In recent years there has been a profusion of laws that punish parents for their children's offences. These parental responsibility laws are based on the assumption that parents of children who offend have not accepted their responsibility and that they can be made to do so by the imposition of court orders and financial penalties. In this paper I will examine the efficacy of punishing parents for the crimes of their children. I will consider whether parental responsibility laws are an effective means of tackling youth crime; or should policies that strengthen the family and improve parenting skills be pursued as strategies for preventing juvenile offending behaviour.
In the Republic of Ireland the government has proposed amending the Irish Constitution in order to improve children's rights. In this article I will argue that the proposed amendment represents a serious diminution in the rights historically afforded to young people who offend, disregards Ireland's commitments under international law and also ignores the well established link between child maltreatment and youth offending. The Irish approach echoes developments in the English youth justice system where the welfare concerns of young people who offend have become marginalised. I will compare the Irish and English approaches with the Scottish youth justice system which looks beyond young people's offending behaviour and provides a multi-disciplinary assessment of the young person's welfare needs. I will conclude that in Ireland, and in England, the best interest principle must be applied fully, without any distinction and integrated in all law relevant to children including laws regulating anti-social and offending behaviour.
The Big Society was one of the UK Prime Minister’s flagship policy ideas prior to his election in 2010 and has since become part of the UK coalition government’s legislative programme. A key aspect of the Big Society is to mend ‘societally Broken Britain’ by supporting families, as ‘strong families are the foundation of a bigger, stronger society’. However, in the aftermath of the riots of August 2011 in London and other parts of England, the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, has suggested that parents of children who regularly truant need to be confronted and challenged and has proposed penalizing parents of truanting children by cutting their benefits. This article considers whether withholding benefits from families is an effective means of tackling antisocial behaviour or does this plan represent an ideological view of welfare recipients as being irresponsible and a commitment to the penalization of the socially excluded? This article will consider whether the Big Society truly offers the prospect of a new approach to young people and families deemed to be ‘in trouble’ or whether the August 2011 riots created the environment for justifying cuts in public spending by shifting responsibility for crime and crime control from the criminal justice system onto vulnerable young people and low-income families.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.