The courts should go after parents of repeat juvenile offenders and prosecute them for criminal culpability. Laws exist in Australia, but are never enforced.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Why the heck not?
How many times do we hear the defence sob story that junior was neglected as a child or abused or denied a schooling.
So who's mostly to blame?
The parents or guardians.
Who else raised junior to become a teenage monster?
You might have heard of James and Jennifer Crumbley, the parents of 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley, who shot several colleagues at Oxford High School in Michigan.
They were charged with manslaughter and got 10 to 15 years.
This was a rare prosecution even for the US.
On this day in 1996 a misfit took high powered weapons to Port Arthur and massacred 35 people.
His considerable estate from an inheritance was shared among victims and families.
Even his mother got some of it, but the first we heard of his personality issues was in the weeks following the massacre.
I don't know if she was in touch with authorities prior to that Sunday. Maybe she was.
In Australia parents are obliged to sustain their children, ensure they get an education at least until age 16 and receive medical attention when required.
That's it.
In Tasmania, youth crime is at its highest since 2010-11.
Police surveys show that youth crime is among the top three concerns in the community.
Prosecutions against repeat offenders in Tasmania is well up on other states.
In Australia you can't prosecute a child aged under 10, but teenagers can be prosecuted as an adult for a crime of murder.
We don't have the youth crime epidemic in places like Alice Springs, Darwin or Queensland and Melbourne but we have our share and like other cities we're stuck in a gridlock debate over punishment and rehabilitation.
I once visited Ashley You Detention centre and one visit was enough to convince me that we shouldn't jail youth offenders or even detain them.
Even kids who have worn out their welcome in the community with assaults, stealing and vehicle offences ought to be assessed carefully to find out what's really going on.
Their lawyer usually provides answers in pre-sentence submissions, of a poor wretch, abused, neglected, undernourished, bullied by the parents and older siblings or at school.
In primary school I befriended a poor kid who was bullied by students and some teachers because he came from a poor family and was a bit dumb.
We used to share a bus and I openly stuck by him because nobody else would.
He was abused at home and treated like an idiot but when we were together waiting for the bus we laughed and shared the highlights of life until I went on to high school and lost contact.
About 20 years later I heard he had been convicted of a murder so I asked the Attorney General could I interview him and was granted permission.
The good times were soon relived and we laughed about old times and I got him to detail the day of the murder.
Risdon Prison generously gave me four hours with him and only intervened to ask if we wanted a coffee etc.
I could not deny his culpability but I got angry at how bad he was treated at home.
At school one Christmas a secret Santa gift was revealed to be half a cake of used soap and the class knew he was the secret Santa and laughed at him and he ran out of class crying.
His parents or guardians should have been in the dock with him.
They were partly to blame.
The actions of wonder woman Detective Amy Scott at the Bondi stabbings was feted nationally and we were in awe of her because she embodied a national desire to fight back.
To fight against gangland crime and brazen attacks with home invasions and wild youth rampages.
Just ask Tasmanian uniform police who have to patrol shopping malls and bus malls every day where assaults and bullying take place and shoplifting plans are hatched and executed.
Years ago in Launceston police had to crack down on violent youth gangs who blatantly baited the cops every day because they wanted to fight them in the mall.
I can't say if prosecuting the parents will help to reduce teenage crime, but it will shine a better light on the epidemic.
It will complete the case for both the prosecution and the defence because the actions of the child will be seen in context.
Going after the parents will not excuse the crime, unlike now, where any sob story might mitigate against the punishment, and of course we know how all the alternatives to jail or detention simply emboldens some young offenders to reoffend.
No, the adolescent will have to pay the price, even with rehabilitation, but including the parents is getting closer to the source of what motivates the offender.
It might also encourage parents to become a hell of a lot more involved in their child's upbringing.
