A GOOD IDEA

Anyone who reads the newspaper, or watches or listens to news programs, can’t help but be aware of the increasing instances of juvenile crime. I was most recently reminded of this problem when I read about the two juveniles facing the death penalty over in Jessamine County Circuit Court. They are charged with killing and robbing another juvenile, Ryan Harris. In case you are not familiar with that case, Harris was a student home for the holidays in 1999 when he was first robbed of $6 and then caught and killed following a car chase.

This case is by no means the first such case in Kentucky. The judge who ruled that the two juveniles would face the death penalty, Judge James C. Weddle, is a special judge from Adair and Casey Counties. Judge Weddle (who coincidently is a law school classmate of this writer) based his decision on a 1981 case from Jefferson County involving another juvenile named Kevin Stanford. Stanford has been on Death Row for twenty years while his conviction has been appealed. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Stanford’s case which exhausted his legal appeals against execution. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case that implies that the Court does not disagree with the decision and is a tacit approval of the underlying law being challenged.
This brings me back to increasing juvenile crime. In recent years states have championed a variety of approaches to stemming this country’s soaring juvenile crime rate, from boot camp to charging children with adult crimes. The latter, of course, is what is now happening in Jessamine County where the juveniles were not only charged as adults, but also forced to face the death penalty like adults.
Among the most popular - and controversial - among these approaches are laws that hold parents accountable for the sins of their children. I am among those that applaud this approach as a good idea.

A case that made headlines back in 1996 involved a couple from Michigan named Susan and Anthony Provenzino. Despite the fact that their son, Alex, 16, had committed several burglaries and attacked his father with a golf club, his parents had supported his release from juvenile custody. Over the next several weeks, Alex burgled homes, stashing the loot in his bedroom which he would not allow his parents to enter. Finally, Alex was caught and charged again and this time, so were his parents. They were charged with violating a city ordinance that requires parents to “exercise reasonable control over their minor children.” Within minutes of the verdict, the jury foreman was telling COURT TV that the message was to “get involved with your kids.” Isn’t that a quaint idea?

I’m convinced that the primary cause of rising juvenile crime is less parental supervision and discipline. I understand that part of this stems from a breakdown in family units and the resultant one parent families. While this puts additional responsibility on the remaining parent that isn’t a good enough reason for abdicating responsibility for supervising and disciplining a child. Even more inexcusable is when two parent families abdicate this responsibility.

Many states and communities have enacted sanctions against aimed at forcing parents to be more responsible for the conduct of their children, from counseling to jail time. Kentucky is among them. For example, in Kentucky, if a parent is found guilty of not properly monitoring their children and their children damage or injure something or someone, their parents can be forced to make restitution to the injured party. In juvenile court, if a parent is financially able to pay an attorney for their child, they can be forced to do so rather than appointing free counsel. Kentucky also has an enabling statute permitting cities to enact curfews and providing penalties for parents who fail to make their children observe those curfews. Winchester, Kentucky, has such an ordinance.

But, the next step - making a parent criminally responsible for the crimes of their children - is a big, next step. Many experts doubt the constitutionality of parental responsibility laws. A basic principle of our society, note these experts, is that “we are each responsible for ourselves under the criminal law - it’s not guilt by association.” Obviously, the Civil Liberties Union has expressed agreement with this position.

Personally, because of the unique relationship between parents and children, and the fact that parents are legally liable for the support of their children, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to extend this responsibility to the supervision of their children. While I appreciate that adults should not be responsible for the crimes of other adults so long as they are not acting in concert, I believe adults should be responsible for the misbehavior of their children if their failure to try and supervise and discipline their children contributes to their misbehavior.
I think that’s a good idea!

Reach Roger Oliver by e-mail at rmo@oliverlawoffices.com