill for a job?
Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…
Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?
Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…
Hipsters with hip replacements
Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
marley says:
I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics
Erick says:
Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops
Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more
Most commented