There is an ongoing debate over who should bear the punishment of the crime commitment amongst children, with some saying parents should be responsible, while others argue it is children themselves who should be punished. While I acknowledge the arguments of the fact that parents should shoulder the punishment instead of their children, I believe that some the age-appropriate punishments towards children themselves should be implemented.
Proponents of the view that parents should be responsible for the consequences of the crimes of their children cite several reasons. They argue that children are too young to be punished legally and therefore strict sentences can negatively affect their mental health. This is because at a young age, not only does the biological organism of the minors develop, but their mental health also faces several difficulties, leading to emotional instability and impulsive behavior. Advocates, consequently, believe that parents, as the primary guardians, should bear the accountability for guiding their children and preventing such lapses in judgment.
However, I lean towards the idea of punishing the juveniles themselves with proper age-appropriate sentences. Penalizing the actual criminals, regardless of their age, helps to prevent future criminal behaviors of the youth. This is due to the fact that juvenile offenders must directly experience the consequences of their actions to understand that every choice they make can significantly shift the lives of themselves and also the surrounding people. By forcing young offenders to undergo legal juvenile sentences, such as rehabilitation programs or community services, the justice system strengthens over time and prevents children from normalizing criminal behavior.
In conclusion, beneficial as sentencing parents instead of children can be in certain circumstances, it is still better to punish the young offenders to educate them about the value of their decisions and prevent future criminal behavior.