| Author |
Message |
    
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5023
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:13 pm: | 
|
According to the online agenda for the Township Committee (note: link is a .PDF), this evening the TC is considering passage of an ordinance which is explained as follows - “This ordinance will make parents responsible for certain unlawful actions of their minor children.”
Its formal title is “An Ordinance to Create Parental Responsibility for Certain Unlawful Acts of Minors” (link is a .PDF). It sets up a procedure to make parents subject to prosecution and fines, for the actions of their children. People should read the whole thing, but the crime it creates is described as follows -
Quote:It shall be unlawful for any parent to assist, aid, abet, allow, permit, suffer or encourage a minor to commit a violation of the public peace, as defined herein, either by overt act, by failure to act or by lack of supervision and control over such minor. Whenever a minor shall be taken into custody for the commission of any such violation of the public peace, within the Township of Maplewood, the parents of such minors shall be notified as promptly as possible by the police department of such custody and the reasons therefore and of the responsibility of the parents under this chapter and shall be advised of the availability of counseling services.
If there has been such notification, two separate subsequent violations of the public peace by a minor within a one hundred eighty (180) day period shall create a presumption of parental responsibility which shall constitute a violation of the public peace by the offending minor’s parents.
Fines of up to $1000 can be levied against parents as a result.
The crimes or “violations of the public peace” for which a minor might be detained by the police include not just defacing property, assault, robbery, or shoplifting, but also include “violation of any existing loitering or curfew laws of the Township” and “possession or use of a controlled dangerous substance”. Leaving aside whether a parent should be fined $1000 because their child is picked up once too often for loitering, is this a measure that should be adopted now?
I know that the intent is to find a way to control the behavior of minors, by incenting the parents. From the information available, however, it's not clear whether this type of ordinance should be the way to go, as opposed to other measures. For instance, how often are juveniles being detained by the police, and for what? And, when juveniles are detained, what services (such as counseling) are now being provided? Is criminal liability imposed simply when one is the parent of “a minor taken into custody”, or does there have to be some sort of conviction or other action against the minor, too?
The proposed ordinance seems to create a crime, even where the parents may be trying to deal with their children, albeit without success. An ordinance such as this seems to create an adversarial relationship, between the authorities and the parents, when we should be encouraging more cooperation.
Is there some measure which can be adopted, short of imposing criminal liability (with a “presumption of parental responsibility”)? |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 460
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
All good questions. Are you going to go tonight and ask them? |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8547
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
When you think about it, this is a law that allows teens to punish their parents. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10565
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
No arguement there are issues that need clarification. However, I don't think cooperation is one of them. If a minor is arrested multiple times, the parents notified and no action is taken, cooperation has, in most cases, gone by the boards. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12365
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Is this some sort of precedent? Isn't a parent already responsible for his/her child's actions? I.e. isn't that the legal definition of a minor?
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6996
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 6:15 pm: |
|
The first thing that needs to be established is a clear understanding of precisely what the proposed ordinance would be expected to accomplish, if and when it was adopted. Once this is accomplished and some general agreement can be reached as to the appropriateness of pursuing such aims, we can begin as a community to propose the precise wording which would be most likely to accomplish those goals.
As presently worded, the ordinance appears too loose and too open to abuse. |
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 703
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Makes sense to me - parents must be responsible for the actions of recidivist minors.
Nohero you stated:
"The crimes or “violations of the public peace” for which a minor might be detained by the police include not just defacing property, assault, robbery, or shoplifting, but also include “violation of any existing loitering or curfew laws of the Township” and “possession or use of a controlled dangerous substance”. Leaving aside whether a parent should be fined $1000 because their child is picked up once too often for loitering, is this a measure that should be adopted now?
"
The devil is in the details Nohero -
"Picked up once too often", picked up once, OK, picked up twice, OK, we're working on it, picked up 3 times? It's a family problem.
Better the kid gets his wrist slapped now to the tune of $1,000 then doing time in the penitentiary when he's not a kid anymore. |
Jersey Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 138
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:43 pm: |
|
This seems like one of those goofy suggestions that puts "into law" what is already law de facto.
We should have a very friendly and present police force all over, with lots of Police Athletic League games and such. Young people CAN be encouraged to obey the law.
We (society as well as the parents) shouldn't neglect them and set traps for when they don't obey the law.
J.B. |
Squeaky Wheel
Citizen
Username: Squeaky_wheel
Post Number: 41
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:50 pm: |
|
The ordinance passed with no discussion from the audience, consisting of only two citizens.
I don't understand why MOLer's do not seem to attend the meetings they debate about online! |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5024
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:13 am: |
|
Sometimes one can't make it to the meetings.
But, it's not too much to expect the members of the Township Committee to consider all input, including comments from the floor, comments received during the Saturday sessions on Maplewood Ave. and Springfield Ave., letters and/or phone calls, and even the odd post on MOL.
Was there any discussion or clarification of the ordinance during the meeting, among the members of the Township Committee, prior to the vote? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10574
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:39 am: |
|
SW, what was the vote and who voted for or against the ordinance? Also, was this the first vote or the second, final, vote?
|
Dogbert
Citizen
Username: Dogbert
Post Number: 11
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:41 am: |
|
I gave up watching at about 11:30 last night, at which point (according to the agenda) they hadn't gotten to this ordinance. I can't imagine actually going to the meetings when they last this late, and it's typical of the TC for the last couple of years. IMO they don't have enough meetings; they need to go to at least 3 per month so that they can get through their agendas at a reasonable hour. |
monster
Supporter
Username: Monster
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I think it's a crock of sh¡t, fining the parent isn't the answer. For the troublesome kids that this is aimed at I think that punishing them is the answer, apparently the parents can't, even a fine won't change that (especially for the worst offenders), the kids should be made to work off the fine doing services for the municipality, and to attend counseling, the offense should be put on their juvenile record.
Of course depending on the severity of the crime, such as robbery, etc., the child should be punished accordingly. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12380
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
What is that old idiom? Something like, "when all you have is a hammer, the world looks like a bed of nails"?
I fear that lacking the manpower to enforce existing laws, our TC is the carpenter whose hammer is legislation. And we passed a new law since we can't enforce existing laws.
It reminds me of when there were tons of bicycle messengers in NYC. This was before faxes and email were common, so there were tons of parcels to be delivered, partly because the postal service was unreliable at the time. Cyclists were breaking lots of laws, so they passed a new law, forbidding cyclists from certain avenues. The new law was illegal, and all they had to do was enforce existing law. More easily said than done, but if you can't do it, don't try to compensate for lack of resources by using the wrong tool.
|
ess
Citizen
Username: Ess
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Isn't this already in force in South Orange? If memory serves, about 20 years ago, the ordinance was changed to something very similar to what's being discussed here.
For example, if a minor serves alcohol in the parents' home, even if the parents are not present, they ultimately bear the consequences? Does anyone know what South Orange has in place?
I agree that in some ways it sounds as if the kids could punish the parents (such as by intentionally getting "busted"). At what point does the kid have to take responsibility? |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I don't have a dog in this fight because my former kids are now adults. Still, it seems like bullroar.
Why not also punish the kids when the parents screw up. That way, we can use the fines to lower our tax bills. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page