Should parents be held legally responsible for their children's actions should parents be held legally responsible from their (12yrs old and under) child's crime ask new question i think 16 and 17 year olds need to be legally responsible for their actions they're young adults, not children at those ages. The answer is yes when parents teach their kids to take responsibility of their decisions and actions, they try to make them conscientious human beings and responsible citizens of the country this is a significant part of effective parenting. If a woman has two cocktails, grabs a knife, and stabs a homeless man to death, she will face a murder charge it doesn’t matter if she had one drink or ten if a woman has two cocktails, enters a chuck e cheese, and molests a young child, she will go to jail. No parents should be held morally and legally responsible for the actions of their children parents should not be held legally responsible for their children's actions because if they always take their responsible for their children's actions.
Insofar as they are part of kant’s empirical account of human action, even actions that proceed from the higher faculty of desire can be explained by reference to empirical causes (such as adam smith) and today (such as paul guyer and martha nussbaum) claim that human beings should be held responsible for their emotions. Couch should not be held accountable for his actions, they said, because his wealthy parents coddled him couch grew up with a sense of entitlement and developed poor judgment, they argued boyd agreed, and sentenced the teen to probation and an indefinite stay in an expensive drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. English common law drew the line of criminal responsibility at age seven indeed, holding children responsible for their actions is one of the important ways we teach them to become responsible adults in this sense, it is more important to hold children responsible than adults.
This article gives you the framework you’ll need when thinking about parental responsibility traditional, common law rules under the common law (the legal rules we inherited from england and still apply in some form), parents were generally not held responsible, on the basis of their parenthood alone, for their children’s acts. It looks like you've lost connection to our server please check your internet connection or reload this page. Accordingly, no human action is freely performed and persons cannot be held morally responsible for their actions this implies that we are not responsible for our actions because we cannot completely control them. Kim and james should certainly be held responsible for not intervening - however, john also needs to be held responsible the sooner people learn that they're the only ones responsible for their own actions, the better.
In philosophy, moral responsibility is the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one's moral obligations deciding what (if anything) counts as morally obligatory is a principal concern of ethics philosophers refer to people who have moral responsibility for an action as moral agents. The notion of free will has become an important issue in the debate on whether individuals are ever morally responsible for their actions and, if so, in then one should be held accountable for those choices, regardless of genes and other such factors mauro suggests that a sense of personal responsibility does not operate or evolve. Just because adults are fully responsible for their actions (and should be held accountable for the same) doesn't mean we don't recognize human weaknesses for what they are and provide assistance when it's requested. But we should broadly be able to agree that if we could reliably diagnose the fellow who shoots a man he really thinks is a space alien bent on killing all humans, he should not be held as responsible as the fellow who shoots a man he knows is just a man having an affair with his wife.
Likewise in the anthropology, kant insists that courts must refer the question of whether a criminal should be held morally responsible to empirical psychologists  because this issue rests on “the question of whether the accused at the time of his act was in full possession of his natural faculty of understanding and judgment” (7:213. Unlike most editing & proofreading services, we edit for everything: grammar, spelling, punctuation, idea flow, sentence structure, & more get started now. People can control their behavior no, even without a free will, people can still be held morally responsible for their actions, because they still have a choice, even without a will a person can still know that behavior is wrong, but make excuses for their actions saying that there is no free will can even be one excuse for purposeful bad behavior. The same, of course, applies to teenagers: when they get caught committing a crime, their parents should never be held responsible unless the parents assisted in the crime it’s time to hold young people responsible for their actions. Parents are their children’s first mentor, role model or teacher so in my view, should be held legally responsible for their children’s acts under the law, parents are entitled to monitor and educate their children on what is right and wrong, individually or socially.
On the other hand, accountability is a sign of a strong person it is a sign that you have integrity when you are willing to take responsibility for all that you do, regardless of the situation or consequences, it shows that you have good character and maturity everyone makes mistakes it is a part of being human. A united nations housing watchdog has criticized the liberals over what it sees as their about-face on a promise to put a human rights lens on its housing strategy the canadian press/justin tang. But they should also be taught that with freedom comes responsibilities and personal accountability this raises the question – which almost every parent has on their minds – while making their own decisions, should teenagers be held responsible for their actions the answer is yes. Individuals should be held responsible for their own actions families, in particular parents, have a responsibility to ensure that their children do not develop antisocial tendencies claim-makers.
Best answer: you can't demand that people have a certain morality but you can demand that they comply with the law of the land so they should be held accountable for their behavior their morality is beyond the reach of society. Assuming there is no free will, people can not be held morally responsible for their actions if they have no control over their actions then they are not responsible for them this is why the idea that people have to free will is stupid and just something for criminals to blame their actions on.