If an adult tells a young child to commit a crime. Do you think the adult should be held 100 percent responsible for the child’s behaviour?

[Anonymous]

For example a person in their 20s or 30s tells a 5 year old to chuck a rock at another person which is assault.

Updates

+1 y

In the country I live in a person cannot be charged with a crime if they are under the age of 10 no matter what they crime may be

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It's something that needs to be assessed. If the kid is just a problem child, give the parent resources to help raise a healthy kid. Give the parent required classes or if it keeps getting (much) worse, unfortunately you might have to remove the kid.

In that particular case, I'd say the adult should be charged with endangering a child, inciting violence and assault.

[jimmy2]

Yes I think so

[purplepoppy]

I thought they were. Even if the child knows it's a crime there's nothing they can do if an adult forces them.

[LazerBean]

If it's provable, sure.

[NamerOfStars]

Of course not. Children may not have the full capacity of reasoning and understanding that an adult does, but if they're old enough to talk, they're old enough to think. Said adult would certainly bear SOME responsibility for it, but children are HUMANS, not machines.

[loveslongnails]

I totally disagree. A four-year-old child can speak well enough, but if an adult tells that child "this is a game we play for fun - throw this rock at the head of that man and if you hit him in the head, you get a treat", the adult should be wholly responsible, not just partially. A 4 yr old child who trusted the adult or parent wouldn't have the capacity to question it on any level.

[NamerOfStars]

@loveslongnails A four-MONTH-old child, maybe; after four years, you're going to have been exposed to enough to know what dishonesty is. You're also old enough to realize that adults don't know everything; by age four, you're all but certain to have had some version of the conversation "What's that?" "That's a goat" "Why?".

Evaluating complex (or even the full ramifications of simple) moral questions is probably still beyond you, but you'll have SOME notion of right and wrong.

[jshm2]

Depends on the country and legal age of responsibility.

In most cases the child will be taken away from the parents. But in the case of gangs of neglect, there might be interventions.

Don't forget there is also the possibility of intimidation or coercion.

It's why these cases go to court.

[Guy13]

Wow, that’s some interesting parenting techniques

[FilmGuy93]

They would have liability for that person’s injury, yes

[Anonymous]

That's a loophole coz adult is still responsible but his punishment will be minimised coz he himself didn't commit these crimes.

[Dinosaursandanime65]

Mmmm how young a child?

[Dinosaursandanime65]

Oh 5. No less than 80%

[joeldalton]

Yes.

[panamared1]

99%, child the 1%

[Anonymous]

Yes.