VANDALISM comes in many forms. At its least offensive it is a mild irritant such as the mouse-like images currently spray-painted on several island buildings.
At its most serious, it is a crime that enrages. Headstones kicked over in graveyards, church doors daubed with offensive slogans and, just last week, 15 saplings hacked apart with saws.
Islanders complain of their cars being scratched, windows broken and fences smashed down. Not major crimes, perhaps, but infuriating nonetheless.
In that spirit it is easy to identify with the forthright response advocated by Deputy Dave Jones in today’s news pages.
The minister’s central idea – which follows his plea in July for the parental right to ‘discipline their children properly’ – is to make parents pay for their children’s wrongdoings.
The logic is obvious: punished parents will take greater responsibility for their young ones and ensure they do not leave home each evening bearing bolt cutters, a paint brush and a saw.
Mum and dad will be forced to become better parents and their offspring will learn to respect society’s rules.
If only it were that easy…
Scratch the surface and cracks soon show through. How many young vandals come from broken homes? Should mum or dad pick up the bill? Each may claim the other parent is more at fault.
And, faced with an angry, brooding teen intent on lashing out at anyone and everyone, how many parents can be confident they know what is going on at all times?
The reality is that most parents are doing their best. Those who fall below society’s acceptable standards are likely to be the worst candidates for being billed by the state for their children’s behaviour.
It would not be long before the whole scheme fell into disrepute as parents denied responsibility, refused to pay and played the system.
‘Soft liberal ideas’ such as getting youngsters to face up to the victims of their crimes may not be as appealing on the surface as Deputy Jones’ pleas for tougher justice, but at least they stand up to some scrutiny.
Article posted on 13th January, 2009 - 2.35pm
The mother and father of all vandals
VANDALISM comes in many forms. At its least offensive it is a mild irritant such as the mouse-like images currently spray-painted on several island buildings.
At its most serious, it is a crime that enrages. Headstones kicked over in graveyards, church doors daubed with offensive slogans and, just last week, 15 saplings hacked apart with saws.
Islanders complain of their cars being scratched, windows broken and fences smashed down. Not major crimes, perhaps, but infuriating nonetheless.
In that spirit it is easy to identify with the forthright response advocated by Deputy Dave Jones in today’s news pages.
The minister’s central idea – which follows his plea in July for the parental right to ‘discipline their children properly’ – is to make parents pay for their children’s wrongdoings.
The logic is obvious: punished parents will take greater responsibility for their young ones and ensure they do not leave home each evening bearing bolt cutters, a paint brush and a saw.
Mum and dad will be forced to become better parents and their offspring will learn to respect society’s rules.
If only it were that easy…
Scratch the surface and cracks soon show through. How many young vandals come from broken homes? Should mum or dad pick up the bill? Each may claim the other parent is more at fault.
And, faced with an angry, brooding teen intent on lashing out at anyone and everyone, how many parents can be confident they know what is going on at all times?
The reality is that most parents are doing their best. Those who fall below society’s acceptable standards are likely to be the worst candidates for being billed by the state for their children’s behaviour.
It would not be long before the whole scheme fell into disrepute as parents denied responsibility, refused to pay and played the system.
‘Soft liberal ideas’ such as getting youngsters to face up to the victims of their crimes may not be as appealing on the surface as Deputy Jones’ pleas for tougher justice, but at least they stand up to some scrutiny.
Article posted on 13th January, 2009 - 2.35pm